Airport workers at John F. Kennedy (JFK), LaGuardia (LGA), and New York Stewart International Airport (SWF-Stewart Intl.) may soon be receiving increased wages and benefits under the Healthy Terminals Act (the “Act”) (Senate Bill S6266D).  Spurred by the COVID-19 related death of a JFK airport worker, the Act recently passed both the New York State Senate and Assembly.  Next, the Act will be delivered to Governor Cuomo for his signature.  Governor Cuomo has not indicated whether or not he will sign the Act.  If signed, the Act will take effect on January 1, 2021.

Scope of covered individuals

The Act has a broad (and ambiguous) scope of coverage.  The Act defines covered airport workers as any worker employed by a covered airport employer that works at least half of the workweek at a covered airport location.  The Act exempts individuals who qualify for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) or are covered under Articles 8 and 8-a of New York Labor Law, which applies to construction workers on New York City’s public work and grade crossing elimination projects.

Covered airport employers are defined as any entity employing a covered airport worker (other than public agencies) and covered airport locations include any airport operating under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which currently encompasses JFK, LGA, and SWF-Stewart Intl.  The Act does not exclude air carriers and appears to cover not only air carriers, but also ground handling companies providing ramp, catering, and other support services.Continue Reading New York’s healthy terminals act may create additional wage and benefits obligations for airport employers

In response to the coronavirus outbreak, the U.S. Department of Labor recently announced new guidance outlining ways states can be more flexible in administering and expanding unemployment insurance (UI) programs in order to assist employees affected by COVID-19.

Generally speaking, UI is a joint state–federal program that provides cash benefits to eligible workers. Although each state has discretion to establish its own eligibility guidelines, an employee typically is eligible for UI benefits if they:

  • Are unemployed through no fault of their own;
  • Meet certain work and wage requirements; and
  • Meet any other additional state requirements.

Continue Reading States expand unemployment benefits for employees impacted by COVID-19

The re-election of President Obama and insignificant changes made to the political make-up of the House and the Senate have dashed the hopes of many employers that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) would be significantly modified or repealed. Employers, especially those that pushed compliance efforts to the back burner during the election, will now need to turn their attention to ACA compliance. With numerous compliance deadlines having taken effect in the latter half of 2012, new requirements taking effect in 2013, as well as an already noticeable up-tick in regulatory guidance, employers that do not start to take action could be left scrambling when the majority of the remaining ACA provisions become effective in 2014.Continue Reading Health Care Reform – Employer Steps For 2012 and 2013

Our Executive Compensation & Employee Benefits colleagues John D. Martini, Jeffrey G. Aromatorio, Jenny C. Baker and Allison Sizemore wrote a client alert regarding the December 31, 2012 deadline for correcting certain errors in the written provisions of nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements that provide payments that are contingent on the recipient’s execution of a

At a time when public employers across Pennsylvania are seeking to reduce or at least contain the skyrocketing costs of post-retirement health care benefits, the Commonwealth Court has virtually handcuffed municipalities from achieving any genuine relief for decades. The Commonwealth Court ruled in FOP, Flood City Lodge No. 86 v. City of Johnstown, No. 1873 C.D. 2010 (February 22, 2012), that the elimination of post-retirement health benefits for active police officers and firefighters by an Act 111 interest arbitration panel constitute an unlawful diminishment of contractually guaranteed benefits under the Home Rule Charter Law. This decision will likely have broad implications, as it signals how the Commonwealth Court will interpret a similar provision in the Pennsylvania Constitution that applies to all municipalities.
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Prohibits Act 111 Arbitration Panels from Reducing Post-Retirement Health Care Benefits for Active Employees