Excluded from the increase is the minimum wage currently paid to food service and other tipped employees. It appears, however, that minimum wage increases to these employees will be implemented in the future.

As a result of the New York minimum wage increases, as of December 31, 2013, New York's minimum wage rate will be higher than that under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). New York employers will be required to comply with the higher minimum wage rate.

‘(A) for the purposes of employing, promoting, or terminating employment, compels or coerces any person to authorize access, such as by providing a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed, to a protected computer that is not the employer’s protected computer, and thereby obtains information from such protected computer; or

‘(B) discharges, disciplines, discriminates against in any manner, or threatens to take any such action against, any person--

‘(I) for failing to authorize access described in subparagraph (A) to a protected computer that is not the employer’s protected computer; or

‘(ii) who has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this paragraph, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding;’.

The bill contains certain exceptions, which would permit courts to require the disclosure of such passwords if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the information sought "is relevant and material to protecting the intellectual property, a trade secret, or confidential business information" of the employer.

Employers would be permitted to provide compensatory time only if authorized by a collective bargaining agreement, or, for nonunion employees, if the employer and employee enter into a clear written agreement providing for compensatory time. An employee could not be forced to enter into such an agreement. The bill contains other requirements and limitations. Nevertheless, the bill provides employees with an option other than receiving overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40.

The bill is backed by business groups, while other groups see it as an attack on workers' rights. Much of the objection stems from the fact that the bill does not permit an employee to unilaterally decide when to take any compensatory time off. At the same time, employers would still be able to mandate that the employee work extra hours, without having to pay overtime.

On May 15, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") revised its guidance as it relates to several types of impairments, namely, cancer, disability, epilepsy, and intellectual disabilities. As stated by the EEOC Chair, Jacqueline A. Berrien, "Nearly 34 million Americans have been diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, or epilepsy, and more than 2 million have an intellectual disability. Many of them are looking for jobs or are already in the workplace. While there is a considerable amount of general information available about the ADA, the EEOC often is asked questions about how the ADA applies to these conditions."

In Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreaux North America Inc. (11-3361-cv) (April 26, 2013) , the Second Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer on plaintiff's sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation claims. Specifically, the Second Circuit found that the District Court had applied federal standards in determining whether the employer was liable under the NYCHRL

The court summed up its conclusions as follows:

In Barrows v. Seneca Foods Corp., Jeffrey Barrows alleged that his male supervisor, Victor Sanabria, sexually harassed him by touching his genitals and otherwise creating a hostile working environment on the basis of sex. Among other things, Sanabria referred to Barrows as a "faggot" and leveled vulgar sexual comments at him during work. In addition, Barrows alleged that Sanabria had likewise harassed other men in similar fashion, but not women. The District Court for the Western District of New York had previously dismissed the lawsuit, holding that "there was no evidence that [Barrows] had suffered discrimination because of his sex." (emphasis in original).

The Second Circuit reversed, noting that under the Supreme Court's decision in Oncale, the focus on whether sexual harassment has occurred is on "whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment [e.g. hostile work environment] to which members of the other sex are not." Indeed, this is the very essence of a sexual harassment claim, and it does not matter that the harasser and victim are of the same sex. In addition, in order for the sexual harassment to be illegal, it needed to be "severe or pervasive." The Second Circuit held that a jury could find that "Sanabria treated women better than men and that, therefore, men were 'exposed to [a] disadvantageous term[ ] or condition [ ] of employment to which [women] were not.'" (alterations in original).

Same-sex harassment cases tend to cause difficulties for courts because Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. Consequently, the same-sex harassment must rise to the level of sex discrimination in order to be illegal under Title VII. Under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights law, sexual orientation discrimination, including harassment, is illegal. Thus, many same-sex harassment cases are asserted as sexual orientation harassment claims under those New York laws.

In McMillan v. City of New York, it was undisputed that McMillan's disability necessitated treatment that prevented him from arriving to work at a consistent time each day. The Second Circuit noted that although in most contexts, timely arrival at work is considered an essential function of the job, which could render futile any attempts to reasonably accommodate the situation, it was not at all entirely clear whether timely arrival at work was an essential function of McMillan's job. Under McMillan's circumstances, he could offset the time missed with additional work hours in order to complete the essential functions of his job.

Ultimately, McMillan sued the City under the ADA, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, alleging among other things that because the office remained open until 10:00pm, and he often worked past 7:00pm, he would still be able to arrive late and work the requisite number of full time hours per week.

According to the overtime complaint, the named plaintiff was not permitted to "punch in" until after she changed into her uniform, and was forced to punch out prior to changing out of her uniform at the end of her shift. The complaint alleges that, as a result of this "time shaving," her time cards do not accurately reflect the number of hours she was required to work.

The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid leave for a medical or family reason. Among other things, the FMLA entitles an eligible employee to twelve weeks of leave in a 12-month period to care for the "serious health condition" of a son or daughter. In situations where the son or daughter is 18 years old or older, an employee is not permitted to take leave to care for such child unless the child is incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability at the time the FMLA leave begins.

In determining whether the condition qualifies as a mental or physical disability, employer considering leave requests must look to the Americans with Disability Act and related regulations issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which provide a definition of such disabilities.

An individual is incapable of self-care when such individual requires active assistance or supervision to provide daily self-care in three or more of the "activities of daily living" or "instrumental activities of daily living."

Determinations under the FMLA depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of a particular situation.

1- Eliminating Barriers in Recruitment and Hiring. The EEOC intends to target class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin, religion, age, gender (women), and disability.

2- Protecting Immigrant, Migrant and Other Vulnerable Workers. Among other things, the EEOC intends to target disparate pay, job segregation, harassment, trafficking and discriminatory policies affecting those workers who may not be aware of their rights to equal employment opportunity, or are otherwise reluctant to exercise them.

3- Addressing Emerging and Developing Issues.

4- Enforcing Equal Pay Laws. The EEOC will continue to target compensation disparities and practices in the area of gender or sex discrimination.

5- Preserving Access to the Legal System. The EEOC will scrutinize policies and practices that have the effect of discouraging employees from seeking relief under the applicable employment discrimination statutes.

6- Preventing Harassment Through Systemic Enforcement and Targeted Outreach.

The issue in Barenboim turns on the meaning of the term "agent." In Winans, the issue is whether New York Labor Law § 196-d, although prohibiting certain classes of employees from participating in a tip pool, mandates that certain employees be included.

Both cases were filed in federal District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lower courts dismissed both cases, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined that because the issues were novel under New York State law, it would defer their determination and certify them for resolution to New York's highest court -- the New York State Court of Appeals.

Consequently, these fact-specific issues will remain unresolved for now.