New York: New Regulation Will Impact Employers Who Offer Direct Deposit and Payroll Debit Cards
Time 3 Minute Read

It is very common for employers to pay employees by direct deposit, and an increasing number pay employees with payroll debit cards.  Beginning March 7, 2017, employers in New York will have to deal with a new regulation regarding the use of direct deposit and payroll debit cards for payment of wages.  The new regulation, issued by the New York Department of Labor and titled “Methods of Payment of Wages,” imposes heightened notice and consent requirements on employers offering either service.

Under the regulation, if an employer uses a method of payment other than cash or check, the employer must provide notice in English and the employee’s primary language (when the NYDOL offers a template).  The notice must include:

  • a plain language description of the employee’s wage payment options;
  • a statement that the employee is not required to accept wages in the form of payroll debit card or direct deposit;
  • a statement that the employee will not be charged service fees for accessing wages; and
  • a list of places where the employee can access and withdraw wages for free within a reasonable distance from his/her residence or place of work.

Employers must also obtain informed consent (in writing) from employees in order to lawfully pay them via payroll debit card.  As the required notice makes clear, employers may “not make the payment of wages by direct deposit or payroll debit card a condition of hire or of continued employment” or charge employees a fee, directly or indirectly, for the use of direct deposit or payroll debit cards.

Additionally, if wages are paid by direct deposit, the employer “shall ensure” that: (a) it retains a copy of the consent form during the employee’s employment term and for a period of 6 years after the last direct deposit, and (b) direct deposits are made to the employee’s chosen financial institution.

If wages are paid by payroll debit card, the employer “shall not deliver payment of wages unless”: (a) at least 7 business days elapse after the employee gives consent “during which time the employee’s consent shall not take effect,” and (b) the employee is provided with “[a]t least one method to withdraw up to the total amount of wages for each pay period or the balance remaining on the payroll debit card without incurring a fee.”  Payroll debit cards may not be linked to other forms of credit, and payroll-debit-card funds cannot expire.  The regulation also contains an anti-kickback provision, which prohibits employers from receiving “any kickback or other financial remuneration from the issuer, card sponsor, or any third party for delivery of wages by payroll debit card.”

A number of other states—including California, Florida, Virginia, and Georgia—have regulations or statutes dealing specifically with payroll debit cards.  Employers in these states should review the applicable laws to ensure that their payroll methods are in compliance.  Employers should also review the laws and regulations pertaining to direct deposit, which are more common across the country.

  • Partner

    Ryan has a national practice focused on representing employers and executives in complex labor and employment litigation.  Ryan’s litigation experience is both broad and deep, and he is particularly skilled in defending ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 5 Minute Read

In a case of first impression, the Third Circuit rejected the view of the United States Department of Labor, ruling that incentive payments from third parties are not necessarily included in the calculation of an employee’s overtime rate.

In Secretary United States Department of Labor v. Bristol Excavating, Inc., No. 17-3663, 2019 WL 3926937 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2019) (“Bristol”), the Court of Appeals overturned a District Court’s order holding that all incentive payments made by third parties must be included in an employee’s overtime rate under the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The unanimous Third Circuit panel held that the understanding of the employer and employee determines whether third-party payments should be included in the overtime rate.

Time 4 Minute Read

The California Supreme Court has adopted a new three-part test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee under California’s wage orders, which regulate wages, hours, and working conditions.  The highly anticipated ruling could have wide ranging effects for businesses operating in California and beyond, as companies try to navigate the new gig economy.

Time 2 Minute Read

The California Supreme Court issued a decision Monday in a case that is sure to cause headaches for employers when compensating employees through flat sum bonuses.  In Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of California (S232607) the Court held that for purposes of calculating the regular rate, a flat sum bonus is to be allocated only to the nonovertime hours worked. This holding departs from the calculation methods broadly considered compliant outside of California under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Time 4 Minute Read

The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s summary judgment decision finding that an employer, Plastipak Holdings, Inc., Plastipak Packaging, Inc., Plastipak Technologies, LLC, Plastipak, and William C. Young (collectively, “Plastipak”) properly had paid employees using the “fluctuating workweek” method and dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for underpayment of wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page