XPX Chapters
Exit Planning Exchange XPX Tri-State Chapters!
The Tri-State Chapters include exit planning associations in New York, Hartford CT, Fairfield County CT, New Jersey and Long Island. Each Chapter below is an active community that also benefits from shared activities, membership and sponsorship opportunities.
Advisor Professions
Accountants
Attorneys
Bankers
Coaches
Consultants
Insurance Providers
Investors
M&A Intermediaries
Non-Profits
Valuators
Virtual managers
Wealth Planners
The Latest News – XPX Tri-State
Latest – XPX Tri-State
As we enter 2025, businesses face a rapidly evolving employment law landscape shaped by dynamic shifts across all three branches of government. With a new president set to take office, significant developments at the Supreme Court, and the Republicans securing control of Congress, 2025 is shaping up to be a year defined by upheaval. Each branch of government will be different than any of us have seen in decades. The Executive Branch First and foremost, Donald Trump’s second presidential term is set to begin on January 20. Over the last four years, the Biden administration, known for their pro-employee policies, ushered in a wave of regulations aimed at expanding worker protections. Conversely, the Trump administration is expected to continue their pro-employer, laissez-faire approach that prioritized deregulation and employer flexibility during his first term. (Interestingly, the Trump Administration has started supporting more union issues and no one knows how that will impact his second term.) Significantly, labor and employment law developments often arise from action on behalf of various agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and the Department of Labor (“DOL”). Because these agencies are part of the Executive branch, the president is effectively charged with overseeing them, and therefore plays a significant role in the implementation of their policies. Employers should expect Trump to utilize these agencies to implement his pro-business agenda. It is worth noting, however, that a 2024 Supreme Court decision (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine, a legal principle that directed courts to defer to federal agency’s interpretations of law that agency is empowered to enforce. As a result of this decision, the Executive branch was effectively weakened, shifting greater interpretative authority to the Judicial branch. It will be interesting to see how much impact this change will have on the balance of power among our branches of government. The Judicial Branch Loper was not the only Supreme Court decision in 2024 that contributed to the shift in power in favor of the Judicial branch. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturned the landmark abortion decision Roe v. Wade. Historically, courts, including the Supreme Court, follow precedent created by earlier decisions. But now the Supreme Court showed its willingness to overturn longstanding precedent based on a difference in their opinion of what is right or wrong. This shift away from strict adherence to precedent allows the Supreme Court greater latitude to reinterpret past decisions. With more flexibility to pursue a wider range of cases, as well as greater interpretive authority, the Judicial branch is shaping up to be much more powerful than it has been in the past. The Legislative Branch Lastly, in the 2024 election, the Republicans secured a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This means that the Legislative branch will have broad authority to enact their agenda over the next two years. Additionally, with Donald Trump in the White House, the likelihood of presidential vetoes decreases significantly. This alignment will increase the likelihood that Congress will pass more new laws than is typically seen under a divided legislature. As a result, employers should closely monitor what new laws Congress enacts. Employer Takeaways Overall, the three branches of government are all undergoing significant changes. Donald Trump is likely to resume his pro-employer agenda, albeit with a slightly weakened Executive branch in the wake of the Loper decision. The Judicial branch is as powerful as ever, exemplified by the Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn longstanding precedent. Lastly, with Republicans in control of both the Senate and the House, the Legislative branch is primed for significant activity through 2026. With all these changes taking place, it is crucial for businesses to keep abreast of developments in labor and employment laws to ensure compliance and minimize legal risk in the new year. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state, and federal employment laws. If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.
On November 4, 2024, NYC Mayor Eric Adams signed into law the Safe Hotels Act (Int. No. 991-C) aiming to promote hotel safety and boost tourism. The Act, taking effect May 3, 2025, requires hotel licenses, restructuring of employment agreements, and a number of new staffing requirements. Hotel License Requirements Hotel operators defined as persons who own, lease, or manage a hotel, and control day-to-day operations, must obtain a hotel license from the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DWCP) to legally operate a hotel. Hotel operators must file an application with the Commissioner of the DWCP to obtain a license. The application must contain contact information as well as details of safeguards and procedures which show the hotel is in compliance with the Act’s staffing, safety, employment, and cleanliness requirements. The application will differ if the operator has a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with a union. If the operator has a CBA which contains the required information and references the CBA in their application this may satisfy the Acts notification rules. The notification requirement will be satisfied for the term of the CBA or 10 years from the date of the application (whichever is longer). The commissioner must be notified if there are changes to the CBA which remove references to the Act’s requirements. The hotel license may be denied or revoked if operators fail to comply with the Act, however there are a number of notice requirements for the Commissioner prior to revoking a license. The Commissioner must notify the licensee of a potential revocation in writing. The licensee must be given 30 days from the notification to remedy the violation and this notice must be in writing. A license will not be revoked if it can be demonstrated that the condition has been resolved in the 30-day period. Evidence of this correction can be delivered electronically or in person. Upon the Commissioner’s decision, the licensee has 15 days to request a review of the decision. A license will not be revoked in the following situations: service disruptions such as construction work noise; conditions that the hotel is aware of and treats within 24 hours such as bed bugs, rodents, etc.; unavailability of hotel amenities for a period of 48 hours; unavailability of utilities for a period of 24 hours; and importantly any strike, picketing, lockout, or demonstration at or by the hotel. Hotel operators must display their license in a public area. Employment Agreement Requirements The Act requires hotel owners, with 100 or more guest rooms, “directly employ” all “core employees”, except a single hotel operator to manage operations on the owner’s behalf. This rule effectively eliminates intermediaries such as staffing agencies or management companies. Core employees include those whose work relates to housekeeping, front desk, or front service. Valets, maintenance workers, parking security, and employees mostly working with food and beverages are not considered core employees. This provision greatly impacts employers who utilize subcontractors; however some contracting agreements may be grandfathered in if they are entered into prior to the effective date and have a specific termination date. Violating this provision may serve as the basis of license revocation. Staffing Requirements In order to maintain safe conditions for guests and hotel workers, the Act implements a number of new staffing requirements. One employee must provide front desk coverage at all times (during night shifts a security guard who has received human trafficking training may take this employee’s place). Hotels with more than 400 guest rooms must have a minimum of one security guard providing continuous coverage while any room is occupied. Hotels must maintain cleanliness and not impose fees for daily room cleaning. Core employes must receive training on how to identify human trafficking within 60 days of employment. Hotels must not accept reservations for less than 4 hours. Penalties and What Else Employers Need to Know Hotel operators are strictly prohibited from retaliating against any employee who discloses a potential violation or assists in an investigation. Hotel operators are also prohibited from retaliating against employees who refuse to partake in a dangerous activity that is not part of their job. As previously discussed, noncompliance can result in a hotel operator’s license being revoked, but that is not all. Anyone alleging a violation can seek a civil action within 6 months of the alleged violation. Furthermore, the Act provides for civil penalties which vary based on the number of violations: $500 for a first violation, $1,000 for a second, $2,500 for a third, and $5,000 for subsequent violations. The Commissioner is expected to issue rules by which this law will be enforced. A timetable for their issuance has yet to be set. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws. If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560
Jennifer Abruzzo, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) General Counsel, is continuing her campaign against non-compete agreements. She just issued a memo announcing her office will seek more remedies for employees who are required to sign non-compete agreements. This follows previous statements in which she said non-compete agreements, which affect about 20% of US workers (30 million people), are unlawful. She has expanded her argument to include “stay-or- pay” provisions, stating they restrict workers’ job opportunities which (somehow) discourages unionizing. Non-Compete Agreements The NLRB is currently considering the legality of non-compete agreements under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in a case involving an Indiana HVAC company. In a 2023 memo, Abruzzo explained why overbroad non-compete agreements are unlawful. She explained they hinder an employee’s ability to exercise their rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which protects employees’ rights to take collective action including unionization. Abruzzo’s agenda has faced setbacks. In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) largely noncompete agreements, with some exceptions, however the ban was subsequently
On September 18, 2024, a panel of three Third US Circuit Court of Appeals judges heard oral argument from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Starbucks on the matter of consequential damages. At stake is the NLRB’s power to award damages for direct and foreseeable pecuniary harms that go beyond lost pay and benefits. The award of such things as credit card late payment costs and uninsured medical costs, fees for not timely paying other expenses, etc. are at issue. If such awards are within the NLRB’s authority, the damage awards in NLRB wrongful discharge cases could dramatically rise. Here is how we got to this point. In 2023, the NLRB ordered Starbucks to pay consequential damages in a case of the wrongful termination of two pro-union employees. Damages included “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms incurred as a result of [the employees’ wrongful discharges.]” This case is one of many cases Starbucks faces alleging wrongful discharge of union supporters. If it losses, the monetary cost could be significant. By filing this appeal, Starbucks’s joins companies such as Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s in challenging the NLRB’s constitutional authority to exert such enforcement powers. Traditionally, the Board would order reinstatement, backpay and lost benefits in a case of wrongful termination, however this was expanded in 2022. A Board decision in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2021), held employees who are wrongfully terminated should also receive compensation for other pecuniary losses stemming from the termination. Examples include credit card cost, out of pocket medical expenses, mortgages related fees, etc. Such damages can quickly add up. In this latest Starbucks case, the Third Circuit considered Thryv but also the US Supreme Court’s June ruling in Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and its applicability to the NLRB. In Jarkesy, the Supreme Court found it was unconstitutional for the SEC to impose civil penalties in administrative cases. Such awards need to be awarded in a court. The Third Circuit must decide whether the expanded remedies sought by the NLRB would be considered “legal remedies” typically imposed by the courts as in Jarkesy or “equitable remedies” typically imposed by administrative agencies. Such administrative remedies are intended to benefit the worker rather than unfairly punish employers. The NLRB argued they have the authority to impose the remedies regardless of their status as legal or equitable. Not surprisingly, Starbucks argued allowing the NLRB to issue damages beyond backpay would violate their constitutional right to a jury trial and therefore was unconstitutional. The outcome is pending and regardless, it may well be appealed to the Supreme Court where the authority of various agencies is being curtailed. We will keep you informed. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws. If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560
Passed in June 2024 and signed into law by New York Governor Kathy Hochul on September 5, the Retail Worker Safety Act is set to take effect March 4, 2025. The law mandates protections for retail employees including panic buttons, workplace violence prevention policies, and training. Who is covered? The law explains: Covered employers: any person, entity, business, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or an association employing at least ten retail employees. Retail employees: employees working at a retail store for an employer. Retail Store: a store that sells consumer commodities at retail and which is not primarily engaged in the sale of food for consumption on the premises. The state, any political subdivision of the state, a public authority, or any other government agency is not covered by the law. Key Requirements The Act’s key requirements are the installation of panic buttons, implementation of workplace violence prevention policies, and training. The panic button requirement does not take effect until January 1, 2027, while the other requirements are effective March 2025. Panic Button Employers with more than 500 retail employees nationwide must provide employees with access to panic buttons across the workplace. Employers may opt for a physical button or mobile phone-based buttons. The requirements for each are slightly different. If the employer chooses to use a physical panic button it must contact the local 911 public safety answering point when pressed. Pressing the button must provide the answering point with the employee’s location and dispatch law enforcement. The button must be accessible or wearable. The mobile phone-based approach requires the button to be installed on employer provided equipment and is wearable. The mobile button may not track employee locations unless pressed. Workplace Violence Prevention Policy Employers must adopt a written workplace violence prevention policy to be provided to employees upon hire and annually. The NY Department of Labor (NYDOL) will draft a model plan which will be evaluated every four years from 2027 onwards. Employers may adopt the NYDOL policy or create their own equivalent policy. The policy must: List factors or situations in the workplace which may increase the employees’ risk of workplace violence. Examples given include working late at night or early morning hours; exchanging money with the public; working alone or in small numbers; and uncontrolled access to the workplace. List methods of preventing workplace violence, including but not limited to establishing and implementing a reporting system. Provide information on federal and state laws regarding violence towards retail workers and remedies available for victims of workplace violence. Explicitly state that it is unlawful to retaliate against employees who report workplace violence or factors which place employees at risk of workplace violence. Workplace Violence Prevention Training Employers must provide training upon hire and annually. The NYDOL will provide interactive training which will also be evaluated every four years starting in 2027. Again, employers may opt to use the state provided training or provide their own equivalent. The training must: Include information on the Retail Worker Safety Act; Examples of steps employees can take to protect themselves; De-escalation strategies; Active Shooter drills; Emergency procedures; Instructions on how to use security alarms, panic buttons, and any other emergency devices; and A site-specific list of emergency exits and meeting places to be used in emergencies. Takeaways New York State retail employers should look at the state provided training and policies to adopt as their own or to ensure their own materials are compliant. For employers outside of New York it is important to keep your eyes peeled for creation of similar laws in your own state. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws. If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560
This past Tuesday, US Texas District Court Judge Ada Brown expanded her local injunction against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Chapter Events
Tri-State Gold Sponsors
Tri-State Silver Sponsors
Tri-State Bronze Sponsors
