Employee Rights

New York Civil Rights Law Section 52-c, captioned "Employers engaged in electronic monitoring; prior notice required" went into effect on May 7, 2022.

As laws go, it is fairly short, so I have included the full text below this answer.

What does the law require?  And do those requirements have any special impact and library and other cultural and educational institutions?

The law requires potentially 5 things:

First, the library/museum/historical society/archive/etc. needs to determine if they are considered an "employer" for purposes of this law. 

In that regard, the law helpfully states: "For purposes of this section, employer means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, or association with a place of business in the state. It shall not include the state or any political subdivision of the state."

This means that many institutions who may be a member of a regional library council--private educational institutions, museums, historical societies, association libraries, based in New York--are without question to be considered "employers" under this law.

For school district libraries and special district libraries, or confederated library systems, until there is strong evidence otherwise (for instance, a union contract, policy, or cooperation agreement expressly stating that the library employees are employees of the district or a participating municipality), it will be wise to consider it to apply. 

For municipal libraries and other chartered institutions whose employees are paid and otherwise treated as municipal employees[1], following the municipality's policy on this makes sense...again, until we get firm guidance otherwise.

Second, the library/museum/historical society/archive/etc. needs to determine if they  are "engaged in electronic monitoring", which is the status by which an "employer" (as defined) must comply.

This requires a bit of self-reflection on behalf of the employer.  Looking to the law, the qualifying activities are:

monitoring or otherwise intercepting telephone conversations or transmissions, AND/OR

monitoring or otherwise intercepting electronic mail or transmissions, AND/OR
monitoring or otherwise intercepting internet access or usage of or by an employee

BY USING

any electronic device or system, including but not limited to the use of: a computer, telephone, wire, radio, or electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems.

Whoa.

To truly analyze this, an employer should take a deep look at the way telephone, electronic mail, and Internet usage is monitored at the institution.

Examples of actions that would count as "monitoring" under this law are:

• Listening in on phone calls on another phone line
• Recording and listening to phone calls
• Reading employee e-mail via administrative access
• Using cameras or software to monitor Internet usage

Examples of actions that would NOT count as "monitoring” under this law are:

• Listening in on phone calls because one's desk is nearby
• Listening in on phone calls through the HVAC ducts (although that is creepy)
• Reading employee e-mail over the employee's shoulder (also creepy!)
• One employee reporting that they visually observed another employee online gambling during work, and investigating that claim by asking the employee about it

(Notably, processes that "are designed to manage the type or volume of incoming or outgoing
electronic mail or telephone voice mail or internet usage, that are not targeted to monitor or intercept the electronic mail or telephone voice mail or internet usage of a particular individual, and that are performed solely for the purpose of computer system maintenance and/or protection" do not count as "monitoring.”)

Third, employers who find they are engaging in "monitoring" should assess if the monitoring impacts only one category of employee, or if every employee may be subject to some type of monitoring. This determination should be made in writing, so the required next steps can be carefully documented as having been followed.

Fourth, if the institution is an "employer” under this law, and engages in any of the monitoring described above, it must implement a practice of giving "prior written notice, upon hiring" to all employees who are subject to electronic monitoring. This can be notice given only to a certain category of employees who are so subject, or it can be to every new employee just to be safe. 

Here is a sample pre-hire notice that tracks the language of the law:

Per Section 52-c of the New York Civil Rights Law, prior to your hire, you are advised that per EMPLOYER NAME policy and in furtherance of its mission and legal compliance, any and all telephone conversations or transmissions, electronic mail or transmissions, or internet access or usage by an employee by any EMPLOYER NAME electronic device or system, including but not limited to the use of a computer, telephone, wire, radio or electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems may be subject to monitoring at any and all times and by any lawful means.

It can be delivered either in hard copy, or electronically, but...

Fifth, after giving the pre-hire notice is delivered, the employer must make sure it has been "acknowledged" by the employee (either in writing, or electronically).

Here is a sample acknowledgement that tracks the language of the law:

I acknowledge that prior to my hire, I was advised that any and all telephone conversations or transmissions, electronic mail or transmissions, or internet access or usage by an employee by electronic device or system, including but not limited to the use of a computer, telephone, wire, radio or electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems at EMPLOYER NAME may be subject to monitoring at any and all times and by any lawful means.

NAME:

SIGNATURE [OR METHOD OF ELECTRONIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT]

Sixth, the employer must post the notice in a "conspicuous place" (a place where the other employee notices, such as workers comp coverage are posted, is good), so the employees who are subject to electronic monitoring can see it.

Here is a sample posting notice that tracks the language of the law:

Per Section 52-c of the New York Civil Rights Law, employees are advised that per EMPLOYER NAME policy and in furtherance of its mission and legal compliance, any and all telephone conversations or transmissions, electronic mail or transmissions, or internet access or usage by an employee by any EMPLOYER NAME electronic device or system, including but not limited to the use of a computer, telephone, wire, radio or electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems may be subject to monitoring at any and all times and by any lawful means.

It is interesting to note that unlike other mandatory employee notice laws, the new Section 52-c of the Civil Rights Law does not require specific inclusion in an employee handbook or personnel manual.  This makes sense, however, since most hiring manuals are not provided until after the person has accepted the job, and this law specifically requires that notification be "prior to hire".  So, while there is no harm in including it in that manual as well, it is important not to just rely on inclusion in an employee manual to meet the requirements of the pre-hire notice and acknowledgement.

And what about employers who currently assess their actions and determine that they are not currently engaging in any monitoring or interception that would trip the requirements of this law? Do they not have to make or post the notice?

Unfortunately, I have to urge caution. At any moment, a complaint could be received under a whistleblowing policy or a sexual harassment policy, that requires the employer to use "electronic means" to review computer records, internet use, and records in employee e-mail (and perhaps even recorded voicemail?). While I would argue that it should, the law makes no distinction between employers who routinely engage in such monitoring, and employers who may sporadically use that type of monitoring to address unusual circumstances.

Therefore, for employers whose employees regularly use the Internet and e-mail, it is wise to make this notification.  

That said, there is no restriction on adding a caveat to the posted the notification language, such as:

Per Section 52-c of the New York Civil Rights Law, employees are advised that per EMPLOYER NAME policy and in furtherance of its mission and legal compliance, any and all telephone conversations or transmissions, electronic mail or transmissions, or internet access or usage by an employee by any EMPLOYER NAME electronic device or system, including but not limited to the use of a computer, telephone, wire, radio or electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems may be subject to monitoring at any and all times and by any lawful means. While we make this notification, employees are further notified that during the order ordinary course of business, routine and consistent monitoring is not conducted. However, because EMPLOYER NAME may need to monitor such resources as part of an investigation or under special circumstances, we are notifying the workforce of this possibility, as required by law.

Thank you for a timely and important question.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVR/52-C%2A2

SECTION 52-C*2

Employers engaged in electronic monitoring; prior notice required

Civil Rights (CVR) CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 5

*§ 52-c. Employers engaged in electronic monitoring; prior notice
required. 1. For purposes of this section, employer means any
individual, corporation, partnership, firm, or association with a place
of business in the state. It shall not include the state or any
political subdivision of the state.

2. (a) Any employer who monitors or otherwise intercepts telephone
conversations or transmissions, electronic mail or transmissions, or
internet access or usage of or by an employee by any electronic device
or system, including but not limited to the use of a computer,
telephone, wire, radio, or electromagnetic, photoelectronic or
photo-optical systems, shall give prior written notice upon hiring to
all employees who are subject to electronic monitoring. The notice
required by this subdivision shall be in writing, in an electronic
record, or in another electronic form and acknowledged by the employee
either in writing or electronically. Each employer shall also post the
notice of electronic monitoring in a conspicuous place which is readily
available for viewing by its employees who are subject to electronic
monitoring.

(b) For purposes of written notice required by paragraph (a) of this
subdivision, an employee shall be advised that any and all telephone
conversations or transmissions, electronic mail or transmissions, or
internet access or usage by an employee by any electronic device or
system, including but not limited to the use of a computer, telephone,
wire, radio or electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems
may be subject to monitoring at any and all times and by any lawful
means.

3. The attorney general may enforce the provisions of this section.
Any employer found to be in violation of this section shall be subject
to a maximum civil penalty of five hundred dollars for the first
offense, one thousand dollars for the second offense and three thousand
dollars for the third and each subsequent offense.

4. The provisions of this section shall not apply to processes that
are designed to manage the type or volume of incoming or outgoing
electronic mail or telephone voice mail or internet usage, that are not
targeted to monitor or intercept the electronic mail or telephone voice
mail or internet usage of a particular individual, and that are
performed solely for the purpose of computer system maintenance and/or
protection.

* NB There are 2 § 52-c's

[1] To be clear, even when this is the case, when it comes to public libraries, it is the library's board of trustees who controls hiring, compensation, evaluation, and other terms of employment.  See Education Law 226(7).

I can offer a simple answer, and a complicated answer. 

Here is the simple answer: 

Per the "COVID-19 Sick Leave Law": 

• The current requirement of a public employer is 14 days of PAID leave for quarantine/absence due to COVID-19.   

• A private employer with under 10 employees must provide unpaid sick leave for the entire period of quarantine, during which time the employee can apply for Paid Family Leave benefits ("PFLA").  

• A private employer with between 11 and 99 employees, or with fewer employees, but at least $1 million in annual revenue, must provide 5 days of paid sick leave, after which the employee can apply for PFLA for whatever time they need to be out. 

• For employers with more than 100 employees, the employer must give 14 days. 

In all instances, the time out for COVID must not count against other accrued sick leave. 

And that's it. 

The complicated answer 

As you can see, the obligations under the Covid-19 Paid Sick Leave Law depend on the type and (if private) the size of the employer. 

So, is your library a "public employer?"   

The definition of "public employer" in this law is broader than in many other labor-related laws, so unless your library's HR and employment arrangements are 100% separate from those of the local municipality or sponsoring district, it is wise to consider this applicable (or get it in writing from your lawyer that it isn't). 

Since the library that submitted the question is offering paid sick leave for "most" employees--which means there is a different approach for different employees--it sounds like they have decided the library is not subject to Labor Law 196-b (New York's new "Sick Leave Law"), which applies to only private employers.   

This issue is not an atypical one in New York's "Library land."  Does your library use comp time instead of overtime?  That is an option available only to government employers. Does your library use the federal rather than the state minimum wage?  Only a government employer can do that.  Does your library not have to follow the Wage Theft Prevention Act?  Employers are only exempt if they are a government employer. The list goes on and on.  

[NOTE: A nice exception to this dichotomy is worker's compensation for work-related injury.  EVERYONE has to pay into worker's comp; you could say it is something New York employers all have in common]. 

The bottom line on this "complicated" answer? Make sure your library has clarity about which employment-related laws it decides that apply to it before it implements a COVID-19 Paid Leave policy based on them. And when in doubt, have a lawyer examine the compensation and other aspects of your library's employment arrangements to make the decision that is most consistent with its other employment-related practices. 

Thanks for a great question. And if this "public/private" employer issue has you flummoxed, here is a short poem to help out: 

Library Labor Law Chanty 

What law governs at my library?

What labor laws must we abide?

What legal authorities preside?

Sorry, there's no simple rule

Be you association, town, or school

But here's a few comforting rhymes

To get you through confusing times:

An oath of office is required

When a public library director's hired

Civil service law protects employees

Except at association libraries

Must my library pay state minimum wage?

YES (unless only the FLSA is your gauge)

Do we have to pay overtime?

Not if you're municipal AND grant comp time.

The new sick leave law pays workers' rent

Unless your (sorta) government

And no matter who gets COVID-19

Employees ALL get paid during quarantine.

What if we offer NYS retirement?

Just that doesn't make you government.

But if HR's handled by your municipality

You might just be a public agency.

What if there's a union contract?

That can change everything, that's a fact.

And don't forget your HR handbook

Should be based on the "type" of path you took.

Yes, there IS legal variety

caused by the "types" of library

But despite inconsistencies

One thing's always true: director hired by trustees.

And regardless of type or identity

And despite any support or interdependency

No matter what your answers to the questions three

Your library has... autonomy.

This question is an example of why clear, precise writing is so important.

To make sure no reader is in suspense, first I'll answer the member's question: I intended the guidance to convey the member's interpretation (with the information about accession, cataloging and appeal policy being supplied only after a parent expresses concern).

Re-reading my answer, I can see how the member’s president interpreted this guidance not as a reaction, but as a preemptive strategy to head off parental concerns.[1]  But that is NOT the guidance I intended, and I have since added a footnote[2] to the original posting to clarify that.[3]

While I have your attention on this, I will add: except for factors required by law (like requiring working papers, limiting certain activities in certain industries, and abiding by child labor laws), I don't advise treating minor employees differently than any other employee. If a library wouldn't contact the parents of a 40-year-old worker to alert them to the fact that, from time to time, a library worker may be exposed to content or communications they find objectionable, it shouldn't be done for a 17-year-old either. Except for when it is required by law, employees should not be differentiated by age, just as they should not be differentiated by gender, race, or religion.

Thank you very much to the member for giving me this chance to post a clarification, and this caveat.

[1] That is what I get for using a buzzword like "pro-active."  Although...is it a "buzzword" anymore? What happens when a buzzword gets tired?  Is it a "dunzzword"? 

[2] Here is the footnote: "We received a request for clarification about when to use this tactic.  As posted in the clarification here [https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/241] I intended this guidance to convey that the information about accession, cataloguing and appeal policies be supplied only after a parent expresses concern."

[3] I could of course just have made an edit, but we don't hold with that 1984-style memory adjustment here.

[NOTE: for background to this short answer, please see the much longer "Ask the Lawyer" Background checks and fingerprinting for new employees, that addresses the tightrope walk/legal minefields of employee background checks.]

So, does a school district public library[1] implementing a background check for new employees have to also check their current ones?

The answer is: no; barring an over-ruling requirement (such as a term in a union contract) a library board can implement a background check policy for all hires going forward, without imposing a "retroactive check" requirement for current employees. 

However, I would never advise that approach.  Here are three reasons why:

1.  Possible discrimination

A policy to only check the backgrounds of "new" employees could have a disproportionate impact on candidates on the basis of age, or gender, or race (to name a few).  By not checking everyone, an employer risks the appearance of (or actual occurrence of) illegal discrimination.

2.  Possible liability

Employee background check policies are implemented to reduce risk.  If an employer is using employee background checks to reduce risk, there should be a very good reason for not checking all employees (such as a union contract that bars it[2]), or the employer risks a claim of negligence.

3.  Worker relations

A work environment should be a place of high trust.  By subjecting one class of employees ("new" employees) to heightened scrutiny, in addition to the possible concern mentioned above in "1," it creates an unbalanced environment for trust.  This is bad for morale.

I appreciate that background checks can come with a cost, so minimizing their frequency is helpful.  I encourage any library implementing such a policy to check with their "Directors & Officers Insurance" carrier, since sometimes, carriers offer resources to defray and even pick up the costs of the check.

Thank you for a thoughtful question.

[1] Of course, if a school district public library is in a school (not a common scenario; school district public libraries are largely autonomous and separate from school district property), and if the librarians are on the payroll of the district, then they are already being background checked and fingerprinted, per the chart here: http://www.nysed.gov/educator-integrity/who-must-be-fingerprinted-charts.  Of course, this question pre-supposes that the board is setting the hiring policy, which means the library is autonomous.

[2] Just to be clear, a contractual obligation to not conduct criminal background checks should never be in a collective bargaining agreement!  However, some reasonable restrictions on the scope of such a check would be consistent with NY law and policy.

Before answering this question, I have one over-arching comment: the member who sent this inquiry was wise to submit the question when they did; it is not the type of question to be handled without the input of a pro.[1]

Why is that?  This type of situation is, of course, riddled with legal pitfalls.  ADA, FMLA, paid sick leave law, workers' comp law, OSHA, union contract (if relevant), NY Civil Rights law, personal injury law, employee manual compliance...the list of legal considerations is lengthy.

But just as, if not more critical--and often buried in all the legal--is the fact that a place that "fires" a worker after they were injured in the line of duty risks seeming...heartless.  Mean.  Cruel...or at least, unfeeling.

Fortunately, focusing on the human sides of this type of issue (how is the employee doing?  Are they getting everything they need from the library's comp carrier?  Might their doctor clear them for light duty? How has the injury impacted their family? How are co-workers handling the loss of their co-worker's contributions?) will actually build the best framework for taking care of all the details that are "legal."

How can that happen?  With the pro helping them do things like: drafting a leave letter, developing an interim staffing plan, and planning for the employee's return to work, the Board has time to focus on the human factors.

So, how long can a library hold open a job while an employee is out on disability due to a work-related injury?  There are too many factors to give a numerical answer.  This is one where a library, museum, archive, historical society, etc. should seek a professional[2] to get a custom response--enabling leadership to focus their energies on concern for the employee, the workforce, the community, and the library.

[1] The "pro" I refer to does not have to be an attorney.  They can be an experienced HR professional or administrator. 

[2] This is one where your System or your regional council's "Ask the HR Expert" service can be an invaluable resource.

This...is a big question.  It's only three short paragraphs.  But it's BIG.

It's "BIG" because the risks of getting this topic wrong are immense--from not only the obvious risks involving legal concerns, but risks involving ethics, privacy, and the goal at the heart of the issue: safety.

It's also BIG because the phrase "background check" is not tied to a precise or static definition.  When someone says "background check" in the context of employment, here are just a few of the things it could mean:

• Criminal background check
• Credit check
• Military service separation check (form "DD 214")
• Motor Vehicle Records ("MVR") check
• Transcript and education records check (including student disciplinary records)
• Licensing/professional oversight body (medical board, bar association, etc.) check/confirmation of good standing
• Civil litigation history review
• Reference check
• Previous employment verification
• Social media/publications check

Each of these "checks" comes with a wide array of legal requirements--or typical legal cautions--governing its use.

For instance:

• A criminal background check should only be used by an organization if it has an up-to-date "Criminal Background Check Policy," because in the state of New York, denying employment based on a criminal conviction requires the employer to do a precise analysis (of which the denied applicant can request a copy).[1]
• A credit check should only be used by an organization if it has an up-to-date "Credit Check Policy" to ensure the regulations in the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") are being followed.[2]
• A MVR should only be used by an organization if it has an up-to-date "MVR Check Policy" that clearly sets out the types of moving violations and other records that would flag a basis for non-employment.[3]

For all types of checks, the institution using them should have a clear policy governing what jobs require them, and how such records are evaluated, maintained, and disposed of.

And finally: when developing, implementing, and routinely using any type of background check policy, an organization is wise to take care that it is not incorporating factors that can be shown to disproportionately negatively impact (i.e., discriminate against) a particular category of applicant.   

Okay, with all that off my chest, let's answer the actual questions.

First question:

Do background checks, fingerprinting, etc., need to be done for all positions?

The degree to which background checks and documentation of identity must be performed are governed by two things: what is legally required, and what the risk management practices of an institution dictate. 

These two factors mean that practices will vary from place-to-place.  A librarian working within a public school district in the state of New York will be subject to a criminal background check and must be fingerprinted[4] just as any other regular employee within their district. A librarian at a public or association library is not required by law to have a criminal background check, nor to be fingerprinted,[5] but an institution could decide, for risk management purposes, that a position requires that level of scrutiny for safety and security.  

Second question:

Does it need to be posted in the job advertisement that there will be a background check for the successful candidate or all finalist applicants?

There is no requirement in the law that a job advertisement has to disclose a background check in the job advertisement.  However, prior to obtaining and using any information from a third party whose business it is to provide background information, an employer must notify an applicant; this notice must be in writing and in a stand-alone format.  Further, before a negative decision is made based on such information, it must be disclosed to the applicant.  A good resource on this is the Federal Trade Commission,[6] but the third party provider, if they are a true professional, will provide the forms for each of these steps.

Now all that being said, it may be that some local hiring procedures or collective bargaining agreements require the disclosure of background checks in a job notice.  Further, some employers may want to disclose their intent to use a background check to avoid surprising candidates further into the process.  There is no bar to making such an early disclosure, but if given, such notices should be carefully drafted to avoid implying that those with arrests or criminal convictions[7] will not be considered for the position.

Third question:

Can the background check need to include a financial check and a legal check?

Yes, absolutely. A background check can include a credit check, a search for liens and other debt instruments, a review of criminal history, a consideration of driving record, and any combination of the items I listed at the top of this reply.  Just be careful: if your library or system relies on a third party to supply that information, it must follow the guidance from the Federal Trade Commission (see that link in footnote 6).

Okay, at this point, I have to re-emphasize: before using any type of check, a library should have a policy covering that type of check, and that policy should cover all check-specific legal compliance, as well as: when the check is conducted, how it is conducted, how the information is used, and how the documents related to it are disposed of/retained. [8]

When developing such a policy, a good rule of thumb for an institution considering any type of background check is to be able to clearly answer the question: "Why are we doing this check?"  While the reasons will vary, the answer should always relate to the essential functions listed in the job description, and the nature of your library.

For instance: if a position will create opportunities for a person to spend unsupervised time with vulnerable populations, a criminal background check and rigorous prior employer check is wise.  If a position requires a particular credential, verification of that credential makes sense.  And if you are hiring someone who will frequently have to drive the bookmobile, a motor vehicle records check is almost always imperative.

On the flip side: if a person is being hired for a job that doesn't require driving, a "current driver's license" should not be required. If a person will never have access to financial information or fiscal resources, a credit check is likely not necessary. And if a would-be library clerk has a DWI that is 20 years old--and no other criminal history--it is likely the conviction is not a basis to eliminate them from consideration.

Last question (and it's another biggie):

And tangentially, am I correct in my assumption library staff are not considered mandated reporters? Are there guidelines for this as well?

"Mandated reporters" is a legal term under Section 413 of the NY Social Services Law.  Professionals listed in that section are required to make a report when they:

 "...have reasonable cause to suspect that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is an abused or maltreated child, [OR] when they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child is an abused or maltreated child where the parent, guardian, custodian or other person legally responsible for such child comes before them in their professional or official capacity and states from personal knowledge facts, conditions or circumstances which, if correct, would render the child an abused or maltreated child."[9]

I have placed a list of the "Mandated Reporters" set by Section 413 below this answer. As you can see by reviewing the (long) list, library employees (unless their function also fits into one of the categories listed in 413) are NOT Mandated Reporters.

Of course, a library--or an institution that hosts a library--can decide and enforce via policy that its employees have an affirmative duty to report observed or suspected child abuse (or any abuse) that occurs on their property or in their programs.  Many insurance carriers actually require their insureds to have such a policy.[10]

[NOTE: If an employer has any type of "report abuse" policy, employees should be trained on how to make such reports no less than annually.  The average person can have a trauma response to witnessing abuse, which can impact their ability to report it, as well as negatively affect their well-being.  Routine training on how to recognize and report concerns, and experienced support for reporters, can help with this.]

Thank you for an important series of questions.

List of "Mandated Reporters" under Section 413 of the Social Services Law (also called "human services professionals[11]"):

...any physician; registered physician assistant; surgeon; medical examiner; coroner; dentist; dental hygienist; osteopath; optometrist; chiropractor; podiatrist; resident; intern; psychologist; registered nurse; social worker; emergency medical technician; licensed creative arts therapist; licensed marriage and family therapist; licensed mental health counselor; licensed psychoanalyst; licensed behavior analyst; certified behavior analyst assistant; hospital personnel engaged in the admission, examination, care or treatment of persons; a Christian Science practitioner; school official, which includes but is not limited to school teacher, school guidance counselor, school psychologist, school social worker, school nurse, school administrator or other school personnel required to hold a teaching or administrative license or certificate; full or part-time compensated school employee required to hold a temporary coaching license or professional coaching certificate; social services worker; employee of a publicly-funded emergency shelter for families with children; director of a children’s overnight camp, summer day camp or traveling summer day camp, as such camps are defined in section thirteen hundred ninety-two of the public health law; day care center worker; school-age child care worker; provider of family or group family day care; employee or volunteer in a residential care facility for children that is licensed, certified or operated by the office of children and family services; or any other child care or foster care worker; mental health professional; substance abuse counselor; alcoholism counselor; all persons credentialed by the office of alcoholism and substance abuse services; employees, who are expected to have regular and substantial contact with children, of a health home or health home care management agency contracting with a health home as designated by the department of health and authorized under section three hundred sixty-five-l of this chapter or such employees who provide home and community based services under a demonstration program pursuant to section eleven hundred fifteen of the federal social security act who are expected to have regular and substantial contact with children; peace officer; police officer; district attorney or assistant district attorney; investigator employed in the office of a district attorney; or other law enforcement official.

[1] This is why the phrase "Must have no criminal history" or the like must not be included on a job notice.  For more information on this, visit https://dhr.ny.gov/protections-people-arrest-and-conviction-records.

[2] More info on this further into the answer.

[3] For some employers, this criteria is set by the provider of the organizations’ automobile and/or general liability insurance; this is especially true for organizations that use "company" vehicles.

[4] As listed here: http://www.nysed.gov/educator-integrity/who-must-be-fingerprinted-charts.

[5] Unless there is a very obscure local law I have been unable to find.  If you are aware of one, please email me at adams@losapllc.com.

[6] More information on how/when to give this notice is here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/background-checks-what-employers-need-know.

[7] Or other categories protected by law.

[8] That's right: I put that in italics, bold, and underlined it!  An "Ask the Lawyer" first.  No organization should ever "wing" a background check--of any kind.  There is too much at stake.

[9] I know, there is a lot of room for interpretation in this language; when in doubt, seek guidance.

[10] I think of this as the "Penn State Victims Requirement."

[11] 18 NYCRR § 433.2

Over and over again, I am floored by the care, tenacity, and creativity of the libraries determined to provide services in a time of pandemic.  New York's libraries just don't give up.  This question shows the mechanics of that fighting spirit.

So much of what we do in this pandemic comes back to why we are doing things in this pandemic.  For many libraries, the "why" of offering services is making sure their communities have lifelines to professionally curated information.

For this question, the "why" of asking for proof of vaccination is right there in the submission's core:

... so that we can have some sense of how many employees have been vaccinated, if that is to somehow figure into any decisions we might need to make re: staffing and proximity to others, or any considerations for the possible liability of "direct threat" to others by those who either choose not to get vaccinated, or are awaiting vaccination eligibility?

Let's take that "direct threat" part first.

Back on March 19, 2020, we addressed a question about employer (library) liability due to Coronavirus exposure.  Although much has changed since that time (we have vaccines), the basic recipe for liability has not changed: liability happens when a person/entity owes a duty of care to a person, does not perform that duty, and the failure results in damage.

Because if this recipe, it is essential for libraries to always know what "duty of care" they owe their workers, and their community.

In a pandemic, evolving data and resulting best practices can change the "duty of care" rapidly (No masks? One mask? Two?).

While many resources are aggregating and pushing out up-to-the-minute guidance on "best practices," there are only three places libraries in the State of New York should be drawing their duty of care practices directly from: the New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH"), the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC"), and the Occupational Hazard and Safety Administration ("OSHA").

Right now, as of this writing, OSHA's 1/29/2021 workplace guidance[1] for mitigating the impact of COVID-19 lists 16 "elements" of an effective COVID protection program.  Here is what OSHA recommends about using awareness of vaccination status of employees:

Not distinguishing between workers who are vaccinated and those who are not: Workers who are vaccinated must continue to follow protective measures, such as wearing a face covering and remaining physically distant, because at this time, there is not evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent transmission of the virus from person-to-person. The CDC explains that experts need to understand more about the protection that COVID-19 vaccines provide before deciding to change recommendations on steps everyone should take to slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.

So right now, the "duty of care" set out by OSHA expressly excludes relying on vaccination status to reduce the spread of the virus.  Rather, it focuses on providing and insisting on appropriate PPE.

That said, in the same guidance, OSHA continues to recommend allowing employees who self-identify as medically vulnerable to swap tasks to limit risk:

Offer vulnerable workers duties that minimize their contact with customers and other workers (e.g., restocking shelves rather than working as a cashier), if the worker agrees to this.

This means if a person, relying on their vaccination status, decides to not self-identify as medically vulnerable, the employer is not advised to offer them contact-minimizing duties.

There are other steps on the current OSHA list that the member is already doing.  By enabling the use of PTO for vaccination, they are following the guidance in element "14":

Making a COVID-19 vaccine or vaccination series available at no cost to all eligible employees. Provide information and training on the benefits and safety of vaccinations.

This guidance, I imagine, will evolve.  That evolution should be reflected in revised Safety Plans.

And with that said, let's answer the member's specific questions:

Can or should be asking for proof of vaccination from *all* employees, so that we can have some sense of how many employees have been vaccinated, if that is to somehow figure into any decisions we might need to make re: staffing and proximity to others, or any considerations for the possible liability of "direct threat" to others by those who either choose not to get vaccinated, or are awaiting vaccination eligibility?
 

Based on the current OSHA guidance, along with guidance from the EEOC, the answer to this is "yes," and then "no."  Yes, an employer can ask for proof of vaccination (whether acquired on PTO or off-hours).[2]  No, right now, it should not be used for assignment of duties[3] or with the idea of reducing possible liability.

Here is the member's follow-up question:

If it is desirable or permissible for us to obtain proof of vaccination universally, should compliance by the employee be optional/voluntary or compulsory?

Based on the current OSHA guidance, along with guidance from the EEOC, right now does not seem like the time to rely on vaccination status and data to make determinations about workplace risk management and safety.  So while requiring a notification of vaccination status may be permissible, it does not appear desirable if its purpose is to mitigate concerns about liability.

If, however, the motivation is to verify that the library is effectively encouraging the most employees possible to get vaccinated—simply for the employees' own personal health and safety—then yes, tracking those metrics (and any non-disability factors barring vaccinations) might not only be permissible, but desirable. In that case, the question is: does the information need to be tied directly to a particular employee, or is it just as meaningful if anonymous?

Which brings us to the member's last question:

But how do (or can) I share specifics on who has been vaccinated (versus who has not) with others, such as supervisors and managers?...I would be leery of divulging such information, out of concerns for maintaining employee confidentiality...

This HR manager knows their stuff!

First, yes: no matter what, never create a risk of trampling on employees' privacy.

Second: Right now, it appears that sharing such information is unnecessary.

In a December 18th, 2020 "Ask the Lawyer," I stated that a vaccine requirement should only be implemented if it is part of a well-thought-out, board-approved Safety Plan.  Right now, it appears that no Safety Plan should rely on a vaccine requirement to reduce transmission of the virus.  With that in mind, right now, it appears the safest course of action –both COVID-wise, and legally—is to encourage vaccination, but not require it, and if a library tracks it, only do it for purposes of encouraging more employee vaccinations (or finding out you've hit close to 100%).

Of course, here we are on February 26, 2021.  If you are reading this in March, or April, or that sunny, warmer time in the future, May and beyond[4], this answer might no longer apply.

Keep checking with NYSDOH, with the CDC, and of course, with OSHA.  At some point, requiring vaccination—or allocating duties by vaccination status—could become something expected of an employer.  If that happens, a library's "duty of care" could change, altering the threshold for liability, and the answer to these questions could shift—some subtly, some not-so-subtly. 

But we have had a lot of twists and turns in the Pandemic.  That "shift" may or may not happen.[5]  As I often say at my office, "the only plan we can make is that the plan will change."  And how do you plan for that?  By doing what this member has done: keeping employees' well-being and safety at the forefront, and adapting every time the data and guidance change. 

If your library does that, you'll be as safe as you can be.  And mitigate your liability.

Thank you for a thoughtful question.

[1] Posted as of February 26, 2021 at https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/safework.

[2] This answer is found on the EEOC site at https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws as of 2/26/2021.  "K.3. Is asking or requiring an employee to show proof of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination a disability-related inquiry? (12/16/20) No.  There are many reasons that may explain why an employee has not been vaccinated, which may or may not be disability-related.  Simply requesting proof of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination is not likely to elicit information about a disability and, therefore, is not a disability-related inquiry.  ...  If an employer requires employees to provide proof that they have received a COVID-19 vaccination from a pharmacy or their own health care provider, the employer may want to warn the employee not to provide any medical information as part of the proof in order to avoid implicating the ADA."

[3] Remember, if the employee uses vaccination status to self-identify as vulnerable, such information can be considered by the library reactively (and confidentially).  For more on that, see the "Ask the Lawyer" from January 19, 2021.

[4] Garden time!  Can you tell I can't wait to get into the dirt?  It always feels so distant, this time of year.

[5] As OSHA says, more research is required.

Here's something positive and affirming I can say: it's possible that the members expressing different opinions on the member directors' list are actually all correct.

That’s because, while I can't give one "clear yes or no answer" to this question, I can give five...five answers based on different scenarios about the facts "before an employee comes to work," including their symptoms, COVID exposure, and the safety measures needed to reduce the risk of COVID transmission in their workplace.

Here the five scenarios are:

Scenario 1

Yes, an employer must (and therefore, can) require a COVID test before an employee returns to work,[1] if the employee reports symptoms as part of routine screening.[2]

Scenario 2

Yes, an employer must (and therefore, can) require a COVID test before an employee returns to work, if an employee is symptomatic upon arrival at work or becomes sick with COVID-19 symptoms while at the workplace, absent close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19.[3]

Scenario 3

No, an employer does not have to, and has no basis to, require a negative COVID test before an employee comes to work, if the employee is working 100% remotely at home or in a location not at all controlled or at the direction of the employer.[4]

Scenario 4

No, an employer may not require a negative COVID test before an employee comes to work, IF the employee has a medical basis to not be tested; without a negative test, however, if certain screening factors were tripped (such as those in item 2, above) the employer will have to enforce other prescribed measures to comply with state requirements and reduce the risk of transmission within the workplace, such as a mandatory quarantine.[5]

Scenario 5

Yes, an employer can require a negative COVID test before an employee comes to work, if an established safety plan based on applicable OHSA guidance and the employee's job duties warrant that level of caution.[6]

Conclusion

I am not surprised you were unable to find a clear answer from a single reliable source, as these five scenario-based answers had to be cobbled together from two separate documents from the New York State Department of Health, which when combined, require employers to:

"Implement mandatory health screening assessment (e.g. questionnaire, temperature check) before employees begin work each day and for essential visitors, asking about (1) COVID-19 symptoms in past 14 days, (2) positive COVID-19 test in past 14 days, and/or (3) close contact[7] with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case in past 14 days. Assessment responses must be reviewed every day and such review must be documented."

AND

"An individual who screens positive for COVID-19 symptoms must not be allowed to enter the office and must be sent home with instructions to contact their healthcare provider for assessment and testing." [emphasis added]

AND

"If an employee tests positive for COVID-19, regardless of whether the employee is symptomatic or asymptomatic, the employee may return to work upon completing at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms or 10 days of isolation after the first positive test if they remain asymptomatic."

AND

"If an employee has had close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time AND is experiencing COVID-19 related symptoms, the employee may return to work upon completing at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms."

AND

"If an employee has had close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time AND is not experiencing COVID-19 related symptoms, the employee may return to work upon completing 14 days of self-quarantine."

AND

"If an employee is symptomatic upon arrival at work or becomes sick with COVID-19 symptoms while at the workplace, absent close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19, the employee must be separated and sent home immediately and may return to work upon completing at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms OR upon receipt of a negative COVID-19 test result." [emphasis added]."

And there you have it. I am not sure if this will make things clearer, but hopefully I have added some clarity to the uncertainty. 

[1] In this case "work" means the "work site," as in an established office or location controlled by the employer where an employee will report to work, or a site they are directed to appear at.  For this question, "work site" does not mean a home office or other space the employer does not control/send the employee to.

[2] This answer is based on the combined effect of the New York State Department of Health requirements here and  here.

[3] This answer is based on based on the combined effect of the New York State Department of Health requirements here and here.

[4] I know I covered this in footnote #1, but it bears repeating: based on the published guidance, NY employers are required to conduct mandatory screenings to reduce the transmission of COVID in areas they are responsible for, and areas they serve as part of their work, but not an employee's home office.  Requiring a test when there is no logical nexus between the employer's obligations and the request for medical information runs the risk of an ADA violation (not a slam-dunk risk, but enough of a risk to make it a bad idea).

[5] This answer is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act; if an employee has a disability that means they cannot medically tolerate a test (I have not heard of this, but I imagine it is possible), they will have to provide an alternate means of ensuring safety if such an accommodation is reasonable.

[6] This answer is based on the needs of work places with the highest levels of risk and risk management. 

[7] "The New York State Department of Health considers a "close contact" to be "someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 10 minutes starting from 48 hours before illness onset until the time the person was isolated. The local health department should be contacted if the extent of contact between an individual and a person suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 is unclear. "

I recently had a chance to check in with the New York State Comptroller's legal department[1] on this very topic.

The reason I had to check in is because the most recent on-point authority I could find on this subject was from 1981. 

The input I got from the legal department was re-assuring: no change in guidance in the almost four decades that followed.[2]

Now, that said, the attorney at the Comptroller's gave me the usual disclaimer that I often give in "Ask the Lawyer": It's just an opinion.  The law can change.  Check with your lawyer, since your charter, bylaws, and policies, or even a contract, could change how this applies to you."

But that said, below are the reassuring words of Comptroller Opinion #445, circa 1981.  Since they are a little heavy on the legalese and citation, I've put the important part in bold:

"As a general rule, the town library board of trustees, and not the town board, has the authority to appoint and dismiss library personnel (Education Law, §§ 226(7), 260; 30 Opns St Comp, 1974, p 98). The library board exercises direct control and supervision over library personnel and, for most purposes, including labor negotiations [**486] under the Taylor Law (Civil Service [*2] Law, §§ 200, et seq.), the library board is considered to be the employer of library personnel (County of Erie v. Board of Trustees, 62 Misc 2d 396, 308 NYS2d 515; Binghamton Public Library Unit v. City of Binghamton, 69 Misc 2d 1005, 331 NYS2d 515; Opns St Comp, 1972, No. 72-402, unreported; cf. Retirement and Social Security Law, § 30(c); Opns St Comp, 1980, No. 80-199, as yet unreported; Finkelstein v. Central School District, 34 AD2d 781, 311 NYS2d 243 affd 28 NY2d 705, 320 NYS2d 751). Compensation for library personnel is fixed by the library board and paid from the library fund (Education Law, §§ 226(7), 259(1)). It would then follow that, as between the town board and the library board, it is the library board which determines the vacation and sick leave benefits for library employees. It is our opinion that a library board of trustees has implied authority to provide for sick leaves and vacations for library employees (see Opn No. 80- 199, supra; 1961 Atty Gen [Inf Opns] 105; Education Law, §§ 226(7), 260). We note that expenditures for employer contributions to the New York State Employees' Retirement System for library employees are expenses [*3] incurred for the operation of the library and should be paid from library funds (Opns St Comp, 1975, No. 75-903, unreported; 16 Ed Dep't Rep, 1977, p 416). The same would hold true for employer contributions for social security and unemployment insurance for library employees." [emphasis added].

So, with regard to the member's specific situation, I of course have to say: " It's just an opinion.  The law can change.  Check with your lawyer, since your charter, bylaws, and policies, or even a contract, could change how this applies to you."  But if all of those things have been checked, and there is no provision changing the default, the Comptroller's words from 1981 still apply.

I hope this will help as your library works to retain that one week of paid leave!

Thanks for a great question.

Supplementary Answer

NOTE: For libraries that are running into this type of issue with their sponsoring municipalities, below, please find "some additional input" that I hope can be of help:

As many of you know, my law office has the privilege of working with libraries across New York.  It is work my team and I value highly, because it connects us with a vast "information army" of committed, creative librarians who are dedicated to public service.

This work also gives us an array of windows into what is happening "out there," especially when it comes to public libraries working with their districts and municipalities on issues like the one shown in this question.  And while each specific view from any particular window is confidential, it positions my team to distill a lot of anecdotal information,[3] and to share what we see in the aggregate.

Based on what we are seeing "in the aggregate" the type of issue brought forward by the member has always been an "issue," but with the budget pressures and political theater ushered in by the events of 2020, it appears positioned to become an "Issue" into 2021 and beyond. 

The emergence of this Issue isn't just a by-product of budget woes heightened by pandemic.  It is also the result of a rapidly evolving regime of employment law in New York, making the distinction between government and "private" employers more critical, with every passing day.  This distinction impacts things such as: comp time, overtime, minimum wage, insurance, liability, civil rights claims, labor law claims, and things that may seem mundane, but are actually quite important (such as: "Whose HR manual do we follow?").

If you take a quick scan of the "Ask the Lawyer" searchable index,[4] you'll see that numerous member questions arise from this "Public Library as Employer" divide. And while they relate to different aspects of the library-as-employer, they all touch on one very specific priority: public library board authority.  And it's apparent that this is something some sponsoring municipalities and districts have a challenge grasping.

So, in an effort to provide a short, succinct resource for libraries to direct their government entities to when they try to interfere with hiring, try to control employee benefits, or otherwise try to interrupt the autonomy of duly elected/appointed trustees in the governance of a chartered public library, I am posting this memo on my firm's website at https://www.stephaniecoleadams.com/adamsblog/2021/1/7/comments-on-public-library-board-autonomy, without the usual snarky asides and footnote commentary. 

Hopefully it can help avoid some of the needless argument and hostility that these misunderstandings can create.  If you find it helpful, please let us[5] know.

--Cole

Comments on Library Board Autonomy

Law and current legal authority firmly establish that public library boards are the sole authority regarding employee terms of employment, including hiring, compensation, benefits, evaluation, promotion, discipline, and termination. 

This autonomy is constrained only by a public library board's need to observe the New York Civil Service Law, the New York Education Law, numerous state and federal labor laws, various applicable regulations, and a library's own charter and bylaws. 

The law does allow a public library to use, in whole or in part, the payroll system, policies, and benefits systems of their sponsoring government entity, if such resources are offered to the library by that entity.  Further, the government entity, in making such an offer, may condition such use on the library's cooperation with certain reporting procedures or methods of documentation.  The choice to use such offered resources, however, is ultimately at the discretion of the library's board, who may instead decide to have the library implement its own system. 

And finally, the choice as to how to expend library funds with respect to employees (salary, benefits, paid time off) always rests solely with a public library's board.

The legal authority establishing these considerations is extensive, but a thorough summary is set forth in the links and content below.

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/legal-opinions/opinion-93-15, which states:

"The ultimate control of the use, disposition and expenditure of the library fund moneys is vested in the library board even when the municipal treasurer has custody (1991 Opns St Comp No. 91-57, p 158). Further, even if the treasurer of the sponsoring municipality is custodian of the library fund, the library board would have custody of private source moneys of the library (1988 Opns St Comp No. 88-76, p 145; 1980 Opns St Comp No. 80-340, p 101).

Public libraries are, for most purposes, fiscally autonomous from the sponsoring municipality (see Opn No. 91-57, supra; 1983 Opns St Comp No. 83-32, p 37; Buffalo Library v Erie County, 171 AD2d 369, 577 NYS2d 993 affd 80 NY2d 938, 591 NYS2d 131). In addition, public library officers and employees are often not considered to be officers and employees of the sponsoring municipality or school district (see, e.g., General Municipal Law, §800[5], conflicts of interest; Public Officers Law, §10, official oaths; Binghamton Public Library v City of Binghamton, 69 Misc 2d 1005, 331 NYS2d 515 and County of Erie v Board of Trustees, 62 Misc 2d 396, 308 NYS2d 515, collective bargaining negotiations). In view of the library's fiscal autonomy, it is our opinion that library trustees and the separate library treasurer are not town officers or employees for purposes of Town Law, §123 and, therefore, are not subject to the accounting and auditing provisions of that section.

We note, however, that General Municipal Law, §30(3) requires that an annual report of financial transactions, including those involving private source moneys (Opn No. 88-76, supra), be made by the treasurer of each public library. The report must be certified by the officer making the same and, unless an extension of time is granted, must be filed with the Office of the State Comptroller within 60 days after the close of the library's fiscal year (General Municipal Law, §30[5]). In addition, the Education Law contains certain requirements for public libraries to report to the State Education Department (see Education Law, §§215, 263). Finally, as noted in Opn No. 88-76, supra, the town board, in determining the amount to be raised by taxes for library purposes, may take into account a library's private source funds and, therefore, may request from the library information concerning such funds."

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/legal-opinions/opinion-91-57, which states:

"With respect to library moneys, however, we note that public libraries are, for most purposes, fiscally autonomous from the sponsoring municipality (see, e.g., 1983 Opns St Comp No. 83-32, p 38). Thus, the ultimate control of the use, disposition, and expenditure of those moneys is vested in the library board of trustees even if the municipal treasurer is the custodian of library moneys. (Education Law, §§226[6], 259[1]; 1987 Opns St Comp No. 87-84, p 125; see also Opn No. 87-49, supra; Opn No. 86-54, supra). In addition, it is the library board of trustees which may authorize the investment of library moneys even when the moneys are held in the custody of the municipal treasurer (Opn No. 86-54, supra). Therefore, since the library board controls the use and disposition of library fund moneys, it is our opinion that the library board must consent to any arrangement under which library fund moneys are to be comingled with moneys of the municipality."

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/legal-opinions/opinion-2001-12, regarding indemnification of library trustees, which states:

"PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW §18: There are two alternatives for conferring the benefits of section 18 of the Public Officers Law on employees of a public library: either (1) the board of trustees of the library may elect to confer the benefits of section 18 on library employees as a public library expense; or (2) the governing board of the sponsoring municipality or school district may confer section 18 benefits on library employees as a direct expense of the sponsor."

Comptroller Opinion #445, which states:

"As a general rule, the town library board of trustees, and not the town board, has the authority to appoint and dismiss library personnel (Education Law, §§ 226(7), 260; 30 Opns St Comp, 1974, p 98). The library board exercises direct control and supervision over library personnel and, for most purposes, including labor negotiations [**486] under the Taylor Law (Civil Service [*2] Law, §§ 200, et seq.), the library board is considered to be the employer of library personnel (County of Erie v. Board of Trustees, 62 Misc 2d 396, 308 NYS2d 515; Binghamton Public Library Unit v. City of Binghamton, 69 Misc 2d 1005, 331 NYS2d 515; Opns St Comp, 1972, No. 72-402, unreported; cf. Retirement and Social Security Law, § 30(c); Opns St Comp, 1980, No. 80-199, as yet unreported; Finkelstein v. Central School District, 34 AD2d 781, 311 NYS2d 243 affd 28 NY2d 705, 320 NYS2d 751). Compensation for library personnel is fixed by the library board and paid from the library fund (Education Law, §§ 226(7), 259(1)). It would then follow that, as between the town board and the library board, it is the library board which determines the vacation and sick leave benefits for library employees. It is our opinion that a library board of trustees has implied authority to provide for sick leaves and vacations for library employees (see Opn No. 80- 199, supra; 1961 Atty Gen [Inf Opns] 105; Education Law, §§ 226(7), 260). We note that expenditures for employer contributions to the New York State Employees' Retirement System for library employees are expenses [*3] incurred for the operation of the library and should be paid from library funds (Opns St Comp, 1975, No. 75-903, unreported; 16 Ed Dep't Rep, 1977, p 416). The same would hold true for employer contributions for social security and unemployment insurance for library employees."

I hope this information is of assistance.

[1] This is like a guitar player saying they recently got to jam with John Mayer.

[2] In fact, to bolster the 1981 opinion I found, they sent me an even older opinion.

[3] I appreciate that anecdotal information is not precise data analysis.  For that, I rely on the system, councils, LibDev, and NYLA.  I fall into those data rabbit holes regularly.

[4] I am very gratified to have been doing this long enough to warrant a searchable index.

[5] Write to adams@losapllc.com and jill@losapllc.com.

I wish I could reply to this excellent question with a plain "yes" or "no." But I cannot.

Why not?  Because, while as the member points out, a public library's "type" is relevant to this question, what may also be relevant is how the employees are being paid.  So answering this question requires a two-factor analysis:

Factor 1: Is the library in question considered a "type" of "governmental agency[1]?"

AND/OR

Factor 2: are the employees of that library compensated as if they were employees of a governmental agency?

If the answer to either question is "yes," Labor Law 196-b (which is the new "sick leave" law) doesn't apply.  If the answer to both is "no," then it may be time for the non-exempt library to draft a new Sick Leave Policy.

Now let's talk about the factors in this "two-factor test."

Factor 1: Is the library in question considered a "type" of "governmental agency?

Most libraries in the state of New York are NOT "governmental agencies" as that term is used in Labor Law Article 6 [2].

Sure, the library has to account for taxpayer money as required by the "General Municipal Law."  And yes, it is subject to parts of the "Public Officers Law."  And yep—it may even have to disclose certain records under the Freedom of Information Law. 

But none of that means they are performing a function of a "governmental agency" as defined under the Labor Law, which is where the new "sick leave" rules come from.  Under the Labor Law, a public library is far more likely to be considered a not-for-profit education corporation required to offer sick leave (and provide Workers' Compensation Insurance, and follow the NY Minimum wage laws...), than an exempt entity like a school district.

Now that being said, even if a library is not a "governmental agency," they may also be exempt from 196-b if their employees are....

Factor 2: "Compensated as if they were employees of a governmental agency"

How can this type of "compensation" happen, if the library itself isn't a "governmental agency?"

In New York, many libraries use their sponsoring municipalities and sponsoring school districts[3] as the "employer" of their employees—even though the library board retains the legal autonomy to hire, discipline, set compensation, promote, or terminate the employees. 

In this type of scenario, the library employees are a) paid directly by the municipality[4], b) are covered by the municipality's insurance[5],  c) get the municipality's benefits, and (most tellingly) are d) eligible for "comp time"[6] otherwise barred by rules requiring mandatory overtime.  In short, under much of the Labor Law,[7] they are treated as municipal/district employees.[8]

So does my public library have to give employees sick leave under the new law, or what?

Sadly, there is no "bright-line" rule.  But!  I have created a handy "Library-Municipality Relationship Type" chart to help you figure it out if it's something your library needs to worry about:

And there you have it.  From what I have seen, every public library in New York State handles its coupling/de-coupling in a different way.  Charter documents, bylaws, MOU's, and political/diplomatic relations can influence this just as much (if not more than) that law.  If you know where your library stands, you can not only assess its obligations under the Labor Law, but many other critical compliance obligations, as well.[10]

The bottom line here is: library employees shouldn't be left in a lurch, especially when it comes to sick leave, family medical leave, short-term disability, workers' compensation, and paid family medical leave—all of which are rooted in the question of "who" their employer is.  This means library trustees should periodically confirm, with certainty and clarity, what policies apply to their workforce.[11]  Regardless of where a library falls on the above chart, this can be accomplished with a confirmed, clear set of policies.

As employment law gets more and more intricate, and as we continue to live with a pandemic, this need for clarity will only get more critical.

I want to say a big "THANK YOU" to  Ben Gocker at Tupper Lake Public Library for submitting this excellent question and bearing with me while I talked through the answer with him.[12] Like all librarians I get to work with on "Ask the Lawyer," Ben is a critical thinker who brought a lot of research and practical experience to his question.  He also exhibited incredible patience as I tried to explain the mutable legal status of bodies defined by the Education Law, operating under the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, subject to the General Municipal Law, living with the Civil Service law, and of debatable status under the Labor Law.  Thanks again, Ben!

I hope this approach and chart come in handy for public libraries out there struggling with this question. 

[1] I know this sounds like a re-hash of the member's point in the question, but in this case, I mean as that term is defined in Article 6 of the Labor Law, which is the section 196-b is part of. 

[2] Section 190 of the Labor Law, whose definitions apply to 196-b, states: “Employer” includes any person, corporation, limited liability company, or association employing any individual in any occupation, industry, trade, business or service. The term “employer” shall not include a governmental agency."

[3] How this is accomplished will vary, BUT there should always be a written document that sets forth how it is accomplished, and what compensation structure, benefits, and laws apply to the employee.  If there uncertainly about how an employee gets worker's comp, unemployment, or paid family leave, that is a sign the library and entity have to examine things a bit further.

[4] Or school district.

[5] Worker's compensation, unemployment, paid family leave, etc.

[6] "Comp time" is when employees can "bank" time off, rather than get paid time-and-a-half for overtime.  Only municipalities who are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act can do that.  For more on that, see "Ask the Lawyer" RAQ #59.

[7] Except the Taylor Law.

[8] I can't emphasize this enough: even when this is the case, the library board retains the authority to hire, discipline, set compensation, promote, collectively bargain with, or terminate the employees.

[9] Just in case you read this and think "Oops—we may need to develop a policy!" A good breakdown and resources for compliance can be found at https://www.ny.gov/programs/new-york-paid-sick-leave. 

[10] That said, this chart only considers the application of Labor Law 196-b.  If it tackled everything, it would be...very, very long.  For a good case that shows how tricky these “what is a library” issues can be when it comes to employment, check out this case.

[11] It will vary from place to place, but for public libraries, your civil service rep should be a great resource for this.

^[12] And another big thank-you for agreeing to be publicly thanked.