Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: August 21, 2019
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe New York Legislature recently passed the Securing Wages Earned Against Theft Bill. The legislation aims to increase the likelihood that workers alleging “wage theft” can secure payment of unpaid wages for work already performed.
Senate Bill S2844B, which has been passed by both the Senate and the Assembly, amends several New York laws, including the Lien Law; Labor Law; Attachment under the Civil Practice Law and Rules; the Business Corporations Law; and the Limited Liability Law. A brief summary of its key provisions is provided below.
Senate Bill S2844B amends New York’s lien law to expand the mechanics’ lien provisions and create an “employee’s lien” that would provide a lien remedy for all employees pursuing wage claims, not just home improvement workers currently protected under the existing law. The legislation defines a “wage claim” as any claim constituting a violation of New York Labor Law § 170 (overtime wage), § 193 (deductions from wages), § 196-d (gratuities), or § 652 and § 673 (minimum wage). Wage claims also include claims arising from employment contract breaches, as well as federal minimum wage claims under 29 U.S.C. § 206 and § 207.
Under the bill, workers alleging wage theft would be able to seek attachment of their employers’ assets during the pendency of a court action for the value of the employee’s wage claim, including liquidated damages. Employees may pursue a lien against the employer’s real property or personal that can be sufficiently described pursuant to Section 9-108 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The bill contains an exception for an employer’s deposit accounts and goods.
The Securing Wages Earned Against Theft Bill provides that the Department of Labor and the Attorney General may obtain an employee’s lien for the value of the wage claims of employees who are the subjects of their investigations, court actions or administrative agency actions.
The bill imposes a number of procedural requirements. Notice of an employee’s lien must be filed no later than three years following the end of the employment giving rise to the wage claim. With regard to real property, notice must be filed in the clerk’s office of the county where the property is located. When seeking to attach personal property, notice must be filed with a financing statement pursuant to section 9-501 of the UCC. Absent an extension, all liens would last for one year.
New York law already provides that the ten largest members of a limited liability company (LLC) and shareholders of an unlisted corporation can be held personally liable, jointly and severally, for all debts, wages, and salaries due and owing to a business’s employees.
The Securing Wages Earned Against Theft Bill streamlines the procedures for employees to pursue personal liability for alleged wage theft. The legislation would give the employees of a corporation the right to inspect its books and records to obtain the names, addresses, and value of shareholders’ interests in the corporation. Senate Bill S2844B would similarly amend New York’s limited liability company law to create a similar right to inspect an LLC’s records.
The bill now heads to Governor Andrew Cuomo’s desk. If the Governor signs the bill into law, it will take effect 30 days later. The procedures and rights created in the law may be used in connection with claims for liabilities that arose prior to the effective date.
The attorneys of the Scarinci Hollenbeck Labor & Employment Group will continue to track the status of the wage theft bill and encourage New York employers to check back for updates.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Scott Heck, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!