Two significant employment law bills have passed the New York Legislature. If signed by the Governor, they will reshape the agreements workers sign when they start a new job — and when they leave one. Here is what each bill does, why lawmakers say it’s needed, and what it means for you.
The Anti-Waiver of Employment Rights Act (S4424A)
What the Bill Does
The Anti-Waiver of Employment Rights Act, sponsored by Senator Ramos, would make it illegal for employers to require workers to sign away their rights under New York’s Labor Law or Human Rights Law before a dispute ever arises. Under the bill, any such pre-dispute waiver would be automatically void — unenforceable as a matter of law, regardless of what the agreement says.
The bill targets two specific practices that have become common in employment agreements and job applications:
Shortened statutes of limitations. Under normal New York law, employees have a meaningful window — sometimes several years — to bring a wage or discrimination claim. Many employers have buried provisions in their hiring paperwork that purport to cut that window down to just six months or a year. Courts have, in some cases, upheld those provisions. This bill would prohibit them.
Class action waivers outside of arbitration. Some employers include clauses in employment agreements that strip workers of the right to join together in a class action lawsuit — without even requiring arbitration as an alternative. Courts in New York have allowed this. The bill would void those waivers as well.
The Justification
Sponsor Ramos’s memo points to a troubling pattern in the case law. In Hunt v. Raymour & Flanigan, a New York court enforced a six-month limitations clause buried in a job application, blocking a worker from pursuing a discrimination claim that would otherwise have been timely. In Ortegas v. G4S Secure Solutions, a court enforced a similar provision against a plaintiff. In Lee v. Insomnia Cookies, a court upheld a standalone class action waiver in an employment agreement — with no arbitration provision attached.
The common thread: workers, often desperate for a job, are presented with take-it-or-leave-it paperwork at the start of employment and have no meaningful ability to negotiate. They frequently don’t know what they’re signing away, and they have no leverage even if they do. The bill treats these conditions as fundamentally incompatible with a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights.
How This Affects Agreements at the Start of Employment
If signed into law, this bill would have immediate implications for the paperwork workers sign when they are hired:
- Job applications and offer letters containing shortened limitations periods for bringing claims would be unenforceable with respect to those provisions.
- Arbitration agreements and employment contracts containing standalone class action waivers — without any valid arbitration requirement — would be void to the extent they waive rights under the Labor Law or Human Rights Law.
- Any other pre-hire agreement purporting to waive or limit a worker’s rights under those statutes would be treated as if it were never signed.
Importantly, the bill would not invalidate collective bargaining agreements. Dispute resolution procedures negotiated between a union and an employer through the collective bargaining process are expressly carved out.
How This Affects Agreements at the End of Employment
The bill does not eliminate the ability of employers and employees to resolve disputes when employment ends. Post-dispute waivers — signed after a dispute has already arisen — remain valid in two circumstances:
- Settlements of bona fide disputes not raised or initiated by the employer; and
- Severance agreements entered into upon or after separation from employment.
In other words, a legitimate severance agreement where an employee knowingly releases claims in exchange for severance pay would still be enforceable. What changes is that employers can no longer use pre-employment paperwork to quietly strip workers of their rights long before any dispute exists.
The No Severance Ultimatums Act (S372A)
What the Bill Does
The No Severance Ultimatums Act, sponsored by Senators Gianaris and Webb, would require employers who offer severance agreements to give every employee — regardless of age — a meaningful opportunity to review and consider what they are signing.
Specifically, the bill would require that any severance agreement (defined as any agreement requiring an employee to release claims as a condition of receiving separation benefits):
- Notify the employee of their right to consult with an attorney before signing;
- Provide at least 21 calendar days for the employee to consider the agreement; and
- Allow the employee 7 days to revoke the agreement after signing it, with the agreement not taking effect until that revocation period has passed.
An employee who wants to sign earlier than the 21-day period is permitted to do so — but only if the decision is knowing and voluntary, and not the product of fraud, misrepresentation, or threats from the employer.
Violations carry a real consequence: an agreement that fails to comply with these requirements would be void and unenforceable.
The Justification
Current federal law — the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), enacted as part of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act — already requires the 21-day consideration period, attorney consultation notice, and 7-day revocation period for employees age 40 and over who are signing away age discrimination claims.
But workers under 40 have no equivalent protection. Neither do older workers signing away claims under state law rather than federal law. As the sponsor memo explains, there is no principled reason why a 25-year-old facing a company’s legal team with a severance agreement deserves less time and information than a 41-year-old in the same situation. Employers routinely present severance agreements to workers who just lost their jobs, are under financial pressure, and are dealing with the emotional weight of a sudden separation. That is precisely the wrong moment to rush someone into signing away their rights.
The bill draws explicitly on the OWBPA model — a well-established framework that has worked at the federal level — and extends it to all New York workers.
How This Affects Agreements at the End of Employment
Severance agreements are the primary focus of this bill. Under current law, an employer can hand a departing employee a severance agreement and demand a signature the same day, or within a short window. For workers over 40 signing federal ADEA claims, the OWBPA slows that process down. For everyone else, there is no floor.
If the bill becomes law:
- Every employee offered a severance agreement in New York would receive notice that they have the right to consult an attorney.
- Every employee would have at least 21 days to review the agreement — time to speak with a lawyer, understand what claims they are releasing, and make a genuine decision.
- Every employee who signs would still have 7 days to change their mind and revoke.
- An agreement that skips any of these steps would be void — meaning an employer couldn’t collect on a release signed without proper notice and time.
The protections can be waived in a collective bargaining agreement, if the CBA explicitly acknowledges the statutory section. Otherwise, they apply to all private-sector workers in New York, regardless of age or the nature of the claims being released.
How This Affects Agreements at the Start of Employment
The No Severance Ultimatums Act is specifically targeted at severance agreements — agreements tied to an employee’s departure from employment. It does not govern offer letters, employment agreements, or other documents signed at the start of a job. For protections against rights-stripping language in those documents, the Anti-Waiver of Employment Rights Act is the relevant bill.
What to Watch
Both bills have passed the Legislature and but have not been presented to the Governor Hochul for signature. Neither is guaranteed to be signed, and the Governor could propose amendments before enactment.
That said, both reflect a clear direction in Albany: greater scrutiny of agreements that ask employees to give up rights, either at the moment they are hired or the moment they lose their job. If you have questions about an employment agreement or severance package you’ve been asked to sign, speaking with an employment attorney before you sign — not after — is always the right move.
