Senate Bill S9330

                                 
BILL NUMBER: S9330

SPONSOR: RAMOS
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the labor law, in relation to enacting the "remedial
construction of New York labor law act of 2026"

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

To reaffirm and clarify that the New York Labor Law's provisions compar-
ably worded to federal laws or regulations, as well as its worker-pro-
tective provisions that have no federal analogue, are to be interpreted
and construed liberally to accomplish their broad remedial purposes.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

This legislation amends Article 1 of the Labor Law by adding a new
section stating that provisions of the Labor Law and accompanying regu-
lations that are worded comparably to federal laws or regulations, as
well as worker-protective provisions of the Labor Law that have no
federal analogue and their accompanying regulations, shall be construed
              

liberally for the accomplishment of their remedial purposes, regardless
of whether similarly-worded provisions of federal laws or regulations
have been or continue to be 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. See, e.g., Int'l Franchise Ass'n v. City of New York, 148
N.Y.S.3d 28, 29 (2021) ("(t)he Labor Law provisions were promulgated to
protect workers and ensure their adequate and fair compensation");
Republic Steel Corp. v. New York State Dep't of Lab., 75 A.D.2d 658,
659, 426 N.Y.S.2d 345, 347 (3d Dep't 1980) ("(t)he history of the Labor
Law and court decisions demonstrate that the sole purpose of the law is
the protection of the working person"); Koljenovic v. Marx, 999 F. Supp.
2d 396, 399 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("The New York Labor Law is a remedial stat-
ute designed to combat and eliminate employment 'at wages insufficient
to provide adequate maintenance for  
THE EMPLOYEES and their fami-
lies.'"). 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, in the guise of giving
them a "fair reading." See, e.g., Encino Motorcars, 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 the preponder-
ance standard of proof in showing an employee is exempt from minimum
wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA, and stating in dicta that "the
public interest in Fair Labor Standards Act cases does not fall entirely
on the side of employees"). In doing so, courts are damaging longstand-
ing precedents recognizing that the FLSA must be read in accordance with
its remedial purpose. See, e.g., Badger v. City of Cortland, 2024 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 96624, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. May 31, 2024) ("Though the FLSA is a
"remedial" statute, the Supreme Court has rejected the idea that
exemptions in the statute should be read narrowly to reflect that
purpose.").

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 and its accompa-
nying regulations that have similar or identical wording as the Fair
Labor Standards Act, there is a real risk that courts will import these
restrictive, anti-worker interpretations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, its accompanying regulations, and other federal laws into interpre-
tations of the Labor Law. See, e.g., 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."). And there is also a significant risk that this same restrictive
type of statutory ò interpretation will be applied to New York's unique
worker protections that have no federal equivalent, including but not
limited to longstanding protections against illegal deductions and theft
of promised wages under Article 6 (Payment of Wages) and protections for
whistleblowers (Article 20-C), as well as newer protections such as the
Warehouse Worker Protection Act (Article 21-A) and the Fashion Workers
Act (Article 36).

This bill provides that the Labor Law's strong remedial protections for
workers shall be interpreted accordingly. It clarifies that provisions
of the Labor Law and accompanying regulations that are worded comparably
to federal laws or regulations, as well as worker-protective provisions
of the Labor Law that have no federal analogue and their accompanying
regulations, shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of
their remedial purposes, regardless of whether similarly-worded
provisions of federal laws or regulations have been or continue to be so
construed.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2025: S7388 (Ramos)/A7863 (Bronson) - Vetoed

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act would take effect immediately.