On September 23, 2021, the New York City Council passed six bills—a first-of-its-kind legislative package directed at gig economy workers—that seeks to provide protections to the city’s food delivery workers. The bills, each of which amend the administrative code of New York City, have been sent to Mayor Bill De Blasio, who has already voiced his support for the legislation. The legislative package is the culmination of a lengthy controversy in New York City regarding the rights and protections that should be afforded to gig workers. Notably, many states, including New York, have been engaged in prolonged legal battles over the questions relating to the treatment of gig workers.
Introduction (Int.) No. 2399-2021 tasks the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) with conducting a study to determine how much delivery workers should be paid for their work. In doing so, the DCWP would be required to look at: “the methods by which such pay is determined, the total income food delivery workers earn, the expenses of such workers, the equipment required to perform their work, the hours of such workers, the average mileage of a trip, the mode of travel used by such workers, [and] the safety conditions of such workers.” The DCWP would be empowered to issue subpoenas to third-party food delivery services or third-party courier services for the production of such identifying data.
Based on the results of the study, the “DCWP will be required to promulgate rules establishing a method of determining minimum payments for delivery workers” no later than January 1, 2023. This minimum would not be permitted to include gratuities.
Int. No. 2296-2021 would prohibit food delivery services from charging food delivery workers fees for using any form of payment selected by the service to pay the food delivery worker for work performed. The bills also require that food delivery workers be paid at least weekly.
The New York City Council previously passed legislation requiring food delivery services to execute written agreements with the establishments listed on their platforms. Int. No. 2298-2021 would require that the agreements include a provision requiring a food service establishment to allow delivery workers to use the establishment’s bathrooms, provided the “workers are lawfully on such establishment’s premises to pick up … food or beverage for consumer delivery.”
Int. No. 1846-2020 would prohibit a food delivery service from soliciting a gratuity for a food delivery worker from a customer unless the service discloses the following information either before or at the time the gratuity is solicited:
Int. No. 1846-2020 also would mandate that the food service provider notify the food delivery worker how much was paid as a gratuity and notify the food delivery worker of the total amount of compensation and gratuities earned by that worker on the day after any compensation and gratuities were earned.
Int. No. 2289-2021 would require food service providers to give each food delivery worker the ability to specify the “maximum distance per trip,” and to refuse “trips over bridges or tunnels.” In doing so, the food delivery provider would be required to disclose the address and “estimated time and distance” of the trip to the food delivery worker before the worker accepts the trip.
Int. No. 2288-2021 would require a food delivery service that uses bicycle couriers to provide or make available insulated food delivery bags “to any delivery worker who has completed at least six deliveries” for the service. The food delivery service would be required to cover the expenses of the bags.
While this legislative package focuses on gig workers in the food delivery industry, it is possible that New York City might set its sights on other industries in the near future. Food delivery providers, courier services, and restaurants may wish to review the above requirements to begin to ensure their practices comply with the obligations articulated in the bills. Employers may also want to stay tuned for additional updates from New York City as these bills are enacted and the over-arching impact on the gig economy continues to evolve.
Ogletree Deakins will continue to cover New York City’s gig worker legislation, in addition to other forthcoming legislative developments, on our New York blog.
Employers interested in learning more about New York State’s measures to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic can join us for a one-hour webinar, “Navigating New York Employment Law: Lessons Learned From the COVID-19 Pandemic and Charting the Way Forward,” on Tuesday, October 5, 2021, at 12:00 noon Eastern. Our speakers will explain the latest labor and employment law topics affecting New York employers, including vaccination policies, leave laws, and recent legislative developments, such as the New York Health and Essential Rights Act (NY HERO Act). To register for this timely program, click here.
The Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission recently issued a highly controversial decision, Xu v. Epic Systems, Inc., holding that (1) an employee cannot waive the right to file a discrimination complaint against her or his employer under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA), and (2) an employee may prosecute WFEA claims on the merits against her or his former employer—and potentially receive a judgment against the former employer before the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division (ERD)—even if he or she waived and released any and all such claims against his or her employer in a valid severance agreement.
Keeping track of the latest changes to federal employment laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), to name just a few, is hard enough. But employers sometimes forget that there are also specific state laws, some of which differ significantly from federal laws that can land them in just as much trouble for noncompliance.
On October 6, 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its much-anticipated decision in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, Case C-362/14. The case considered the viability of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, which has been applied to permit U.S. companies to transfer personal data regarding their employees and customers from the European Union (EU) to the United States in compliance with EU data protection requirements. The ECJ invalidated the European Commission’s earlier decision holding that the Safe Harbor principles provide adequate protection for personal data transferred from the EU to the United States.
Please understand that merely contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. We cannot become your lawyers or represent you in any way unless (1) we know that doing so would not create a conflict of interest with any of the clients we represent, and (2) satisfactory arrangements have been made with us for representation. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you unless we have agreed that we will be your lawyers and represent your interests and you have received a letter from us to that effect (called an engagement letter).