New York State Prohibits “No Fault” Attendance Policies
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.23.22
New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed new legislation on November 21, 2022 amending Section 215.1(a) of the New York Labor Law to ban “no-fault” attendance policies by prohibiting employers from punishing employees or subjecting them to discipline for their lawful absences. This law intends “[t]o ensure that it shall be retaliation for an employer to discipline workers by assessing point or deductions from a timebank when an employee has used any legally protected absence.” The amendment take effect on February 19, 2023.
Employers typically establish attendance policies to address concerns of absenteeism in the workplace, and often employ a points system in order to monitor attendance. If employees accrue a certain number of points, occurrences or other demerits, they may be subject to discipline. Under New York State’s new law, such policies that treat all absences, including absences for lawful reasons, the same are prohibited.
The new legislation amends the existing New York State Labor Law anti-retaliation provision to explicitly prohibit discharging, threatening, penalizing, discriminating or retaliating against an employee for taking any legally protected absence pursuant to federal, local, or state law. Legally protected absences include family or medial leave, disability-related absences, or leave for religious needs.
The amendment also expands the prohibited bases of discrimination or retaliation under Article 7 of the General Provisions of the New York Labor Law, Section 215.1(a), to include “assessing any demerit, occurrence, any other point, or deductions from an allotted bank of time, which subjects or could subject an employee to disciplinary action, which may include but not be limited to failure to receive a promotion or loss of pay.”
Employers who maintain absence control or “no-fault” attendance policies will need to review, and if necessary revise, their policies before the new law takes effect on February 19, 2023.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
