Royal

New Amended Lactation Accommodation Policy in New York City

February 11, 2025

Since 2019, New York City law has stated that employers are required to implement and distribute to all employees upon hire a written lactation accommodation policy which includes the right to request a lactation room.


Amendments to this law have been made and will go into effect on May 11, 2025. The changes include:

  • New Posting Requirements- Employers must make the policy “readily available” by physically posting the policy in an area accessible to employees and available electronically in the employer’s intranet if existing.
  • Policy Revisions- Employers must include a statement that the employer will provide 30 minutes of paid break time and shall further permit an employee to use existing break time or mealtime if exceeding 30 minutes. This is in accordance with the newly enacted paid lactation break law.
  • New Distribution Requirement- Requirement changes wording from “upon hire” to “at the commencement of employment” clarifying that employers are not required to provide the policy to employees before their first day of work.


Employer Takeaways:

  • Prepare to comply with updating physical and electronic posting requirements
  • Revise lactation room accommodation policies to include required language
  • Review existing breaktime policies to ensure compliance with paid lactation break requirements


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: