Project Workers
Resume:
Protecting New York’s Workers
How the State Department of Labor Can
Improve Wage-and-Hour Enforcement
Recommendations from New York’s community groups,
immigrant advocates, and legal assistance providers
This report is a project of the Campaign to End Wage Theft
Supporting organizations include:
Asociación Tepeyac The New York Immigration Coalition (coordinator)
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law New York Unemployment Project
Cortland Workers’ Rights Board Northern Manhattan Coalition for
Immigrants’ Rights
Farmworker Legal Services of New York, Inc.
Project Hospitality
Latin American Integration Center
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
The Latin American Workers Project, Inc.
The Restaurant Opportunities Center of
Long Island Immigrant Alliance
New York
Make the Road by Walking
Taxi Workers Alliance
MFY Legal Services, Inc.
Tompkins County Workers’ Center
National Employment Law Project
Workers’ Rights Law Center of New York, Inc.
Neighborhood Economic Development
The Workplace Project
Advocacy Project
YKASEC – Empowering the Korean
New York Committee for Occupational
American Community
Safety and Health
December 2006
Introduction
In Brooklyn, workers at a grocery store work for tips alone, sixty hours a week, and take home what
amounts to less than $3.50 an hour. In Dutchess County, construction workers are promised $100 a
day and work for three weeks, ten hours a day; but at the end of the project, they are left unpaid when
the subcontractor that hired them disappears. In the Adirondacks, room cleaners work at multiple
tourist hotels, paid by the room, not by the hour, and often take home less than the minimum wage.
And on Long Island, kitchen staff at a local restaurant regularly work more than sixty hours a week
but do not receive overtime pay.
These stories are played out every day in cities and towns across New York, as workers increasingly
face violations of their most basic rights to a minimum wage and overtime. Unscrupulous employers
understand that there is a minimal risk of being caught for these violations and even if they are
caught, that they will likely pay no more than a portion of the wages they owe. In effect, workplace
violations are becoming standard practice in many of the state’s low-wage industries.
Comprehensive data are not available to quantify the prevalence of these violations, but researchers
and advocates have started to survey workers in several industries to document the problem. In New
York City, for example, a recent survey found that 67% of domestic workers received no overtime
pay,1 and in a survey last year of gourmet grocery workers, many reported frequently working up to
60 hours per week without overtime pay.2 Another study found pervasive violations of both overtime
and minimum wage standards in Brooklyn’s small retail stores.3 Likewise, in a 2005 study, 59% of
surveyed restaurant workers reported not being properly compensated for their overtime hours, with
13% not paid the minimum wage.4 And about half of day laborers surveyed in 2003 experienced
non-payment of wages that is, they were not paid at all.5
Government enforcement agencies provide data on several other industries. In the late 1990s, the
United States Department of Labor (USDOL) documented violations using a series of industry-
specific compliance surveys. It found that nearly 33% of residential health care facilities were
violating wage-and-hour laws in New York City, with nearly double that rate in Albany.6 In New
York City’s garment industry, it found that 65% of employers were violating minimum wage and
overtime laws.7
These studies, however, are only measuring the tip of the iceberg: on the ground, community
and legal advocates are seeing pervasive violations across the full spectrum of industries in New
York’s economy. They are also seeing the very real and immediate impact that violations have on
our economy. Workers in low-wage industries count on every dollar to support their families, and
even a small amount in lost wages in a given day can translate into thousands of dollars annually.
Immigrant communities are especially hard hit, with the highest rates of workplace violations but
the fewest resources to address them.
But all New Yorkers bear the costs of this endemic problem. Law-abiding employers are forced into
a race to the bottom when unscrupulous competitors pay below the minimum wage, setting off a
downward spiral that erodes labor standards throughout the economy. And local governments lose
significant tax revenues when workers are underpaid.
Fulfilling the Promise of Workplace Protections
The New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) is the agency primarily charged with enforcing
minimum wage and overtime laws through its Division of Labor Standards. But while New York’s
economy has changed, the NYSDOL’s strategies and resources have failed to keep pace. Today, the
2 PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS
agency faces complex workplaces, an increasingly diverse workforce, and a daunting backlog of
complaints.
New York’s next administration has a unique opportunity to meet these evolving challenges. With
modest increases in staff resources, the NYSDOL could improve its effectiveness by implementing a
smarter approach to enforcement, leveraging its current legal authority, and taking advantage of new
strategic partnerships. In doing so, the NYSDOL would send a strong signal to employers that it is
simply unacceptable to violate basic minimum wage and overtime laws in New York an important
first step to changing the business culture in low-wage industries and throughout the economy.
In this report, we present six recommendations to improve the enforcement of New York’s workplace
standards. We focus on specific, realistic administrative reforms that the NYSDOL can implement
within its existing legal authority. Many of these reforms are motivated by model practices from
other states and the federal government. And all of these reforms are supported by a diverse coalition
of community groups, legal advocates, service providers, and unions, all of whom have a vested
interest in ensuring that employers follow the law for the good of our workers, our communities, and
our economy.
Six Recommendations for Improving Wage-and-Hour Enforcement
by the New York State Department of Labor
Recommendation 1: Aggressively investigate complaints and pursue all
remedies provided by law
Recommendation 2: Systematically and proactively investigate high-violation
industries
Recommendation 3: Partner with community and labor groups for expertise
and worker outreach
Recommendation 4: Improve responsiveness to the needs of immigrant
workers
Recommendation 5: Improve coordination with state and local enforcement
agencies to protect workers
Recommendation 6: Make the NYSDOL more accessible, accountable, and
transparent
PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS 3
Recommendation 1
Aggressively investigate complaints and pursue all remedies provided by law
“The New York State Department of Labor came by my restaurant one day after some
workers told them that we didn’t get overtime. They only talked to the two dishwashers
who work in the morning, but didn’t stick around to talk to any of us who work in the
evening. The investigators didn’t understand Spanish, so the chef sent one of his friends
to translate. The translator didn’t tell the inspectors what the dishwasher had really been
saying about his overtime pay. We heard that some workers got some money, but nothing
close to what they were owed. The rest of us decided it wasn’t worth asking the DOL to
come back, so we started organizing on our own with ROC-NY.”
– Cesar, Line Cook, member of the Restaurant Opportunities Center of New York
Workers in low-wage industries face significant obstacles to recovering their lost wages. Their claims
are typically too small to attract a private attorney. Legal services programs have the resources to
meet only a fraction of the need for legal representation, and federally funded programs are not
allowed to assist many immigrants. Community groups can help to fill the gap, but lack the resources
to pursue all of the violations that are outstanding.
The government has a crucial role to play in enforcing labor standards by sending strong signals
about the consequences of non-compliance. But currently, workers who file individual complaints
with the NYSDOL may have to wait years to recover money and often they only receive a fraction
of the money to which they are entitled under state law.
A range of factors contributes to the problem. The NYSDOL has insufficient investigators to address
a tremendous backlog of individual complaints it has approximately 120 investigators on board,
compared to the more than eight million workers in the state.8 Employers too can delay settlements,
allowing individual complaints to languish in the investigative stage.
But several NYSDOL policies also undermine the agency’s enforcement efforts. At present,
investigators are discouraged from taking aggressive steps to signal that violations are not
tolerated. For example, the NYSDOL is disinclined to issue an Order to Comply a final agency
determination that can include damages and fines as well as wages, and that has the effect of a
court judgment (unless challenged).9 Nor does the NYSDOL provide workers with regular status
updates about their investigations, which causes many workers to lose track of their claims. Finally,
the NYSDOL’s policies encourage negotiated settlements that amount to a fraction of the total
compensation available to workers. For example, workers may recover up to six years’ worth of
unpaid wages and additional penalties and damages under New York law. However, the NYSDOL’s
policy is to demand only two years’ worth of unpaid wages and none of the additional penalties
and damages available.10
Nor are the NYSDOL’s policies designed to maximize the impact of its enforcement efforts. The
agency rarely requires investigations of an entire workplace based on a worker’s complaint, despite
the fact that many types of violations typically affect more than just one worker. In addition, its
policy is not to investigate all parties who may be held liable under state law as “employers,” focusing
instead only on the corporate entity.11 This is particularly problematic in industries where owners
close their businesses and reopen under different corporate names, or where the use of subcontractors
is prevalent.
4 PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS
The upshot is that currently, unscrupulous employers may actually find that the incentive is not to
comply with the law. In the unlikely event that the NYSDOL declares an employer out of compliance,
that employer would likely pay only a fraction of the wages owed, years down the road.
In enforcing the law, the NYSDOL should be especially aware of two strategies that some employers
are increasingly using to cut corners. First, some employers are using retaliation as a tool to dissuade
workers from enforcing their rights. Although illegal, such retaliation typically goes unchecked and
represents a major barrier to the enforcement of workplace rights. Second, some employers misclassify
employees as “independent contractors” either to avoid liability for employment law violations, or to
avoid paying payroll taxes and insurance premiums. For workers, “misclassification” means not only
that they are exempt from core workplace protections, but also that they are left without a safety net
when unemployed or injured on the job.
Suggested Administrative Reforms
The NYSDOL should aggressively investigate suspect workplaces and vigorously
pursue remedies provided by law:
1. Investigate complaints promptly and thoroughly, and keep workers informed of
the progress of investigations.
a. Investigate all parties who may be held liable as “employers” under state law,
including individual owners and shareholders, not just corporate entities.
b. Establish guidelines for issuing an Order to Comply (when applicable) for all
available damages if employers and workers are unable to agree on settlement
terms within a designated period of time.
c. Provide workers with regular updates on the status of their pending claims.
2. Use individual complaints as a trigger for investigating entire workplaces.
a. Establish new guidelines for identifying individual complaints that warrant
broader workplace investigations, such as:
• Underpayment of wages claims by current employees;
• Complaints in industries marked by frequent violations;
• Misclassification of employees as independent contractors; and
• Other claims identified by investigators or community groups as likely to be
part of a pattern.
b. Audit an entire workplace when such individual complaints arise.
c. Routinely re-inspect firms with a pattern or history of widespread violations.
d. Develop better data tracking systems to identify repeat offenders, for example by
assigning employer ID numbers.
e. Establish an on-line database that will connect workers to any back wages they
are owed due to these ongoing investigations.
3. Pursue all damages and penalties available to remedy violations.
a. Advise employers and workers of the full range of penalties that workers are
entitled to recover by law, including any unpaid wages in the previous six-year
period and an additional 25% of that amount as liquidated damages. Disclose all
PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS 5
available damages and penalties in settlement demands to employers and when
presenting offers to workers.
b. Establish a protocol requiring investigators to seek approval before presenting
workers with settlement offers that do not provide a significant portion of the
damages available to workers under law.
c. Pursue all civil penalties, court costs, and attorneys’ fees available by law to help
fund enforcement.
4. Protect workers from retaliation for asserting their rights.
a. Adopt a formal policy that prohibits the disclosure of the name of the employee
who filed a complaint unless or until it is necessary and the employee consents.
For example, the NYSDOL need not disclose which employee filed the initial
complaint when investigating an employer’s records. Instead, it can choose a
sampling of employee records to review.
b. Seek fines in the administrative process or refer appropriate cases to the attorney
general for criminal prosecution when employer retaliation occurs.
5. Identify employees who are misclassified as independent contractors in records
reviewed during investigations, and report misclassification to the proper
authorities.12
Recommendation 2
Systematically and proactively investigate high-violation industries
“Our three attorneys cover a nine-county region of the state, and we can only confront a
fraction of the violations that we encounter. The state DOL has to be a dependable resource
for low-wage workers who want to file complaints. Given the prevalence of violations
across the state, the state DOL also has to be strategic about maximizing its impact. If
it launched more proactive investigations to find unreported violations, it would send
employers the message that breaking the law has consequences.”
– Kate Griffith, attorney and Skadden Fellow at the Workers’ Rights Law Center
of New York, Inc., in Kingston
While the NYSDOL can use individual complaints as a starting point for enforcing the law, the
agency can not rely solely on a reactive strategy to address the growing enforcement gap. That’s
because the scale of the problem is simply too big to be tackled on a case-by-case basis. Even if
the agency had the required resources, it is unrealistic to expect workers to bear the full burden of
identifying violations and pursuing actions against employers the threat of retaliation is too real
and has been used all too often. In fact, some of the worst violations occur in workplaces where
workers are most disempowered and least able to act. In short, focusing solely on resolving individual
complaints prevents the NYSDOL from identifying and correcting the deeper, systemic problems of
non-compliance in high-violation industries.
Instead, the NYSDOL should adopt what is known as “investigation-driven enforcement.” That is, the
agency should devote significant resources to systemically tracking, investigating, and prosecuting
non-compliant employers in high-violation industries. Existing state law provides the NYSDOL
6 PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS
ample authority to undertake this type of enforcement, and both the New York State attorney general
and USDOL have had success with this strategy (see sidebars).
The NYSDOL itself has experimented with proactive enforcement. In 1987, the Legislature created an
Apparel Industry Task Force to address violations in the garment industry, and in 2005, the Fair Wages
Task Force was created to address a broader set of low-wage industries.13 In many ways, these task
forces have not been optimally implemented. Their resources are focused on New York City, excluding
much of the state from aggressive enforcement.14 They still prioritize individual complaints, rather
than resolving systemic violations across low-wage industries.15 Finally, advocates report that even
when the Apparel Industry Task Force conducts proactive inspections, it concentrates on enforcing
industry-specific business registration requirements, rather than seeking redress for wage-and-hour
violations.16 Nonetheless, the task forces represent a first step toward a more proactive enforcement
model that the NYSDOL should implement to maximize its impact.
Legal Authority
The NYSDOL has sufficient authority to conduct proactive investigations regardless of the
industry. State law provides that the NYSDOL “[s]hall cause proper inspections to be made of
all matters prescribed” by the law. N.Y. Labor Law § 21(2). The NYSDOL also has the mandate to
“inspect every place which is, or which they have reasonable cause to believe is, affected by” the
state’s labor laws. Id. at § 25 (emphasis added). More specifically, investigators may search any
records that an employer is required to keep by law, and employers must answer investigators’
questions and provide them access to workplaces to conduct inspections. Id. at § 26, 31. The
NYSDOL has the additional authority to enforce the business registration requirements specific
to the garment industry as well. Id. at § 343.
Success Story: USDOL’s Investigation-Driven Enforcement
In the late 1990s, the United States Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
pioneered a new emphasis on targeted investigations in low-wage industries. WHD sought to
promote compliance and reduce recidivism using an innovative, multi-pronged approach for
enforcement: investigations, compliance education, and partnerships.
Among its innovations, WHD targeted particular industries to investigate. It chose industries
for each region of the country based on prior enforcement data (from WHD and other agencies),
worker demographics, and an industry’s characteristics. In those industries, WHD began to
expand investigations of randomly selected employers and key industry leaders. It entered into
partnerships with community groups to improve enforcement as well.
At the height of the program, WHD reported substantial progress in implementing investigation-
driven enforcement to encourage compliance in low-wage industries, including garment
manufacturing, health care, agriculture, and local service industries.
For a variety of reasons, WHD’s emphasis on investigation-driven enforcement has declined in
recent years. But the experience of the USDOL in the late 1990s provides a promising model for
an innovative enforcement strategy leveraging scarce resources to encourage broader compliance
with employment laws.
PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS 7
Suggested Administrative Reforms
The NYSDOL should proactively and aggressively enforce workplace laws using
industry-based strategies:
1. Identify industries in each region of the state that are marked by systemic violations
of basic wage-and-hour laws.
a. Identify and target high-violation industries in each region of the state, based
on: prior enforcement data, investigators’ experiences, field research, and pooled
information from stakeholders such as community groups whose members are
workers in these industries.
• For example, researchers have found the following low-wage industries in
New York City are characterized by high rates of violations: construction and
landscaping, retail (both food and non-food), restaurants and food services,
domestic work, home health care, child care, manufacturing, industrial
laundries, building maintenance and security, for-hire urban transportation,
auto services, and personal services.17
• Other regions of the state have a somewhat different mix of high-violation
industries. For example, upstate legal services providers see frequent
complaints in the hotel industry, agriculture, warehouses, and health care.
b. Draw from the experiences of community groups, workers, and other stakeholders
to learn about each targeted industry, including: which types of violations are
prevalent; how violations are hidden from investigators; and which worker
classifications are most susceptible to cost-cutting pressures.
2. Proactively investigate employers within these targeted industries to send the
signal that the agency will pursue violations even if workers are deterred from
filing complaints.
a. Strategically select employers (and subcontractors) to investigate to provide the
greatest impact.
• For example, in some industries a handful of key players have the market power
to establish industry standards and create downward competitive pressures.
• Other industries are marked by smaller employers and have no central
dominant powers. In such industries, random inspections or high-profile
investigations of egregious violators can send strong signals.
• Stakeholders like community groups can help identify employers to target to
maximize the impact of enforcement actions. (See Recommendation 3 below.)
b. Send teams of investigators to conduct unannounced, workplace-wide audits
of selected employers in targeted high-violation industries. Avoid establishing
identifiable patterns for investigations (e.g. time of year, time of day).
c. Begin enforcement actions to correct violations identified in investigations,
and conduct comprehensive (unannounced) re-inspections of employers where
violations were found.
d. Collect data on violations discovered during workplace-wide audits to compile
“compliance surveys” that document changing industry trends.
e. Communicate the results of enforcement efforts to industry groups, community
groups, and the public.
8 PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS
Success Story: New York State Attorney General’s
Greengrocer Campaign18
In 2002, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s Labor Bureau took proactive steps to
stem the tide of workplace violations in New York City’s greengrocer industry, establishing a
voluntary “Greengrocer Code of Conduct.” The Code established a set of minimum conditions
for greengrocer employers, including that they: pay the minimum wage and overtime required
by law; provide for reasonable sick and vacation days and days of rest; attend a state labor law
seminar; display a poster about the Code; and maintain payroll records and allow the attorney
general to access to such records. While the Code was voluntary, greengrocers who agreed to
abide by the Code received two major benefits: they avoided investigations into past violations
of employment laws, and they could display a Code of Conduct seal in their stores.
The Code has had some success in its early implementation. Monitors found that greengrocers
who signed the Code remained in the program, and were largely in compliance with minimum
wage and overtime requirements. As Hofstra Law Professor Matthew Bodie assessed, “If
greengrocers continue to sign up and comply with the Code’s requirements, the Code will have
succeeded in completely reshaping the employment landscape for hundreds of greengrocer
workers.”
Recommendation 3
Partner with community and labor groups for expertise and worker outreach
“Our organization has worked closely with the United States Department of Labor with
good results. For the last year and a half, we referred various cases to them for non-payment
of wages and overtime, especially in the restaurant industry, and many employers have
been forced to pay their workers through this effort. We have had less success with the
New York State DOL, though. We have sent workers there, but the process takes a very
long time. Even when they find that the employer owes a worker back wages, they do not
exert real pressure to make them pay.”
– Jaime Vargas, organizer at The Workplace Project on Long Island
Low-wage industries constitute a moving target for the NYSDOL, with employer strategies that are
complex and continually changing. In some industries, unscrupulous employers have developed
techniques for concealing workplace violations from inspectors (for example, garment factories
relocate often to evade detection). Other industries are characterized by numerous small workplaces,
making it difficult to identify common employers (for example, one individual may own a series of
seemingly unconnected small retail stores through different corporate entities). The NYSDOL also
faces challenges in reaching out to impacted workers in these industries to educate them about their
legal rights and to tap their knowledge of violations due to language barriers and fear of retaliation.
(See Recommendation 4 below).
New York’s community and labor groups are in a unique position to help the NYSDOL. Workers in
high-violation industries often turn to local organizations that they trust for help in enforcing their
PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS 9
rights. As a result, many community and labor groups have developed strong networks of affected
workers and are the best source of information on high-violation industries. Because of their reach
in local communities, they also have the ability to assemble larger cases against egregious employers.
And on a day-to-day basis, they serve as advocates who can assist the NYSDOL by strategically
referring cases and (with proper training) helping workers fill out forms.
Suggested Administrative Reforms
The NYSDOL should use local community and labor groups as a resource for
understanding industry violations and conducting worker outreach:
1. Coordinate with community and labor groups to inform investigation-driven
enforcement, working with them to:
a. Strategically select high-violation industries to target;
b. Identify key employers that establish industry practices and that are egregious
offenders, against whom enforcement actions would have the greatest impact;
c. Understand common industry violations and the means by which they may be
concealed from investigators; and
d. Provide ongoing support to investigators about emerging industry trends.
2. Improve the NYSDOL’s resolution of individual complaints by working with
community groups to identify trends in violations and improve investigations.
a. Engage in regular meetings with community and labor groups to identify trends
in violations that they have documented among their clients and/or constituent
communities.
b. Allow community and labor groups to assist the NYSDOL as it investigates
workers’ complaints for example by sharing information (with the worker’s
permission).
3. Partner with community and labor groups to educate workers about their rights
and the NYSDOL’s services.
a. Hold an annual training for community and labor groups to teach them how
to complete forms and document violations in a way that is most helpful for the
NYSDOL’s investigators.
b. Partner with community groups to have departmental materials translated and/
or checked for readability.
c. Disseminate the NYSDOL’s outreach materials through the worker networks of
community groups.
10 PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS
Success Story: Partnerships with Community Groups
In several states, government officials are partnering with community groups to facilitate the
filing of wage complaints and to improve enforcement of state labor standards. Two such
examples are California’s Coalition of Immigrant Worker Advocates and the Chicago Area
Workers Rights Initiative, which have used government partnerships to advance workers’
rights in industries such as day labor construction, restaurants, and garment manufacturing.
California’s labor agency has institutionalized an innovative community-government partnership
by creating the Low-Wage Industries Office (LWIO). The LWIO works with groups such as the
Coalition of Immigrant Worker Advocates to improve enforcement of California’s labor laws
on behalf of low-wage workers. The LWIO, through a statewide Low-Wage Industry Advisory
Board, works to strategically bring more government resources to the low-wage industries
that are most in need of additional labor law enforcement. The LWIO, among other things,
educates the public about workers’ rights, expands access to speakers with limited English
proficiency, and facilitates the complaint process for low-wage workers.
Meanwhile, the Chicago Area Workers Rights Initiative (CAWRI) partners with Illinois Attorney
General Lisa Madigan to identify which employers to target for enforcement. For instance, the
Chicago Interfaith Committee on Worker Issues, a CAWRI member, collects data on violations
faced by members to help identify high-violation industries so that the attorney general can
investigate. Increased enforcement is sending signals to employers and workers around the
Chicago area that employers must comply with these basic labor laws.
Recommendation 4
Improve responsiveness to the needs of immigrant workers
“The state Department of Labor provides inadequate services for workers with limited
English proficiency. They do not have forms available in Spanish or other languages that
workers speak. Some of our clients have tried to file complaints with the state DOL, but
were told to come back another day because there were no Spanish-speaking investigators
available. Many of our members are immigrants who fear approaching government agencies
anyway because they fear retaliation or harassment aimed at their families and friends,
regardless of whether they themselves have immigration status. Worse yet, the state DOL
recently told a client that he could not file a claim if he didn’t have immigration status. This
discourages workers who have been exploited from coming forward. The state DOL is not
an immigration enforcement agency and should not be acting like one.”
– Julissa Bisono, coordinator of the Immigrant Workers Program at the
Latin American Integration Center in Queens
It is well established as a matter of law that a worker’s immigration status is not relevant when
investigating wage-and-hour violations. The New York State attorney general has issued an opinion
letter confirming that the NYSDOL has the authority to enforce wage violations on behalf of workers
regardless of their immigration status.19 In addition, the federal Privacy Act limits the collection of
workers’ social security numbers.20
PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS 11
Unfortunately, there is a perception among immigrant communities that the NYSDOL is screening
complaints on the basis of immigration status. Whatever the source, this perception creates an
additional barrier to recovering lost wages for immigrant workers, who (like all workers) are already
deterred from filing claims by a more general fear of retaliation.
Beyond these systemic obstacles to filing claims, another challenge for wage enforcement is that a large
percentage of New York’s workforce is limited English proficient (LEP). Census data indicate that the
most common languages spoken by immigrant workers include Spanish, French, Korean, Chinese,
Haitian Creole, Urdu, Bengali, Russian, and many others. Yet currently, despite a department-wide
plan for providing “meaningful access to its services” for those with limited English proficiency,21
adopted consistent with federal mandates,22 the NYSDOL lacks sufficient resources to communicate
effectively with these workers while resolving complaints, let alone to reach out and inform workers
of their workplace rights.
Suggested Administrative Reforms
The NYSDOL should improve its responsiveness to the needs of immigrant workers:
1. Identify agency actions that create the perception that the NYSDOL is screening
based on immigration status, and discontinue these practices.
a. Suspend any requirements that individuals provide social security numbers to
investigators a practice that is inconsistent with sound public policy and the
federal Privacy Act. Requiring social security numbers deters workers from
filing wage claims, and is not necessary for assessing a wage claim’s validity. The
negative consequences of this practice outweigh any administrative convenience
it might provide. Concrete steps to eliminate this practice include:
• Conform the NYSDOL’s complaint form to the requirements of the Privacy
Act by eliminating the space for social security numbers or providing an
explanation that providing a social security number is not required;
• Inform staff not to ask for social security numbers improperly when
investigating a complaint; and
• Educate the public that it is not required to provide a social security number.
b. Perform an audit of other investigation procedures that might improperly send
workers the signal that the NYSDOL screens claims based on immigration status.
Take steps to dispel these perceptions.
2. Use formal statements and community outreach to send workers a strong signal
that the NYSDOL neither enforces immigration law nor screens claimants based
on immigration status.
3. Improve the resources available to workers with limited English proficiency.
a. Develop and implement a procedure for determining the languages spoken by
workers in each region of the state, based on census data and information from
local community groups.
b. Ensure that NYSDOL staff speak key languages and provide adequate translation
and interpretation services for workers in the full range of languages identified.
12 PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS
c. Coordinate with community groups to reach out to workers with limited English
proficiency, including translating printed materials into a broader range of
languages and providing public education to alert workers to these new policies
and programs. The attorney general’s office has done this successfully in the past
to alert communities to minimum wage increases.
Recommendation 5
Improve coordination with other state & local enforcement agencies to protect workers
“In working with a group of night-time janitors, we discovered that not only were they
paid grossly below the minimum wage, with no overtime, they were also subject to
really outrageous health and safety risks on the job. The workers were routinely locked
inside the stores they cleaned overnight without any means of getting out in case of an
emergency. Our experience organizing with workers, especially immigrant workers, is
that they rarely face just one problem.”
– Artemio Guerra, director of organizing at the Fifth Avenue Committee in Brooklyn
Low-wage workers rarely experience only one workplace violation. Employers who pay less than the
minimum wage will often try to cut costs in other ways for example, by skimping on health and
safety protections. If the NYSDOL trained its Division of Labor Standards inspectors to recognize
a range of other workplace violations, the inspectors could refer these violations to other NYSDOL
divisions or to other state and local enforcement agencies.
Coordinating the enforcement of these laws not only increases efficiency, it also raises the stakes for
potential violators. Employers would have increased incentives to comply with wage-and-hour laws
if violations resulted in greater scrutiny of their compliance with other laws and regulations, ranging
from building codes to health-and-safety protections.
Suggested Administrative Reforms
The NYSDOL should coordinate with state and local agencies that protect workers’
rights in the workplace:
1. Train the state’s wage-and-hour investigators to identify other NYSDOL-enforced
violations and refer them as appropriate.
a. For example, refer prevailing wage violations to the NYSDOL Bureau of Public
Work or to the New York City Comptroller’s office.
2. Partner with agencies that protect workers’ rights and enforce wage-and-hour,
health-and-safety, right-to-organize, and anti-discrimination laws.
a. Train investigators to recognize a range of these basic violations, and increase
cross-agency referrals to protect workers’ rights.
b. Establish formal collaborations with other agencies, organized by region or by
industry, as appropriate.
c. Publish joint-agency “know your rights” educational materials for workers
covering various workplace protections and how to enforce them.
PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS 13
3. Strategically refer appropriate cases to the New York attorney general for high-
impact enforcement actions.
a. Consider the relevant factors in deciding which cases to refer: the higher burden
of proof required for a criminal prosecution; the potential deterrent value of
criminally prosecuting high-profile cases; and the attorney general’s enhanced
subpoena and deposition power.
b. In significant cases, the NYSDOL and the attorney general can work together to
make the most of their respective grants of legal authority. The NYSDOL has the
legal authority to investigate proactively (without a complaint), while the attorney
general can use subpoenas and discovery (including depositions) to gather more
information once the NYSDOL asks them to pursue an action.
Success Story: Inter-Agency Coordination
At the urging of the Chicago Interfaith Committee on Worker Issues, the Illinois Workers
Compensation Commission (IWCC) has entered into a strategic partnership with the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to improve workplace safety. IWCC
and OSHA realized that Workers Compensation claims rarely arise without health-and-safety
violations, and vice versa. They have therefore entered into an information-sharing agreement
that allows the agencies to alert each other when claims are filed. Each agency can leverage the
others’ investigative resources to identify violators and target enforcement.
Recommendation 6
Make the NYSDOL more accessible, accountable, and transparent
“[Federal law] calls on agencies to identify their core missions, establish meaningful
challenging goals, and develop measures that will give Congress, the public and the
agencies themselves a clear indication of the extent to which progress is being made
towards the intended program results. [The law] requires agencies to develop strategic
plans, structure their goals and measures, and focus their energies on achieving significant
improvements in program results.”
– United States Department of Labor, 1999-2000 Report on Initiatives 4 (2001)
In order to successfully implement the reforms outlined in this report, the NYSDOL will need
to generate and analyze data so that it can continually monitor its effectiveness and fine-tune its
strategies. Those data should also be reported to the public, allowing advocates, lawmakers, and
other stakeholders to assist in monitoring the agency’s performance. And publicizing enforcement
efforts will send an important signal to employers that the risks of getting caught for violating wage-
and-hour laws are growing.
Currently, the NYSDOL makes only very limited summary enforcement data available to the public.
As a result, stakeholders are unable to judge the agency’s effectiveness and employers are unaware of its
enforcement efforts.
14 PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS
Suggested Administrative Reforms
The NYSDOL should take steps to make the agency more accessible, accountable, and
transparent:
1. Provide comprehensive data on complaint-driven and investigation-driven
enforcement, broken down by month.
a. Individual complaints (by month): Data should include (1) number of new
individual complaints filed (by type of violation including underpayments and
failure to pay wages); (2) number of individual complaints resolved (by type of
resolution); (3) wages owed versus wages recovered for individual complaints; (4)
number of pending individual complaints; and (5) model settlements.
b. Investigation-driven enforcement (by month): Data should include (1) number
of workplaces proactively investigated (i.e. not triggered by an individual
complaint); (2) resulting enforcement actions commenced; (3) wages recovered
through investigations; and (4) workplaces reinvestigated after previous violations
discovered.
2. Record the detailed industry classification code (NAICS) of any employer involved
in a complaint or investigation-driven enforcement action.
a. Publish comprehensive enforcement data (described above) by major industry
groups.
b. Make detailed industry breakdowns available to the public upon request without
requiring a formal request under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).
3. Make key forms, policy manuals, and procedures available to the public in a variety
of languages.
a. Work with community groups to help translate materials as appropriate.
4. Improve the agency’s communication with the public regarding its enforcement
activities.
a. Conduct affirmative outreach to inform workers, employers, and community
groups around the state of the NYSDOL’s new enforcement strategies.
b. Provide on-line access to information about enforcement actions so that state
and local governments and consumers can make informed choices about the
businesses they patronize.
c. Respond to additional requests for data made pursuant to the FOIL within
statutorily mandated timeframes.
PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS 15
Legislative Enhancements
All of the reforms proposed above may be implemented using the NYSDOL’s existing (and
substantial) legal authority. Nonetheless, in the longer term, the NYSDOL will require additional
authority to improve its enforcement of wage-and-hour laws. The National Employment Law Project’s
publication, Holding the Wage Floor, provides a comprehensive list of legislative enhancements that
would intensify and broaden the impact of the NYSDOL and encourage more workers to seek relief
from the agency.23 However, even within the immediate context of the administrative reforms that
are the focus of this report, three categories of legislation could be especially important:
1. Ensure that workers and the beneficiaries of their work are properly classified
as “employees” and “employers,” respectively, so that workers are adequately
protected. For example, establish a presumption that workers in targeted low-wage
industries are “employees” rather than “independent contractors.” New Mexico law
provides this presumption in the construction industry, while Massachusetts law
does so for all service industries. Arizona’s new minimum wage law provides that an
employer has the burden of proving that an employee is an independent contractor
by clear and convincing evidence.
2. Strengthen the consequences for employment law violations so that unscrupulous
employers are deterred from relying on violations as a business practice. For
example, increase the damages and civil penalties available for violations. While New
York provides liquidated damages of an additional 25% of the unpaid wages, states
such as Arizona, Florida, and Ohio provide damages equal to 200% of the unpaid
wages, in addition to back wages owed.
3. Protect workers from adverse employment actions for enforcing their rights
under wage-and-hour laws. For example, establish a presumption that adverse
employment actions are retaliatory in nature if they are taken shortly after a worker
asserts his or her rights. Arizona provides such a rebuttable presumption that adverse
employment actions taken within 90 days of a worker asserting his or her rights are
retaliatory in nature.
Acknowledgements
This report is a project of the Campaign to End Wage Theft and its supporting organizations, with
substantive contributions provided by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Make
the Road By Walking, MFY Legal Services, Inc., the National Employment Law Project, the New York
Immigration Coalition, and the Workers’ Rights Law Center of New York, Inc. Special thanks to Andrew
Elmore for his insights, to Fordham University School of Law students Ilana Friedman, Daniel Gross,
Nicholas Mitchell, and Sarah Munro for their excellent research, and to the many advocates and experts
who commented and shared ideas.
For the executive summary or additional copies of this report, please visit the following website:
http://www.brennancenter.org/nysdolreform.html. For more information about this document or about
the campaign, contact Milan Bhatt at the New York Immigration Coalition, 212-***-**** ext. 233,
******@*******.***; or Raj Nayak at the Brennan Center for Justice, 212-***-****, ***.*****@***.***.
16 PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS
Endnotes
Domestic Workers United & Datacenter, Home Is Where the Work Is: Inside New York’s Domestic Work
1
Industry 2 (2006), http://www.domesticworkersunited.org/homeiswheretheworkis.pdf.
New York Jobs with Justice, et al., Is Your Gourmet Grocery a Sweatshop? A Report on Working Conditions at
2
Upscale Groceries in New York City 5 (2005), http://brennancenter.org/stack_detail.asp?key=97&subkey=9916.
Make the Road by Walking & Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, Street of Shame: Retail Stores on
3
Knickerbocker Avenue 2-3 (2005), http://www.maketheroad.org/publications/reports/mrbw_streetshameeng_may05.pdf.
R estaurant Opportunities Center of New York, Behind the Kitchen Door: Pervasive Inequality in New York
4
City’s Thriving Restaurant Industry 14 (2005), http://www.rocny.org/documents/RocNY_final_compiled.pdf
Abel Valenzuela Jr. & Edward Meléndez, Day Labor in New York: Findings from the New York Day Labor
5
Survey ii (2003).
To measure compliance, USDOL asked its regional wage-and-hour offices throughout the country to conduct a series of
6
randomized compliance surveys, targeting key low-wage industries. Each local office followed up with pre-test site investigations
to determine whether to conduct a full compliance study and follow-up enforcement investigations. See United States
Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration Wage and Hour Division, 1999-2000 Report on
Initiatives (Feb. 2001). Since then, no further data has been reported.
Id. at 13.
7
New York State Department of Labor, Nonfarm Employment by Industry (NAICS) (Oct. 2006), http://www.labor.
8
state.ny.us/workforceindustrydata/apps.asp?reg=nys&app=emp.
The NYSDOL’s current training manual discourages investigators from obtaining an Order to Comply and instructs them
9
instead to look for “business friendly options” for resolving a complaint.
In a meeting with advocates on January 18, 2005, NYSDOL representatives verified that as a matter of course, they pursue
10
only two years’ of back wages despite the fact that state law provides them the authority to seek back wages for six years. At
the same meeting, the NYSDOL confirmed that they do not seek liquidated damages available to workers, nor the damages
authorized by the Unpaid Wages Prohibition Act.
N YSDOL representatives indicated in a meeting with advocates on April 5, 2005, that the agency does not seek to enforce
11
wage claims against individual owners and directors as the law allows unless the employer corporation has declared
bankruptcy or unless they are pursuing a criminal action.
See National Employment Law Project, 1099’d: Misclassification of Employees as “Independent Contractors”
12
(July 2005).
See Special Task Force for the Apparel Industry, 2005 Annual Report 7, 9-10 (2006), http://www.labor.state.ny.us/
13
agencyinfo/PDFs/AITF%20Annual%20Report%202005.pdf.
Id. at 14-15.
14
Id. at 13.
15
See, e.g., Andrew Elmore, Comment, State Joint Employer Liability Laws and Pro Se Back Wage Claims in the Garment
16
Industry, 49 UCLA L. Rev. 395, 420 (2001).
See forthcoming report by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
17
See Matthew T. Bodie, The Potential for State Labor Law: The New York Greengrocer Code of Conduct, 21 Hofstra Emp. L.J.
18
183, 185-86 (2003-04).
Op. N.Y. Att’y Gen. 2003-F3, http://www.oag.state.ny.us/labor/AG%20Hoffman%20Opinion%202003_F3.pdf
19
See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act).
20
New York State Department of Labor, Limited English Proficiency Plan (Apr. 2005).
21
See 29 C.F.R § 31, Exec. Order No. 13,166, 65 Fed. Reg. 50,121 (Aug. 16, 2000).
22
National Employment Law Project, Holding the Wage Floor (Oct. 2006), http://nelp.org/docUploads/Holding%20t
23
he%20Wage%20Floor2%2Epdf.
PROTECTING NEW YORK’S WORKERS 17
Contact this candidate