NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A7863
SPONSOR: Bronson TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the labor law, in relation to enacting the "remedial
construction of New York labor law act"
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To reaffirm and clarify for the courts that the New York Labor Law is to
be interpreted and construed liberally in favor of workers to accomplish
its broad remedial purposes.
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
This legislation amends Article 1 of the Labor Law by adding a new
section stating that the Labor Law's provisions shall be construed
liberally in favor of workers for the accomplishment of the remedial
purposes of the Labor Law, regardless of whether similarly-worded
provisions of federal laws, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, have
been so construed.
JUSTIFICATION:
For many years, New York state and federal courts have recognized that
the New York Labor Law, like the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, was
intended to achieve broad remedial purposes to benefit workers-and that
the Labor Law should accordingly be interpreted in line with those
purposes. The Legislature's broad remedial purposes in enacting the
Labor Law include securing workers' wage floors, ensuring workers'
rights to recover all earned wages and all concomitant liquidated
damages and other remedies, protecting workers from retaliation, secur-
ing equal pay for equal work, and defraying the harms of unemployment.
In recent years, however, federal courts have been moving away from such
broad remedial construction of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and
toward more restrictive, anti-worker readings. See, e.g., Encino Motor-
cars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1142-43 (2018)
(exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act must be given only a "fair
reading" and not a "narrow reading" that benefits workers); E.M.D.
Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, No. 23-217, 604 U.S. (2025), slip op. at 7-8
(finding employers need only meet preponderance standard of proof in
showing an employee is exempt from minimum wage and overtime provisions
of the ELSA, and stating in dicta that "the public interest in Fair
Labor Standards Act cases does not fall entirely on the side of employ-
ees"). In doing so, courts are damaging longstanding precedents recog-
nizing that the FLSA must be read in accordance with its remedial
purpose. See, e.g., Greathouse v. JHS Sec. Inc., 784 F.3d 105, 113-14
(2d Cir. 2015) (noting that the Second Circuit has "repeatedly affirmed
that the remedial nature of the FLSA warrants an expansive interpreta-
tion of its provisions so that they will have the widest possible impact
in the national economy.").'
This trend is also growing with respect to other federal laws designed
to protect workers.
Since there are a number of provisions in the Labor Law that have simi-
lar or identical wording as the Fair Labor Standards Act, there is a
real risk that courts will import.these restrictive, anti-worker inter-
pretations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and other federal laws into
interpretations of the Labor Law. See,Gorey v. Manheim Serv. Corp.., 788
F. Supp. 2d 200, 205 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (noting that "New York law govern-
ing overtime pay is defined and applied in the same manner as the
FLSA.").
This bill requires that the Labor Law's strong remedial protections for
workers must be interpreted accordingly. It clarifies for the courts
once and for all that the Labor Law must be construed liberally in favor
of Workers for the accomplishment of the remedial purposes of the Labor
Law, regardless of whether similarly-worded provisions of federal laws,
such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, have been so construed.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
This is a new bill.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
To be determined
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately
