25 Murray Street, New York, NY 10007
Call: 212-374-1511

fb_icon in_icon tw_icon



DACA is the Obama-era program that protects young, undocumented immigrants from deportation.

Many DACA recipients have lived most of their lives in the U.S., and graduated from college. Some were high school valedictorians. Many own homes, and are the parents of U.S.-born children, who are American citizens.

On September 5, 2017. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration would terminate the program starting in March 2018. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra brought the San Francisco lawsuit, joined by the attorneys general for Maine, Maryland and Minnesota, as well as the University of California, DACA recipients and others.

California is home to the largest group of DACA recipients — about 200,000 people. On January 9, 2018, U.S. District Judge William Alsup, issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs — a collection of DACA recipients, universities and states — would suffer irreparable harm if the administration moved forward with plans to terminate the program in March 2018 before the case is resolved. In his 49 page order, Judge Alsup did not rule on the merits of the case, but he said that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claims that the decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and would suffer irreparable harm — immigrants could lose their jobs, and companies and universities could lose valuable students and workers — if the Trump administration ended DACA before the legal dispute is resolved.

Judge Alsup opined, “We seem to be in the unusual position wherein the ultimate authority over the agency, the Chief Executive, publicly favors the very program the agency has ended,” the judge wrote. “For the reasons DACA was instituted and for the reasons tweeted by President Trump, this order finds that the public interest will be served by DACA’s continuation.” The tweet from President Donald Trump, that Judge Alsup was referring to, is as follows:

Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!….. 5:28 AM – Sep 14, 2017

Homeland Security official rescinded DACA in the fall of 2017, stating that it suffered from “constitutional defects” that were similar to problems federal judges had pointed out in rulings blocking a related Obama-era program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). Based on those decisions, the Trump administration reasoned that DACA was illegal from the outset and that President Obama exceeded his authority when he rolled it out the program 2012. Judge Alsup called that reasoning “flawed,” “post hoc” and “capricious.” The Obama administration hadn’t overreached, he wrote in his 49 page order. In fact, he wrote, the Trump administration’s position wasn’t even based on a policy change but a “mistake of law.” “The main, if not exclusive, rationale for ending DACA was its supposed illegality. But determining illegality is a quintessential role of the courts,” Judge Alsup wrote. In other words, it’s not up to the administration to decide whether one of its predecessor’s policies is illegal. That’s the U.S. Supreme Court’s job, and the high court hasn’t ruled on DACA’s legality.

If the Supreme Court were to rule on DACA and find that it was constitutionally sound, “then a policy supported as high up as our chief executive has been the victim of a colossal blunder,” the judge wrote, again referencing the president’s tweets. If nothing else, Judge Alsup wrote in his ruling, the plaintiffs were entitled to “learn of all flaws, if any more there be, lurking” behind the DACA decision. He noted that the plaintiffs had suggested the administration had terminated the program so it could be used as a bargaining chip to demand funding for a border wall. And again, he cited the president’s Twitter feed as evidence. “A presidential tweet after our hearing gives credence to this claim,” Judge Alsup wrote.

The December 29, 2017 tweet from Trump is: “The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc.”

Finally Judge Alsup ordered that safeguards against deportation must remain in place for the nearly 690,000 people in the DACA program, while a legal challenging to ending the program, proceeds. While while the lawsuit is pending, anyone who had DACA status as of September 5, 2017, can renew it.

The Trump administration, not surprisingly, has indicated that it will challenge Judge Alsup’s ruling. Meanwhile, Massachusetts, New York, Washington and other states are seeking a similar preliminary injunction in federal court in Brooklyn, part of a separate lawsuit on behalf of DACA recipients.



On December 6, 2017, The New York City Council passed the “Fair Workweek Law” which protect employees who seek temporary changes to work schedules for personal events.

This amendment entitles New York City employees to request temporary schedule changes twice per calendar year, without retaliation, in certain situations, e.g., caregiver emergency, attendance at a legal proceeding involving subsistence benefits, or safe or sick time under the New York City administrative code.

The bill establishes procedures for employees to request temporary work schedule changes and employer responses.
Not all employees are protected by the Fair Workweek Law. If the employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement; or have been employed for fewer than 120 days; or work less than 80 hours in the city in a calendar year; or work in the theater, film, or television industries, then they may not avail themselves of the Fair Workweek Law.


The New York City Human Rights Law defines “reasonable accommodation” as “such accommodation that can be made that shall not cause undue hardship in the conduct of the covered entity’s business. The covered entity shall have the burden of proving undue hardship.”

On December 19, 2017, the New York City Council amended the New York City Human Rights Law to require covered organizations to engage in a “cooperative dialogue” with individuals who may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation.

Covered organizations include employers, providers of public accommodations and providers of housing accommodations.
The term “cooperative dialogue” means the process by which a covered entity and an individual who may be entitled to an accommodation engage in a discussion to identify what reasonable accommodations are available to assist the individual. The bill requires the covered organization to provide the individual requesting an accommodation a written final determination identifying any accommodation granted or denied.

This determination may only be made after the parties have engaged, or the covered entity has attempted to engage, in the “cooperative dialogue.”

New York City employers should be prepared to comply with the new requirements.

If You are Traveling Outside of the U.S. During the Holidays, This One’s for You

Travel warnings, extreme vetting, and the latest travel ban have made travel abroad more rife with concerns and challenges this holiday season.

If you will be carrying electronic devices during your travels, keep in mind that:

• At many airports, all electronic devices larger than a cell phone have to be inspected at security and must be taken out of your carry-on bags. This can lead to delays, so make sure you have plenty of time to clear the security checks.

• Even if you are a US citizen, your bags and electronic devices are subject to search upon returning to the US.

• Warrantless searches of electronic devices have increased greatly—by 125% since 2015, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The number of electronic device searches at the border began increasing in 2016 and has grown under the Trump administration. [The ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the ACLU of Massachusetts have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, for the District of Massachusetts, against the Department of Homeland Security, on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without warrants at the U.S border.

Be mindful about whether your passport is signed, and contains emergency information, and be comfortable with the safety and stability of the places you are visiting, especially if you are a U.S. citizen:

• Make sure your passport is signed, that the emergency information is completed, and that you have the appropriate visa to enter the country you are traveling to.

• Frequently visit the Department of State website to stay on top of the travel alerts and travel warnings.

If you have to apply for a new U.S. visa, while abroad, in order to return to the U.S., keep the following in mind:

• Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s new ruling, President Trump’s Travel Ban 3.0 is in effect (at least until the lower courts finish issuing additional rulings). Individuals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen may be affected. On December 22, 2017, a three A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously that the ban exceeds the constitutional authority of the executive branch, and that the Trump administration has failed to prove that “nationality alone renders entry of this broad class of individuals a heightened security risk or that current screening processes are inadequate.” The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is considering a similar ruling out of Maryland. The U.S. Supreme Court has requested that both the Ninth and Fourth Circuit courts rule expeditiously to enable it to take up the case. It will likely wait on the Fourth Circuit opinion before it decides whether it will hear the appeal concerning the Travel Ban 3.0.

• Extreme vetting means more administrative processing. Administrative processing can result in delays of several days, weeks, or even months. Employees should inform their supervisors regarding their planned travel and have back-up plans for travel, lodging, and work should they experience a lengthy delay.

• Consulates are dealing with new guidance and procedures. This means that delays may occur just as a matter of course especially because the holidays are busy times at the Consulates.

• Make sure to check with the relevant Consulate and your airline to find out if you may need a transit visa to board your aircraft.

• Make sure to book an appointment at the Consulate as soon as possible before leaving the United States. Consulates may not have appointments available and may have limited holiday hours.

• Carry a signed employment verification letter along with other required documentation.

• Employees who have pending change-of-status or advance parole applications should not travel until after their case has been adjudicated. Under new guidance, travel during the pendency of an advance parole application can lead to a denial.

Be alert, be cautious, and have a safe and memorable holiday trip.

New York City Paid Sick Leave Law Has been Expanded to include safe time for victims of family offense matters, sexual offenses, stalking and human trafficking, and their family members

The “Earned Safe and Sick Time Act,” which is an amendment to New York City’s Paid Sick Leave Law, was signed into law by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. It enlarges the list of covered reasons for which paid sick leave can be used when “when the employee or a family member has been the victim of a family offense matter, sexual offense, stalking, or human trafficking.” The law takes effect on May 5, 2018.

The general definition of a “family member” has been amended to include an individual related by blood and an individual whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship:

• Child (of an employee, spouse or domestic partner);
• Spouse;
• Domestic partner;
• Parent (of an employee, spouse or domestic partner);
• Sibling;
• Grandchild; or
• Grandparent.

As per the amendment, an employee may utilize accrued sick and safe leave when the employee or a family member is the victim of a family offense matter, sexual offense, stalking, or human trafficking. Leave related to “safe time” can be taken for the following reasons:

• To receive services from a domestic violence shelter, rape crisis center, or other shelter or services program;

• To take part in safety planning, temporarily or permanently relocate, or take other actions to increase the safety of the employee or family member;

• To meet with a civil attorney or other social service provider to obtain information and advice on, and prepare for or participate in, any criminal or civil proceeding, including but not limited to matters related to a family offense matter, sexual offense, stalking, human trafficking, custody, visitation, matrimonial issues, orders of protection, immigration, housing, discrimination in employment, housing or consumer credit;

• To file a complaint or domestic incident report with law enforcement;

• To meet with a district attorney’s office;

• To enroll children in a new school; or

• To take other actions necessary to maintain, improve, or restore the physical, psychological, or economic health or safety of the employee or family member or to protect those who associate or work with the employee.

Reasonable notice of a foreseeable absence may be required—up to seven days before leave will begin—and notice must be provided as soon as practicable for unforeseeable absences. Employees can be required to provide written confirmation that leave was used for a covered purpose. For an absence of more than three consecutive work days, reasonable documentation that leave was used for a covered purpose can be required.

The amendment states that the following constitutes reasonable documentation:

• Documentation signed by an employee, agent, or volunteer of a victim services organization, an attorney, a clergy member, or a medical or other professional service provider from whom the employee or a family member sought assistance;

• A police or court record; or

• A notarized letter from the employee explaining the need for leave.

As with sick leave, employers cannot require that employees furnish documents specifying the details of covered reasons for the leave. Information concerning victim status obtained solely for taking leave must be treated as confidential and cannot be disclosed, unless the employee provides permission to do so, in writing.

Employers should update their paid sick leave policies to include paid safe leave. They should also begin providing a revised Notice of Employee Rights to new hires as of the amended law’s effective date (May 5, 2018) and should maintain accurate records of distribution. On or before June 4, 2018, employers should also distribute the revised Notice of Employee Rights to all of their employees working in New York City, who did not previously receive the revised Notice, and maintain records evidencing distribution.

The law permits the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Office of Labor Standards Director to take necessary measures to implement the law, including creating rules.


On December 4, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two orders, that allow the Presidential Proclamation of September 24, 2017 (“The Travel Ban”), to go into effect, while appeals continue in the lower courts.

A. The First Order

The effect of the first order is that the Travel Ban is fully in effect, as follows:

• Somalia: All immigrant visas are suspended. Additional screening is required for all other types of visas.

• Iraq: No suspensions, but additional screening is required for all visas and entries.

• Chad / Libya / Yemen: All immigrant visas and all B-1 business and B-2 tourist visas are suspended.

• North Korea / Syria: All immigrant and nonimmigrant visas are suspended.

• Iran: All immigrant visas are suspended, as well as all nonimmigrant visas except F and M student visas and J exchange visitor visas, for which additional screening is required.

• Venezuela: All official and B-1/B-2 visas for employees of certain government agencies and their dependents are suspended. These agencies include the Ministry of the Popular Power for Interior, Justice and Peace; Administrative Service of Identification, Migration and Immigration; Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigation Service Corps; Bolivarian National Intelligence Service; and Ministry of the Popular Power for Foreign Relations. Additional screening is required for all other types of visas.

The Travel Ban exempts the following classes of individuals, among others, from the above restrictions:

• Those whose visas were marked canceled or revoked under the initial Travel Ban (January 27, 2017)

• Nationals of Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity, but only until October 18, 2017

• Dual nationals who are traveling on a passport from a non-designated country

• Those who seek, or have already been granted, asylum or withholding of removal

• Those who seek admission, or have already been admitted, as refugees

• Those who already held valid visas on September 24, 2017

• Those who hold other travel documents – such as transportation letters, boarding foils, or advance parole documents – that were valid on September 24, 2017 or are issued after that date

B. The Second Order

With respect to the Supreme Court’s second order, the US government’s request for full enforcement of the travel ban while the Fourth and Ninth Circuits consider the government’s appeals (filed in October 2017) of the lower courts’ (Maryland’s and Hawaii’s) injunctions in these Circuits, was granted by the Supreme Court. Both Circuits have agreed to expedite their decisions so that the Maryland and Hawaii cases may move forward quickly.

If either or both Circuits eventually rule against the government, thereby leaving the lower courts’ injunction in place, the government could ask the Supreme Court to review those rulings. If that happens and the Supreme refuses to hear the government’s request for review, then the Supreme Court’s orders will terminate, thereby putting the Travel Ban on hold yet again, until final decisions are made in the Maryland and Hawaii federal courts.


For over two decades now, my firm has been representing workplace victims of sexual harassment in vindicating their rights both inside and outside the State of New York.

If you work in the United States, you are likely to be fortunate to have rights in the workplace that must be respected by your employer, supervisors, and co-workers.

You are up to date with the news and have probably participated in company trainings or workshops to know that sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination, it is against the law, and it happens to employees of different genders.

You know that sexual harassment is a violation that can take numerous forms that may or may not involve touching or even being in the same room as the perpetrator. The worst forms of sexual harassment might be sexual assault inside the workplace or even outside the workplace—by a co-worker, manager, or even a client or vendor. Just as damaging can be acts of sexual harassment conducted over text messages, phone calls, voice mails, and emails. Watching pornography in the office, in the presence of others is also not so rare an occurrence of sexual harassment. This list is not exhaustive.

You have probably been told that if you are being sexually harassed, you should immediately report the event to your company’s Human Resources Department or even march right up to the police station to report it.

If your circumstances permit, and you are not in a life-threatening situation, it’s best to consult with an experienced employment lawyer about your situation, before reporting the acts of sexual harassment to Human Resources, or to the police.

Human Resources staff are often well-spoken, and have received extensive training on resolving disputes in the workplace. Though they may behave like advocates for employees, it’s certainly not their job to advocate for employees. The allegiance of Human Resources lies firmly with your employer, who pays their salaries. Their ultimate goal is to avoid potential litigation and protect the company from any legal trouble. They are not paid to represent you or to protect your interests and rights in the workplace.

In many cases, when an employee goes to Human Resources to report sexual harassment, without having obtained legal advice from an experienced employment lawyer, some Human Resources personnel will blame the employee, the victim, for having behavioral or performance problems, and sometimes will cover up the fact that the employee scheduled an appointment to report sexual harassment.

You need an advocate that represents you, and is vested in protecting your interests. This is why you need to consult with an employment lawyer before complaining to your Human Resources Department, if your circumstances permit.

As for going to the police, of course going to the police promptly is the right thing to do, when the conduct is criminal. Still, it’s best to consult counsel first, about the timing of the police complaint, and to be prepared with the appropriate evidence going into the police so that the prosecutor’s office is more likely to evaluate the case seriously. It’s unfortunate that the police sometimes treat the victims with disrespect because they think the victim is trying to build a civil case later, by first reporting criminal conduct. All the more reason not to go unprepared (psychologically or otherwise) before visiting the police station.

Under no circumstances should you remain silent about the problem. Even if you are worried about retaliation or concerned that people will not believe you, you must take action. Attorneys like myself have a great deal of experience fighting difficult sexual harassment cases – and very often we can help you put an end to it.

You might be worried about the fact that you are undocumented, or that you are here legally, but are not a green card holder or a U.S. citizen. You still have rights, and you can be helped. Attorneys that also concentrate in immigration law, like myself, can help you navigate the legal process in a way that is protective of your interests.

Seeing an attorney immediately also means that you are protecting your rights and the rights of others. If your employer knows you are already consulting with an attorney, your employer will be hesitant to threaten you or fire you in response to your coming forward – in other words, retaining an experienced lawyer to assist you in reporting the sexual harassment is like putting on a bullet-proof vest. If you come forward in asserting your rights, the employer will also be more likely to respect the rights of other employees who come forward.

Sexual harassment unfortunately remains a serious problem facing employees in virtually all lines of work today. If you are a victim of this behavior, stand up and act. You will have done your part towards resolving a humanitarian crisis.


The U.S. Department of State opened the Immigrant Diversity Lottery program on October 3, 2017. It will end on November 7, 2017 at 12 noon Eastern Standard Time.

This lottery program makes 50,000 immigrant visas available to citizens of nations with low rates of immigration to the U.S.
President Donald Trump has indicated his intention to eliminate the Diversity Lottery. For this year though, the program remains intact.

The lottery registration and application process is conducted online, and the eligibility requirements are few.
There is no fee to register for the lottery. Random selection of qualified lottery applications will begin on May 1, 2018.

Eligible individuals must have:

• At least a high school education or its equivalent; or
• Two years of work experience within the past five years in an occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience to perform.

Individuals cannot apply if they were born in the following nations, because more than 50,000 natives from these countries have immigrated to the U.S. in the past five years.

• Bangladesh
• Brazil
• Canada
• China, mainland-born (those born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR, and Taiwan are eligible)
• Colombia
• Dominican Republic
• El Salvador
• Haiti
• India
• Jamaica
• Mexico
• Nigeria
• Pakistan
• Peru
• Philippines
• South Korea
• United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories
• Vietnam

If you were not born in a qualifying country, you might still be eligible to register for the lottery, if:

• Your spouse was born in an eligible country.
• Neither of your parents was born or legally resident in the country of your birth at the time of your birth, in which case you could claim eligibility based upon one of your parents’ countries of birth.


Scenario 1:

You work in the administration of an academic institution, as a Vice President of a department, and are in a meeting with the Provost or President. Out of nowhere, you receive devastating news that is going to impact your standing at the institution- you are being demoted and will be forced to report to someone you cannot stand.

Scenario 2:

You work in the administration of an academic institution, as a Dean or the equivalent, and you are also a tenured professor. You are suddenly told during a meeting with the Provost or President that you will be removed from your role as a Dean, and you know that you will find it unbearable to just go back to teaching and nothing more, and you will be politically powerless as well.

Having counseled clients who have experienced both scenarios, the most important thing that should happen next is what the clients MUST NOT do, if they are to protect their interests.

They must not:

• Insult the decisionmaker;
• Have an outburst or curse;
• Storm out of the room;
• Abruptly resign;
• Sign any documents;
• Start negotiating their separation package.

Individuals in both scenarios should listen very carefully to the bad news. If it’s possible to maintain composure, they should engage the decision maker to learn about the institution’s justification for the employment action.

Once the meeting is over, it would be an excellent idea to contact an experienced employment lawyer about what happened and schedule a consultation promptly. The employment lawyer will probably want to see any handbooks, rules, executive plans, or contracts that may govern the terms and conditions of your employment along with your reviews, and any documents that can shed light on why you are currently in the position that you are in.

If the individuals insult the decision maker or have an outburst or storm out of the room, the decision maker will confirm to them, that said conduct is precisely why they took a particular action, i.e. the employees lack fitness for the role they have been in.

If the individuals abruptly resign, from an employment law perspective (with rare exceptions), resignations are excellent for employers, because the employers will owe the employees nothing. Even if institutions pay out severance monies to those who have resigned, based on formulas set forth within their policies and procedures, you can be sure that the payouts are not as high. Of greater significance, if there’s a claim of discrimination that the employee could have brought, that claim will be weakened substantially.

Why not sign documents? During a meeting when emotions are most likely running high, most employees cannot read and clearly understand the document that they are being asked to sign. A danger is that signing what is in front of them, may kill any protections that may be present in documents they signed earlier, when they began their employment. If handed a document to sign, it is best to tell the decision maker that it needs to be reviewed outside the presence of the decision maker first.

As far as negotiating a separation package, employees usually do not fare well when they start negotiating on their own, because they don’t understand how negotiations in the employment arena work. They make a demand that is too low, or not reasonable, or does not ask for items that they need to be amicably able to separate. They may make concessions they should not make. They may not properly employ their negotiating leverage, if they don’t even know what it is.

If the employees sit tight and contact an employment lawyer, the lawyer has more options to present to the employee to arrive at the destination that the employee would be better off at, including but not limited to:

• Filling the demoted role, and filing a charge of discrimination and/or a lawsuit, if the demotion was an act of discrimination;
• Negotiating a transfer before the demotion takes effect—at the same or higher title and salary;
• Negotiating an extension on the Deanship followed by a sabbatical and then a transition into teaching;
• Negotiating a separation package for the Dean based on the amount of time left on the contract term, in addition to other items of value, for the employee.

Employees should avoid making hasty decisions because a wrong move can ruin one’s ability to get another job within a specific university system (for non-tenured administrative employees). For tenured employees, hastily leaving a university altogether, because of political issues, can make it difficult to obtain a similar job at another university, because employed professors are always more attractive than unemployed ones.

Pausing rather than reacting upon receiving terrible news, can be protective, career-saving— and ultimately increase the probability that your employment lawyer can help you negotiate a solution that is in your best interests, even if it might take a little time.


President Trump just issued a proclamation titled, “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry in to the United States by Terrorist or Other Public-Safety Threats.” You may review it in full, here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/24/enhancing-vetting-capabilities-and-processes-detecting-attempted-entry

Five of the eight countries were included in the previous travel ban.

The new restrictions were issued on September 24, 2017, just as the old 90-day travel ban expired. The new restrictions will go into effect on October 18, 2017.

Until then, by virtue of the proclamation, the “old” travel ban will continue to be in effect, for those countries still on the list, who do not have a bona fide relationship with a U.S. person or entity.

The restrictions are based on a review of the identity management practices and information sharing on national security and public threats practices of countries worldwide and tailored to match them.

Syria and North Korea

-Entry as immigrants or nonimmigrants is suspended.


-Entry in tourist or business visitor status is suspended for officials of certain government agencies involved in screening and vetting practices and their immediate family members.


-Entry as immigrants is suspended and decisions regarding entry as nonimmigrants will be subject to additional scrutiny.


-Entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants in business and tourist status is suspended.


-Entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants in business and tourist status is suspended.


-Entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants in business and tourist status is suspended


-Entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants is suspended, except for those in valid student (F and M) or exchange visitor (J) status.

Although Iraq is not technically covered by the new restrictions, the proclamation states that Iraqi nationals will be subject to additional scrutiny.

It is now clear how long these restrictions will be implemented. Countries may be removed or added to the list depending upon further review of the effectiveness of their security practices. Waivers will be available on “undue hardship” grounds if a Consulate determines the entry would not pose a threat to national security and the admission would be in the national interest. This could include individuals who have already been admitted to the U.S. for extended periods of time.

The new restrictions will not be enforced against:

• Current lawful permanent residents
• Current visa holders
• Dual nationals travelling on a passport from an unaffected country
• Asylees
• Refugees already admitted to the U.S.
• Individuals granted protection under the Convention Against Torture

The United States Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the travel ban case on October 10, 2017. The Justices have cancelled that hearing and asked the parties to submit new briefs by October 5, 2017 on the effect of the new proclamation on the old travel ban.


On this page, we have previously blogged about New York City’s Freelance Isn’t Free Act (FIFA) (Local Law 140 of 2016) that went into effect on May 15, 2017. In a nutshell, FIFA protects freelancers in that they have the right to a written contract, and they have a right to be paid on time and in full. In addition, FIFA bars wage theft and retaliation against freelancers, and provides for the imposition of penalties on businesses that are found not to comply with its requirements.

As part of FIFA’s implementation, the New York Department of Consumer Affairs (which is the agency that enforces FIFA), has issued rules clarifying FIFA’s provisions, as follows:

• Clarify that FIFA applies without regard to the immigration status of freelancers.

• Define “adverse action,” for purposes of the FIFA’s anti-retaliation clause, broadly to mean any action by a hiring party that would constitute a threat, intimidation, discipline, harassment, denial of a work opportunity, or discrimination, or any other act that penalizes or is reasonably likely to deter a freelancer from exercising any right guaranteed FIFA.

• Clarify that retaliation under FIFA may be established by showing the freelancer’s attempt to exercise his/her rights under FIFA was a “motivating factor” for a subsequent adverse action, even if other factors also motivated the adverse action. This means that a “but for” causation standard, which typically applies to federal law retaliation claims, does not apply under FIFA.

• Prevent employers from requesting that freelancers sign collective/class action waivers in their contracts.

• Prevent employers from incorporating clauses in contracts with freelancers that attempt to waive or limit procedural rights afforded to a party in a civil or administrative action.


Some of you may recall that the DACA program was implemented in 2012 by an executive order signed by President Barack Obama. Under the DACA program, certain people who entered the U.S. as children were eligible for DACA protection and corresponding employment authorization. Around 800,000 individuals have been granted deferred action under the program.

On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that DACA is being rescinded.

So far, the Department of Homeland Security has issued some guidance describing how DACA matters will be addressed by the government:

• Initial and renewal DACA petitions filed and accepted as of September 5, 2017, including applications for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) pending review will be adjudicated on a case by case basis.

• Applications filed no later than October 5, 2017, from current beneficiaries whose DACA status will expire before March 5, 2018, will be adjudicated on a case by case basis.

• The government will not terminate grants of previously issued deferred action, nor will the government revoke EADS only based on the rescission directives, for the remainder of their validity periods.

• The government will not end grants previously issued deferred action or revoke EADs solely based on the rescission directives for the remaining duration of their validity periods.

• The government will reject all new DACA initial requests and new associated applications for EADs.

• No new Form I-131 applications for advance parole (travel authorizations) will be granted approval, under standards associated with the DACA program.

• All currently pending Form I-131 applications for advance parole filed under the DACA program will be administratively closed, and all associated fees paid, will be refunded.

Employees in DACA status should carefully consider and review travel plans. Although the government has stated “it will generally honor the validity period for previously approved applications for advance parole,” admitting officers at the port of entry have broad discretion to deny admission back into the U.S.

Employers need to be aware that if they have employees who hold work authorizations based on the DACA program, these employees will continue to be authorized to work based on a valid EAD.

Employers who are considering sponsoring DACA/EAD holders for employment-based residency should take action right away, noting that employees with prior unlawful presence, might require a waiver of inadmissibility.


The US Embassy and US Consulates in Russia have decided that as a result of the Russian government’s personnel cap on the U.S. Mission, all non-immigrant visa operations across Russia will be suspended starting August 23, 2017.

This development is attributed to the reports of possible Russian involvement in the U.S. presidential elections.
In response, Russia ordered the withdrawal of 755 U.S. diplomatic personnel from Russia.

Generally, the announcement means:

• If you are a U.S. citizen in Russia, the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and the three consulates in St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, and Vladivostok will continue to provide emergency and routine services to U.S. citizens, although hours of those emergency and routine services may change.

• The U.S. Mission has begun cancelling current nonimmigrant visa appointments all over Russia.

• Starting September 1, 2017, nonimmigrant visa interviews will be conducted only at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

• Non-immigrant visa applicants whose appointments were cancelled can reschedule for a later date in Moscow.

• A block of visa appointments will be offered for students in early September 2017.

• The US Embassy in Moscow will continue to process non-immigrant visa applications without an interview, for those who qualify.

Stay tuned for additional developments.


On May 30, 2017, Mayor de Blasio signed a bill into law that is protective of New York City’s workers who work for “retail employers.” The law goes into effect on November 26, 2017.

A retail employer is one that employs 20 or more employees at a business “that is engaged primarily in the sale of consumer goods at one or more stores” within New York City.

The goal of this legislation is to create more predictable work schedules for retail workers. This law will prohibit the practice of “on-call scheduling,” or requiring the employee to be available to work, and to contact the employer or wait to be contacted by the employer to determine whether the employee must report to work.

Likely beneficiaries of this legislation are parents of small children, and those workers who juggle multiple jobs.
As of November 26, 2017, retail employers will no longer be permitted to:

(a) schedule an employee for any on-call shift;
(b) cancel any regular shift for a retail employee within 72 hours of the scheduled start of such shift,
(c) require a retail employee to work with fewer than 72 hours’ notice, unless the employee consents in writing; and
(d) require a retail employee to contact a retail employer to confirm whether or not the employee should report for a
regular shift fewer than 72 hours before the start of such shift.

Notwithstanding these new restrictions, a retail employer will still be able to (i) grant employees days off, if an employee requests them, (ii) allow an employee to exchange shifts with another employee; and (iii) make changes to employees’ work schedules with less than 72 hours’ notice if the employer’s operations cannot begin or continue due to: (a) threats to the retail employees or the retail employer’s property, (b) a failure of public utilities or the shutdown of public transportation, (c) a fire, flood or other natural disaster, or (d) a state of emergency declared by the president of the United States, governor of the state of New York or mayor of the city.

The law will also require retail employers to provide employees with written schedules no later than 72 hours before the first shift on the work schedule and to conspicuously post the schedule at least 72 hours before the beginning of the scheduled hours of work. They will be required to update the schedule and directly notify affected employees after making changes to the work schedule, and also transmit the work schedule by electronic means, if such means are regularly used to communicate scheduling information.

Upon request, a retail employer will also have to provide an employee with (i) his or her work schedule, in writing, for any week the employee worked within the prior three years, and (ii) the most current version of the work schedule for all retail employees at that work location, whether or not changes to the work schedule have been posted.


In July 2017, the USCIS announced the release of a revised Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. See https://www.uscis.gov/i-9/

The revisions to the Form are as follows:

• The name of the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) has been changed. Its new name is Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER).

• The instructions on Section 2 have been slightly changed to read: “Employers or their authorized representative must complete and sign Section 2 within 3 business days of the employee’s first day of employment.”

• The Consular Report of Birth Abroad (Form FS-240) was added as a List C document and all the certifications of report of birth issued by the Department of State (Form FS-545, Form DS-1350, and Form FS-240) have been combined.

• The List C documents have been renumbered, except for the Social Security card, which remains #1 on the list.

The revised I-9 must be used no later than September 18, 2017.

Employers must abide by existing storage and retention rules for previously completed I-9 forms. (Store them at an on or off-site facility, in a combination of formats -paper, microfilm or microfiche, or electronic- and note that they must be available for inspection by government officials within 3 days notice.)


Employees who work at fast-food joints suffer many difficulties- including not being allowed to work the shifts requested, being requested to come in at the last minute (when they are not scheduled) or risk losing their jobs, or being stuck with what is called the ‘clopening’ shift, which is the fast-food industry’s term for closing the store, and then returning promptly to open it again.

The term “fast food establishment” is defined as “any establishment: (i) that has as its primary purpose serving food or drink items; (ii) where patrons order or select items and pay before eating and such items may be consumed on the premises, taken out or delivered to the customer’s location; (iii) that offers limited service; (iv) that is part of a chain; and (v) that is one of 30 or more establishments nationally.”

For purposes of the laws governing work schedules and shifts at fast food establishments, the definition of “fast food employee” excludes salaried employees. For purposes of the law permitting pay deductions for not-for-profit organizations, the definition of “fast food employee” does not exclude salaried employees.

On November 26, 2017, the bills Mayor de Blasio RECENTLY signed into law amending the New York City Human Rights Law, to provide more predictable schedules and paychecks New York City’s 65,000 fast-food employees, will go into effect.
Starting November 26, 2017:

• Fast-food employers must offer employees their work schedules at least 14 days in advance. Changes inside of two weeks are still possible, but each change will incur a penalty of $10 to $75, depending on the situation, paid to the worker.

• Fast-food employees must receive at least 11 hours off in between shifts. Of course, employers can ask an employee to clock back in sooner, but they’ll have to give that person an extra $100.

***The above penalties will not be imposed on the fast-food employers if the employees requests the changes to shifts, in writing or trade shifts with another employee; if the employer is required to pay overtime for the shift; or if an event occurs which prohibits the employer’s ability to operate.***

• Employers of fast-food chains must offer shifts to existing employees before hiring new workers.

• Fast-food employees may deduct part of their salary and donate it to a nonprofit, and the employers have to disburse these donations on behalf of the employees.

New York City’s Office of Labor Policy and Standards (OLPS), part of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), will be responsible for enforcement. Employees may also file a private civil action within two years of an alleged violation, for damages and attorneys’ fees.