New York Employment Lawyer Blog

On April 12, 2011, the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act ("the Act") became effective, amending the New York Labor Law and increasing penalties for wage and hour violations. See this firm's December 13, 2010 blog entry for further information on the Act.

In addition to the written notice that must be given to all new employees, beginning in 2012, all private sector employers in New York State will also be required to provide each of their New York employees with an annual notice between January 1st and February 1st of each year.

Similar to the notice to new hires, the annual notice must contain the following information:
· The employee's rate(s) of pay;
· The basis of the employee's rate(s) of pay (e.g. by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, commission, or other);
· Whether the employer intends to claim allowances as part of the minimum wage, including tip, meal, or lodging allowances, and the amount of those allowances;
· The employee's regular pay day designated by the employer in accordance with the frequency of pay requirements in the Labor Law;
· The name of the employer and any "doing business as" names used by the employer;
· The physical address of the employer's main office or principal place of business, and a mailing address if different;
· The telephone number of the employer; and
· Any "such other information as the commissioner deems material and necessary."

Employers are required to provide such notice in English and in the "primary language" of the employee, but only if that primary language is one of the languages in which the New York State Department of Labor ("NYSDOL") has prepared such dual-language forms. Currently, the NYSDOL has prepared dual-language forms in Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Polish, and Haitian-Creole.

Also significant, the Act creates a private right of action for employees to bring a lawsuit for the failure to comply with the amended notice provisions of the Labor Law, which can result in damages of up to $2,500.00, plus costs and attorneys' fees. If you believe that your employer has neglected to provide you with any of the required notices, it's important to consult with a New York Wage and Hour attorney as soon as possible to preserve all your legal rights.

In Nixon-Tinkelman v. New York City Dep't of Health and Mental Hygiene (Aug. 10, 2011), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act, employers may be, depending on the circumstances, required to make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees' commute to and from work.

In this case, Plaintiff, who has cancer, heart problems, asthma, and is hearing impaired, brought suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act alleging that Defendant failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Specifically, following her transfer from Queens to Manhattan, Plaintiff complained about the over-60-minute commute via public transportation, and requested that Defendant accommodate her by transferring her back to an office location closer to her home in Queens. Defendant ultimately denied Plaintiff's request, claiming that commuting was outside of the scope of Plaintiff's job.

Although the Southern District of New York found that activities which "fall outside the scope of the job, like commuting to and from the workplace, are not within the province of an employer's obligations under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act," on appeal, the Second Circuit explained that certain circumstances may require an employer to provide commuting assistance to a disabled employee, and furthermore, that providing such assistance is not "inherently unreasonable."

While the Second Circuit did not declare that an employer has an absolute legal duty to accommodate the commute of a disabled employee, the Court remanded the case to the Southern District for a determination as to whether the requested accommodations were reasonable. The Court stated that because job performance relies on attendance, Defendant must consider measures that allow the disabled employee to get to and from work, including "transferring her back to Queens or another closer location, allowing her to work from home, or providing a car or parking permit."

The Court noted that Defendant should also "consider factors such as the number of employees employed by [Defendant], the number and location of its offices, whether other available positions existed for which [Plaintiff] showed that she was qualified, whether she could have been shifted to a more convenient office without unduly burdening [Defendant]'s operations, and the reasonableness of allowing her to work without on-site supervision."

If you are a disabled employee and your employer recently denied your request for a reasonable accommodation, it's crucial that you immediately consult with a New York City employment attorney to learn about, and preserve, all your legal rights.

In Kleinman v. Blue Ridge Foods, LLC (July 7, 2011), the Kings County Supreme Court granted an employee's motion for summary judgment on his breach of contract claims against his former employer.

In this case, pursuant to the terms of an employment agreement, Defendants hired Plaintiff as their Chief Executive Officer for a term of three (3) years. If Defendants wanted to discharge Plaintiff earlier, a prior written notice must be delivered to Plaintiff either personally or by mail. In addition, in the event Plaintiff's early discharge was without "cause," Plaintiff would be entitled to additional benefits, including a severance payment equal to twelve (12) months' salary.

After only four (4) months, with no prior written notice, Defendants abruptly discharged Plaintiff's employment. His discharge was communicated to him both verbally and in writing on that day.

Plaintiff then sued, asserting that, in accordance with his employment contract, since his discharge was without "cause," he was owed the severance and additional benefits.

While Defendants basically conceded that they failed to meet any of the "for cause" discharge provisions provided for in the agreement, they instead contended that Plaintiff could not recover the compensation he sought because the employment contract was unenforceable. Defendants claimed that Plaintiff defrauded them by misstating his work experience and "was in completely over his head and was at no time able to perform the job for which he was hired." They argued that the employment contract was thus void and unenforceable because they were induced to enter into it by Plaintiff's fraudulent misrepresentations as to his title and experience at his prior employment.

However, the court held that Defendants failed to establish a justifiable reliance on the purported misrepresentations, and noted a crucial factor was that Defendants failed to adequately verify Plaintiff's experience even though the means to do so were at their disposal.

The court thus ruled that Defendants terminated Plaintiff without "cause," as that term is defined in his employment contract. Further, the court found that Defendants breached the employment contract, as they failed to provide Plaintiff with the contractual notice and cure period. Therefore, the court held that Plaintiff was entitled to his actual damages, interest, attorney's fees, and costs under Section 198 and other provisions of Labor Law article 6, and the statutory liquidated damages under Labor Law § 198.

If you believe that your former employer has breached an employment agreement with you, it's always smart to immediately consult with a New York employment agreement attorney to preserve your legal rights.

On July 11, 2011, in Ridinger v. Dow Jones & Co Inc., the Second Circuit ruled that a 62-year-old employee's age discrimination claim brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") was barred due to a valid separation agreement that the employee had signed.

In his separation agreement, the employee agreed to waive and release all claims up to the point of his termination, explicitly including those claims for discrimination under the ADEA. Despite signing it and accepting all the benefits of the severance package, the employee nonetheless sued for discrimination, arguing that the release was invalid because it violated the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act ("OWBPA"), which requires that an employee waive his or her ADEA claim in a "knowing and voluntary" way and that a separation agreement be "written in a manner calculated to be understood."

The employee also argued that the waiver provision violated Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") regulations, which require a waiver to be drafted in plain language, not using "technical jargon" or "long, complex sentences," and "geared to the level of understanding" of the employee, taking into consideration the typical employee's education level.

The Second Circuit rejected the employee's arguments and held that the separation agreement was in fact enforceable, as it was written by the employer in a "manner calculated to be understood" by the relevant employees. Comparing the language in this agreement to those found in cases in which the court invalidated a company's separation agreement, the Court found that the terms in this separation agreement were sufficiently clear and complied with the OWBPA.

This decision should serve as a reminder to all employers of the importance of drafting separation agreements in a clear manner using plain language. In addition, if you signed a severance or separation agreement as an employee, it's always smart to have a New York Severance Agreement attorney review the agreement, especially if it includes provisions related to age discrimination.

If a new employer hires an employee in violation of the employee's valid non-compete agreement, the employee may be liable for a breach of contract. Since the new employer was not a party to the non-compete agreement, the new employer can't be liable for breach of contract.

However, the new employer may nonetheless face liability for tortious interference with contractual relations. In New York, it is unlawful for a third party to intentionally interfere with the contractual relationship between two other parties, absent a proper purpose. An employer can thus bring a claim for tortious interference with contract against a competitor who intentionally entices an employee to work for it in violation of the employee's non-competition or non-disclosure agreement.

The elements of a claim for tortious interference with a contract are: (1) a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party, (2) defendant's knowledge of the contract, (3) defendant's unjustified, deliberate inducement of the third party's breach of the contract, (4) actual breach of the contract, and (5) damages resulting from the breach. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. v. Werre (2010).

The defenses by the new employer to a tortious interference claim typically include: (1) the new employer was unaware of the non-compete agreement; (2) the non-compete agreement is not enforceable; and/or (3) the new employer was justified in hiring and continuing to employ the individual in question.

"Where there has been no breach of an existing contract . . . a cause of action for tortious interference with contract will not lie." Bajan Group, Inc. v. Consumers Interstate Corp. (2010). Moreover, if the new employer had no knowledge of the existing non-compete agreement when it hired the employee, the new employer will not be liable for tortious interference with contractual relations. Delfino Insulation Co., Inc. v. Jaworowski (2008).

It is important to always consult with a New York non-compete attorney before hiring an employee that is subject to a non-compete agreement with a former employer.

On January 1, 2011, the New York State Hospitality Industry Wage Order ("Wage Order") went into effect. It makes substantial changes to the rules governing payment of wages to employees in the hospitality industry. Here are some of the more important changes:

Hourly Wage Rates Required

The Wage Order expressly requires hourly rates of pay for all non-exempt employees, except for commissioned salespersons, and disallows a daily, weekly, salary, piece rate or other non-hourly rate.

Minimum Pay Rates

The current minimum wage in New York is $7.25 per hour. The Wage Order alters the calculation of this minimum wage for workers in the hospitality industry by increasing the minimum cash wage and decreasing the amount of the permissible tip credit. For example, it increases the minimum hourly wage rate for tipped food-service employees from $4.65 to $5.00, and thereby reducing the tip credit wage to $2.25/hour.

Tip Pooling and Sharing

The Wage Order also drastically changes the treatment of "tip sharing" and "tip pooling," allowing mandatory tip pooling for the first time. Pursuant to the Wage Order, employees eligible to receive shared tips or distributions from a tip pool must perform, or assist in performing, personal service to patrons as a principal and regular part of their duties.

Employees eligible to receive shared tips or distribution from a tip pool include, but are not limited to, wait staff, counter personnel who serve food to customers, bus persons, bartenders, service bartenders, barbacks, food runners, captains who provide direct food service to customers, and hosts who greet and seat guests. Eligibility is always based on the employee's duties, not the employee's title.

Hospitality employers may not require directly tipped employees to contribute a greater share of their tips to indirectly tipped employees (through tip sharing or tip pooling) than is customary and reasonable.

Gratuities

The Wage Order explicitly requires hospitality employers to distribute to employees the full amount of any house-imposed charges on guest bills that are "purported to be a gratuity." There will now be a rebuttable presumption that any charge made by a customer, in addition to charges for food, beverage, lodging, and other specified materials or services, including but not limited to any charge for "service" or "food service," is a charge purporting to be a gratuity.

Service Charges

The Wage Order provides that in order for an employer to retain a charge for the administration of a banquet, special function, or package deal, the employer must clearly identify the charge as an "administrative" charge and notify the customer in writing that the charge is not a gratuity or tip and that it will not be distributed as a gratuity to the employees who provided services. When imposing service charges, employers have the burden of demonstrating by "clear and convincing evidence" that a reasonable person would not have understood the charge to be a gratuity.

Uniform Maintenance Pay

The Wage Order also contains a new "wash and wear" exemption, making employers in the hospitality industry exempt from having to pay to clean it's employees' uniforms if the employer provides uniforms constructed of "wash and wear" fabrics that can be laundered routinely along with personal garments, does not require ironing, dry cleaning, daily washing, commercial laundering, or other special treatment, and if the number of uniforms provided are consistent with the average number of days per week worked by the employee.

Meal Allowances/Credits

Pursuant to the Wage Order, the meal allowance/credit is increased to $2.50 per meal for all workers.

Tip Credit Card Fees

The Wage Order permits an employer to deduct, from the tip left an employee on a charge card, the amount of credit card processing fees actually incurred on that charge for employee tips on a pro-rata basis.

Notice Policies

Similar to the recent changes to the New York Labor Law, employers in the hospitality industry are required to give each new employee written notice of the employee's regular payday, regular hourly rate, overtime hourly rate, and the tip credit, if any, to be taken from the basic minimum hourly rate. The required notice must also state that extra pay is required if tips are insufficient to bring the employee up to the basic minimum hourly rate.

If you have any questions with respect to any of these new requirements, we recommend speaking with a New York employment attorney as soon as possible.

As a matter of law, neither Federal nor New York State law requires that an employer provide its employees with paid vacation, personal or sick time off. These are benefits generally provided at the discretion of the employer, or based upon an employee contract or collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, there is no "correct" or "proper" method by which an employer may provide its employees with sick, personal, and vacation time.

However, while there is no requirement for an employer to provide such benefits to its employees, once it agrees to do so, the employer must abide by the terms of that agreement. "[A]n employee's entitlement to receive payment for accrued, unused paid time off . . . is governed by the terms of the employer's publicized policy." Kolesnikow v. Hudson Valley Hosp. Ctr. (S.D.N.Y. 2009). In other words, "all that is required by [New York Labor Law] section 198-c is that an employer abide by the terms of his agreement to provide benefits." Glenville Gage Co. v. Industrial Bd. of Appeals (1979).

Such agreements need not even be in writing. They can be established through credible evidence of an employer's longstanding policy and practice or unwritten agreement with employees.

In addition, as I stated in a previous blog entry, pursuant to New York Labor Law § 195, employers are required to notify employees in writing or by publicly posting the employer's policy on sick leave, vacation, personal leave, holidays and hours. Nevertheless, a failure by an employer to provide such written notification will not relieve the employer from its obligations under that policy, notwithstanding the fact that it was not put in writing.

The New York Wage Theft Prevention Act (the "Act") was signed into law today by Governor Paterson. The Act, effective April 12, 2011, amends the New York Labor Law to provide new protections for employees in New York, as well as stiffer penalties for employers who fail to pay their employees overtime or the minimum wage.

Tougher Civil Penalties

The Act increases the amount of liquidated damages an employee can recover in cases where a violation is shown and the employer fails to prove that it had a good-faith basis for believing it was acting in compliance with the law. Specifically, the Act now permits liquidated damages of up to 100% of the total amount of wages due, an increase from 25% under the existing law. This means that employees may be entitled to recover twice what they are owed in wages or overtime.

The Act also provides for the recovery of prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees in any civil action to recover unpaid wages brought by an employee.

The new law also gives employees expanded protections against employers who have been found to have violated the law, but still fail to pay. If an employer loses in court and still fails to pay within ninety (90) days, the employee can now collect an extra 15% of the judgment owed, as well as attorneys' fees and costs for enforcing the judgment.

Employee Notice of Wages

The New York Labor Law already requires employers to notify all newly hired employees at the time of hiring, in writing, of their regular rate of pay, regular pay day, and overtime rate of pay if they will be eligible for overtime. The Act now also requires employers to include the basis of the wage payment (e.g., whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary, piece, or commission, or on another basis) as well as the employer's intent to claim allowances (e.g., tip or meal allowances) as part of the minimum wage.

Under the Act, the notice must be updated and provided again to the employee at least seven (7) calendar days prior to any changes to the employee's pay or other terms contained in the notice (unless such changes are reflected in the employee's wage statement).

Lastly, the Act requires that all employers obtain from each employee a signed and dated written acknowledgment, in English and in the primary language of the employee, of receipt of the notice.

If an employer fails to provide the required notice of wages within ten (10) business days of the employee's first day of employment, the employee may bring an action in court to recover damages of $50 for each workweek that the violation occurred or continues to occur (not to exceed a total of $2,500), plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Employers are now required to preserve and maintain the employee's acknowledgment(s) of the notice for a period of six (6) years.

Pay Statements

The Act requires that employers provide pay statements that specify the applicable dates the wages cover and the rate and basis of pay. For non-exempt employees, pay statements must also include the regular and overtime pay rates and the number of regular and overtime hours worked.

If an employer fails to provide the required pay statement, the employee may bring an action in court to recover damages of $100 for each workweek that the violation occurred or continues to occur (not to exceed a total of $2,500), plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Act also increases the length of time an employer must preserve and maintain payroll records and/or pay statements from three (3) to six (6) years.

Anti-Retaliation Provisions

The Act also increases protections for employees who complain about employer violations, as well as for workers the employer merely believes has complained about violations. The Act permits the Commissioner to order additional remedies in the event of retaliation, specifically enjoining conduct, liquidated damages not to exceed $10,000, reinstatement with back pay, and/or front pay instead of reinstatement.

Criminal Penalties

The Act imposes new criminal penalties against employers that fail to pay minimum wage or overtime compensation. Any employer that pays less than the amount owed may be guilty of a misdemeanor, and if convicted will be fined a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $20,000 or imprisoned for up to a year. If a second violation occurs within six (6) years of the first conviction, the employer will be guilty of a felony.

The new law also includes new criminal penalties against employers that fail to maintain records. Such a violation is deemed a misdemeanor, with fines between $500 and $5,000 or imprisonment for up to one year. A subsequent violation and conviction within six (6) years will result in either a fine of $500 to $20,000 or imprisonment for a period not to exceed one year and a day, or both.

In sum, although the new law does not radically change the duties of New York employers, the Act does impose significant civil and criminal penalties for employers that fail to comply with the law. If you have any questions with respect to these new requirements, we recommend speaking with a New York overtime attorney as soon as possible.

As I was reviewing recent New York employment law cases, I came across an interesting one dealing with the enforceability of non-compete agreements. In The Ayco Company, L.P. v. Brian D. Feldman (October 2010), Plaintiff, a financial services firm, brought a lawsuit against a former employee, alleging that he breached a ninety-day non-compete provision contained in his employment contract. As a result, Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction enforcing the terms of the agreement.

At the time he was hired, Defendant signed an Employment Agreement ("Agreement"), which was thereafter revised to include a new non-compete provision. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Defendant agreed that he would give Plaintiff ninety days notice of termination, during which time he would remain an employee of Plaintiff and would continue to receive his base salary. The Agreement further stated that if Defendant terminated employment prior to the end of the notice period, he would not work for a competitor anywhere in the United States for ninety days or for the unfulfilled balance of the notice period.

Needless to day, Defendant resigned abruptly without notice to begin working for a direct competitor, claiming that the ninety-day notice and non-compete provision were not reasonable and hence unenforceable. Defendant also claimed that the revised agreement was presented to him on a "take it or leave it basis" - that if he did not sign it, he would be fired. He characterized the Agreement as "onerous" and "unfair" because it denied him the ability to pursue his chosen profession and did not provide for adequate compensation during the notice period.

Under New York law, a restrictive covenant not to compete is enforceable by way of an injunction if the covenant is reasonable in time and geographic area. A restrictive covenant is enforceable only if it: (1) is no greater than is required for the protection of the legitimate interest of the employer, (2) does not impose undue hardship on the employee, and (3) is not injurious to the public. Thus, courts must weigh the need to protect the employer's legitimate business interests against the employee's concern regarding the possible loss of livelihood, a result strongly disfavored by public policy in New York.

Here, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (New York federal court) found that the ninety-day period was well within what has been found to be a reasonable time frame for non-compete provisions. The Court found that the geographic scope of the covenant (throughout the United States) was also reasonable. Furthermore, the Court found that the non-compete provision did not impose an undue hardship on Defendant, since it entitled Defendant to continue to receive his salary during the reasonable notice period. Lastly, the Court held that the fact that the Agreement was executed during Defendant's employment, and was thus a condition of his continued employment, did not suffice to show that the Agreement was unenforceable.

In sum, the Court granted Plaintiff's preliminary injunction precluding Defendant from working for a competitor for ninety days, and also directed Plaintiff to continue paying Defendant's salary for the ninety-day period. It's also worth noting that this case reinforces the principle that an employer's threat of termination for refusing to sign a non-compete agreement does not constitute duress or coercion.

Under the New York State Labor Law, it is illegal for an employer to require an employee to pay back wages paid for days the employee didn't work.

Section 193(1) of the New York State Labor Law prohibits employers from making any deductions from an employee's wages except those made (a) in accordance with any other law, or (b) for the benefit of the employee and authorized in writing by the employee. Such authorized deductions are limited to payments for insurance premiums, pension or health and welfare benefits, contributions to charities, payments for U.S. savings bonds, payments for union dues and assessments, and "similar payments for the benefit of the employee."

In other words, while an employee may authorize an employer to take away or subtract wages, the clear language of section 193(1)(b) limits the types of deductions to those enumerated and to "similar payments."

In Angello v. Labor Ready (2006), the New York Court of Appeals held that "subtracting from wages a [payment] that goes directly to the employer or its subsidiary violates both the letter of the statute and the protective policy underlying it." The Court then noted that all the deductions authorized by Labor Law §193(1)(b) are either "monetary or supportive," and as such, the term "similar payment" must also be either "monetary or supportive" to be allowed. The "monetary" deductions are all investments of money for the later benefit of the employee, such as deductions for insurance premiums, pension or health and welfare benefits and payments for United States bonds. The "supportive" deductions are all investments used by someone other than the employee or employer to support some purpose of the employee, such as contributions for charitable organizations or payments for dues or assessments to a labor organization.

Consequently, requiring an employee to pay back wages already paid for days off from work does not benefit the employee in any way, and is thus illegal under New York Labor Law. The same reasoning holds for any attempt by the employer to deduct payments from wages to cover the cost of anticipated future use of unpaid leave.

Additionally, although section 193(2) provides that the employer cannot require the employee to make any payment by a separate transaction that would be prohibited as a deduction, in Huntington Hospital v. Huntington Nurses Association (E.D.N.Y. 2004), the Eastern District of New York held that "such overpayments could be sought in a separate proceeding." Therefore, while an employer may not make any deductions from an employee's wages to recover overpayments, employers may seek relief in a separate proceeding against the employee, i.e. an action in civil court.

To limit potential liability, we recommend that all New York employers consult with a New York wage and hour attorney before making any wage deductions that are not explicitly authorized by New York Labor Law §193.

Pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "[e]very employer . . . shall post and keep posted in conspicuous places upon its premises where notices to employees, applicants for employment, and members are customarily posted a notice to be prepared or approved by the Commission setting forth excerpts from or, summaries of, the pertinent provisions of this subchapter and information pertinent to the filing of a complaint." Sec. 2000e-10.

Employers who fail to comply with this requirement may lose their right to a statute of limitations defense. In Wei Hong Zheng, et. al., v. Wong, et. al. (E.D.N.Y. 2009), an employee working in the restaurant of a hotel-casino in Atlantic City filed a complaint alleging that she had been discriminated against and fired because of her race, sex and/or national origin.

The statute of limitations for filing a complaint under Title VII is 300 days from the alleged discriminatory act. However, the employee in this case did not file her complaint until 364 days following her termination. The employer therefore filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Title VII claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

However, the employee argued that her claims were not barred because the employer failed to post the required Title VII notice and that, without the benefit of the mandatory notice, she was unaware of her rights under the law and did not learn of them until after she had consulted with an attorney.

The Eastern District of New York (New York federal court) found that the employer's failure to post the notice excused the two-month delay. The Court held that an employer's failure to post the required Title VII notices will equitably toll the 300-day limitations period until such time as the employee learns or reasonably should have learned of her rights through some other means.

Contact a New York City employment discrimination attorney to confirm that your company is complying with the mandatory notice requirements.

Pursuant to New York Labor Law § 195:

· New York employers must provide any new employee with the employee's regular hourly rate of pay, overtime rate of pay (if applicable), and regular payday at the time the employee is hired. Such notice must be given at the time of hiring and before the employee performs any work. The employer must keep the original notice for at least six (6) years and must provide the employee with a copy.

· Employers must obtain written acknowledgment of the rates of pay and the regular payday from each employee at the time the employee is hired.

· Employers must notify an employee of any change in that employee's payday before the change takes place.

· Employers must provide each employee with every payment of wages, listing gross wages, deductions and net wages, and must, at the employee's request, explain how the wages were computed.

· Employers must establish, maintain and preserve records showing the hours worked, gross wages, deductions, and net wages for each employee, for not less than three (3) years.

· Employers must notify employees in writing or by publicly posting the employer's policy on sick leave, vacation, personal leave, holidays and hours.

· Employers must notify, in writing, any employee terminated from employment of the exact date of termination, as well as the exact date of cancellation of employee benefits connected with the termination. Employers must provide this notice within five (5) working days of the actual date of termination. Failure to notify an employee of the cancellation of his or her benefits subjects an employer to potential liability in a civil action brought by the employee in which damages may include reimbursement for medical expenses that were not covered by the insurer because of the termination of the employee without notice.

Pursuant to the New York Unemployment Insurance regulations (12 N.Y.C.R.R. § 472.8):

· New York employers must inform all terminated employees, in writing, at the time of separation of their right to file an application for unemployment benefits. The notice must include the employer's name, address, and registration number. Employers must also advise an employee to present the notice to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division when he or she files a claim for benefits.