Relates to penalties for discrimination against employees

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jessica Ramos says this is needed

When the legislature enacted Section 220 of the workers' compensation law, it recognized that families facing serious health battles needed both job protection and financial security. Accordingly, this section imposes an extreme (and justifiable) penalty of 0.5% of their weekly payroll, misdemeanor charges, and even jail time for those who fail to implement a paid family leave system. Additionally, such employers are barred from receiving government contracts and permits. Yet, once coverage is in place, the law loses all its teeth. What happens when an employer does implement the program, but then begins discriminating against employees? They get a measly $500 fine and a requirement to reinstate the employee (who might not even want to work for the employer anyway). In other words, the two provisions of law simply don't add up. This bill simply recognizes the severity of retaliating against an employee for using their statutory right to paid family leave and other similar benefits by increasing the penalty to a level that is commensu- rate to the penalty for failing to implement the program in the first place. When an employee is discriminated against - for example fired - for taking care of themselves or a family member during a severe illness, they will not only have to go through an arduous and uncertain process to get justice and reclaim their job, but also go potentially months without their employer-provided healthcare which they relied on. Further, they will have to pay an attorney to assist them with their claim, particularly if they go up against a large institution with a legal department that is dedicated to fighting these claims. Not only that, if the employee claims unemployment benefits, the employer can further force a hearing contesting their eligibility, which, again, is uncertain and forces the employee to hire an attorney. If the employee loses that case, they would be unable to collect unemployment going forward. By aligning the severity of the penalty, New York would send a clear, uncompromising message: punishing families for caring for loved ones is unacceptable.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.