We Are Hiring: Associate Position (Remote) With The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC

Associate (Remote Position) - The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC

About Us: The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC (“DLF”) is a private law firm committed to challenging employment discrimination and wage theft in New York City. Focusing on representing NYC employees in discrimination, retaliation, and wage and hour matters, DLF has consistently advanced traditional as well as underutilized NYC law-based legal claims.

DLF has also developed a substantial practice representing employees with mental health disabilities seeking protected leaves of absence under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.

Position Overview: Associate

Location: Remote

Schedule: Working hours are strictly limited to a total of forty hours per week.

Responsibilities:

  • Drafting demand letters

  • Drafting administrative charges

  • Client intake

  • All aspects of the firm’s litigation matters (after probationary period of six months)

Qualifications:

  • Admitted to the New York bar

  • Experience in employment discrimination law

  • Strong legal research, writing, and analytical skills

  • Strong interpersonal skills

  • Legal creativity and curiosity

  • Interest in impact litigation

  • Time management skills, organizational skills, and initiative required for remote work

Compensation and Benefits:

  • Salary: $80,000 - $100,000 (depending on experience)

  • Three weeks of annual PTO (four weeks after first year of employment)

  • Top-tier health insurance

Application Deadline: Applications will be considered on a rolling basis until the position is filled.

How to Apply: Interested candidates should email their resume and cover letter to cd@theduggerlawfirm.com. Please include “Associate Application” in the subject line. DLF is an equal opportunity employer. We appreciate your interest in joining our team dedicated to making a positive impact in the field of employment law and the public interest.

The Dugger Law Firm Has Filed a Disability Discrimination Class Action on Behalf of Professor Jan Ramjerdi and a Class of CUNY Faculty Challenging Denials of Remote Work Accommodations and FMLA Leave

Plaintiff Professor Ramjerdi (“Plaintiff”) has served as a tenured Associate Professor of English at Queensborough Community College (“QCC”) since September 1, 2009, and has taught at QCC since 2003.

On May 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the City of New York (“NYC”), the City University of New York (“CUNY”), QCC, CUNY Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez (in his official capacity), QCC President Christine Mangino, QCC Human Resources Director Martha Aspromatis, QCC Human Resources Director for Benefits Ysabel Macea, QCC ADA Compliance Coordinator/Assistant Vice President for Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Amaris Matos, and former QCC Interim Executive Director for Human Resources Sangeeta Noel (collectively, “Defendants”).

The class action complaint’s allegations include an alleged policy, pattern, and/or practice of: (1) illegal denials of mental health disability-based fully remote work accommodation requests by full-time faculty; (2) illegal denials of requests for FMLA leave by full-time faculty based on a pending disability-based accommodation request and/or the permanent nature of the disability or serious health condition; (3) retaliation against full-time faculty for requesting disability-based fully remote work accommodations and/or FMLA leave; (4) an illegal medical separation policy that permitted the separation of full-time faculty without consideration or evaluation of their entitlement to a disability-based reasonable accommodation; and (5) illegal provision of unprotected “general accommodations” of fully remote work instead of protected disability-based accommodations, among other challenged practices alleged to violate the Rehabilitation Act, FMLA, and/or New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”).

The class action complaint alleges that all, or almost all, CUNY faculty taught fully remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic, from mid-March 2020 through the spring 2021 semester (approximately three academic semesters). The class action complaint additionally alleges that, for the spring 2022 semester, CUNY announced a 70/30 In-Person/Remote policy requiring 70% in-person courses and 30% remote courses, including that, “[a]side from unusual circumstances, all full-time faculty members should teach at least one in-person course on campus.”  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants repeatedly illegally denied Plaintiff’s, and a class of full-time faculty members’, requests for mental health disability-based fully remote work accommodations because of the 70/30 In-Person/Remote policy.

The class action complaint further alleges that, after initially filing pretextual and/or retaliatory disciplinary charges against Plaintiff, NYC, CUNY, and/or QCC applied their medical separation policy to medically separate Plaintiff in furtherance of their retaliation and/or discrimination.  The class action complaint alleges that they did so by circularly relying on the very mental health disabilities that Plaintiff had sought a fully remote work accommodation and FMLA leave to address, as the primary basis for Plaintiff’s medical separation. The class action complaint alleges that this medical separation policy was a policy, practice, and/or standard operating procedure of NYC, CUNY, and/or QCC of failure to accommodate disabilities, retaliation for requesting a fully remote work accommodations and/or FMLA leave, and interference with disability and/or FMLA rights.

The class action complaint additionally alleges disparate impact violations, violations of FMLA notice rights, and Rehabilitation Act medical inquiry violations.

The fifteen-count class action complaint seeks, from some or all Defendants, back pay, front pay and/or reinstatement, compensatory damages, nominal damages, actual damages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, as well as punitive damages against the QCC individual defendants sued in their individual capacities.

Plaintiff’s requested class-wide injunctive relief seeks an injunction: (1) prospectively exempting disability-based fully remote work requests from the 70/30 In-Person/Remote Policy; (2) requiring the creation and funding of an independent office and/or ombudsman to objectively evaluate all disability-based remote work requests and FMLA leave requests; (3) requiring the re-evaluation of all disability-based remote work requests and FMLA leave requests within the last three years by an independent office and/or ombudsman; (4) reinstatement of all class members terminated or medically separated because of an illegal denial of a disability-based fully remote work accommodation and/or FMLA leave request; and (5) reclassification of time illegally categorized as an unauthorized absence as a protected authorized absence, under the Rehabilitation Act, FMLA and/or NYCHRL.

The case is Ramjerdi v. The City of New York, et al., No. 1:24-cv-03380-NGG-RML and is before U.S. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis and Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Press release is available here. Media Contact: Cyrus E. Dugger, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC - (646) 560-3208 - cd@theduggerlawfirm.com.

Pay Transparency and Prompt Payment Policies Obtained by Jasmine Burgess in Major Model Misclassification Lawsuit Become Effective - The Matter Was Settled by the Parties on Mutually Agreeable Terms

On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff model Jasmine Burgess (“Plaintiff”) settled her putative class and collective action lawsuit against Defendant Major Model Management, Inc. (“Major”) and Defendant agency owner Guido Dolci (“Dolci”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging misclassification of Major’s signed models as independent contractors.

The matter was settled by the parties on mutually agreeable terms, on an individual basis, primarily resulting in Major adopting historic NYC modeling agency prompt payment and pay transparency policies concerning payments to its models.

The potentially industry-shaping prompt payment and pay transparency policies became effective April 1, 2024, and continue until February 1, 2034.

As background, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleged that Major and agency owner Dolci had misclassified her, and other similarly situated signed models, as independent contractors, resulting in minimum wage violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as minimum wage, recordkeeping, illegal deduction, and failure to pay earned wages claims in violation of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). The Amended Complaint further alleged that Defendants had retaliated against Plaintiff for amending her complaint to add class action allegations.

In approving the settlement at a hearing on February 1, 2024, United States District Court Judge Rochon held that the settlement provides “the equivalent of class-wide injunctive relief for all of Defendants’ models over the next ten years,” and that “[b]ecause the FLSA does not provide injunctive relief for private parties for wage-and-hour violations, this relief goes beyond any that Plaintiff could have recovered under FLSA had she gone to trial.”

Specifically, under the settlement agreement, beginning April 1, 2024 (unless otherwise specified) until February 1, 2034, for all models currently signed with Major or who sign with Major, Major will:

(1)  provide models with access to a smartphone application, which application will provide, within three business days of the date of payment receipt by Major, information on any and all payments concerning and/or relating to the models’ work, including, the client name, invoice number, invoiced amount (not including Major’s agency and/or service fee), the receipt of payment by Major, and the payment amount received by Major, concerning each payment to Major, including with respect to all bookings and usages;

(2)  provide payment to models for their modeling work, including for their bookings and usages, without any requirement or need for them to request payment from Major, within thirty calendar days of Major’s receipt of payment concerning or relating to their modeling work (unless the model opts out of such automatic payment pursuant to the procedure described in the settlement agreement or does not submit his/her payment information);

(3)  electronically notify Major models of their scheduling information concerning all bookings, castings, options, go-sees, or similar scheduling, concerning any modeling work assignments, and/or engagements, promptly after the scheduling and finalization of such, bookings, castings, options, and/or go-sees; and

(4)  beginning in 2025, within thirty days of the end of each calendar year, for each model receiving a 1099 form, either provide (A) access to a smartphone application, which application will provide a statement for the preceding calendar year showing: (1) all bookings and/or engagements that occurred in the prior calendar year, identified by the client name and invoice number; (2) the amount invoiced by Major for each such booking and/or engagement; (3) the date the invoice was sent to the client for each such booking and/or engagement; (4) the amount paid by the client for each such booking and/or engagement (not including agency and/or services fees); (5) the receipt of payment by Major from the client for each such booking and/or engagement; and (6) the date and amount of payment to each model for each such booking and/or engagement; or (B) an email of a statement prepared by Major containing the foregoing information.

A copy of the entire settlement agreement is available here.

Plaintiff model Jasmine Burgess said:

“The policy changes that Major Model Management, Inc. and Guido Dolci have agreed to implement over the next decade will ensure timely payments to Major’s models and provide access to an app that will promptly indicate whether the agency received payment for models’ work. I believe that these policy changes will make Major Model a future leader among NYC modeling agencies concerning model pay timeliness and transparency and will eventually set a new standard for model pay practices for all NYC modeling agencies. I am pleased that, after several years of hard-fought litigation, and despite Major’s bankruptcy filing and discharge, ultimately, the matter was settled by the parties on mutually agreeable terms.”

The case was Burgess v. Major Model Management, Inc. et al., 1:20-cv-02816-JLR-GWG, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before United States District Judge Rochon and Magistrate Judge Gorenstein.

Media Contact: Cyrus Dugger, Esq., The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC (646) 560-3208 cd@theduggerlawfirm.com

NY Daily News Covers Dugger Law Firm Class Action: “Ex-de Blasio administration worker alleges widespread retaliation for discrimination complaints, according to federal lawsuit”

The New York Daily News recently covered the class action lawsuit filed by The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC on behalf of Former Mayor’s Office of Appointments Special Counsel and Deputy Director of Vetting Martha Perez-Pedemonti:

“A one-time de Blasio administration employee charges she became the target of retaliation — a practice that she says was widespread during the last mayor’s term — after she filed complaints about racial discrimination on the job, according to a new Manhattan Federal Court lawsuit.

The 114-page class action filing by former Mayor’s Office of Appointments Special Counsel and Deputy Director of Vetting Martha Perez-Pedemonti also cites a hostile work environment during her time at the agency — which ended in Jan. 31, 2020, when she claims she was driven to quit after struggling with mental health issues related to her work. . . . .

The city was also cited for ‘a pattern, practice, policy and/or custom of retaliation against employees’ making complaints to the city concerning commissioners, agency heads, and/or EEO officers.

The lawsuit also makes a class action claim on behalf of city workers who filed EEO complaints against the city, asking for a reevaluation of complaints previously found to be unsubstantiated.” (link)

- Larry McShane, New York Daily News, Aug 06, 2022

The press release for the lawsuit is available here

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC: Former Mayor’s Office of Appointments Special Counsel and Deputy Director of Vetting Martha Perez-Pedemonti Files Discrimination and Retaliation Class Action Against NYC

Former Mayor’s Office of Appointments (“MOA”) Special Counsel and Deputy Director of Vetting Martha Perez-Pedemonti has filed an individual and class action complaint against the City of New York (“NYC”), former Director and Principal EEO Officer for MOA Joni Kletter (“Kletter”), NYC Law Department EEO Officer Sosimo Fabian (“Fabian”), and NYC Agency Counsel Michael Levario (“Levario”).

Filed pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Section 1981, Section 1983, and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), the twelve-count complaint includes individual claims for: (1) race, ancestry, color, and race and/or ancestry-plus gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and stereotyping discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) interference with FMLA and NYCHRL rights; (4) NYCHRL aiding and abetting and attempted aiding and abetting liability; and (5) NYCHRL disparate impact liability.

The complaint’s allegations include that Defendants NYC and Kletter discriminated against Ms. Perez-Pedemonti because of her Hispanic and/or Hispanic female identity (and/or color), and/or retaliated against her because of her complaints of discrimination and/or retaliation at MOA, including by failing to promote her in favor of Defendant Levario, demoting her, stripping her of job duties, and/or attempting to force her to sign a confidentiality agreement, as well as by creating a discriminatory hostile work environment.  The complaint further alleges FMLA retaliation and interference claims against Defendants NYC and Kletter.

Beyond the allegations of discrimination and retaliation directed at Ms. Perez-Pedemonti, the complaint further alleges that Defendant Kletter: (1) agreed that “‘three Muslims’ were ‘too many’” for a Civic Engagement Commission and then had two Muslims removed from contention for the candidate pool; (2) responded inappropriately to a sexual harassment complaint against Defendant Levario that Ms. Perez-Pedemonti had reported to Defendant Kletter, as MOA’s EEO Officer, on behalf of a female subordinate; (3) mocked current Commissioner Everardo Jefferson for having a Spanish accent during a practice interview when he was a candidate for the City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission; (4) repeatedly discriminated against MOA’s Black female former Legal Director; and (5) told Ms. Perez-Pedemonti that she considered MOA’s former Legal Director’s taking of FMLA leave to have been “insubordination.”  Ms. Perez-Pedemonti additionally alleges that she was retaliated against after she complained about some of this discriminatory and/or retaliatory conduct, as well as following her complaint to human resources of a “culture of racial and ethnic discrimination at MOA.” 

In addition to individual claims, Ms. Perez-Pedemonti alleges class claims, for injunctive and declaratory relief, on behalf of all NYC employees who filed EEO complaints against a Commissioner, Head of Agency, and/or EEO Officer.  Specifically, the complaint alleges, a pattern or practice, in violation of the NYCHRL, of retaliation, interference, and/or aiding and abetting of NYCHRL violations, and in violation of  Section 1981 concerning a pattern or practice of retaliation, by the NYC Law Department and/or its EEO Officer Sosimo Fabian, against NYC employees who made EEO complaints against Commissioners, Heads of Agencies, and/or EEO Officers that were referred to the Law Department for resolution.  The complaint alleges these violations occurred through the Law Department and/or Fabian: (1) issuing findings that their EEO complaints were “unsubstantiated”; (2) conducting bad faith investigations of EEO complaints; (3) conducting pre-determined investigations of EEO complaints; (4) failing to accurately communicate the actual results of EEO complaint investigations; and/or (5) failing to properly, fully, and/or fairly investigate employee complaints of discrimination and retaliation.

The complaint additionally alleges a disparate impact on NYC employees who made EEO complaints against Commissioners, Heads of Agency, and/or EEO Officers, as a result of NYC’s applicable EEO policies, including: (1) referral of such EEO complaints to the Law Department for resolution; and/or (2) the Department of Citywide Administrative Services’ (“DCAS’s”) issuance of EEO guidelines and policies that did not provide clear standards for resolution of EEO claims and/or that did not accurately reflect the legal standards specific to the NYCHRL.  The complaint alleges that these, and other EEO policies, resulted in a disparate impact on the class through disproportionate rates of discipline, resignation, and/or termination.

The complaint further alleges that, in violation of Section 1983, the City has, on a class-wide basis, failed to adequately train and/or supervise Commissioners, Heads of Agency, EEO Officers, including regarding: (1) appropriately identifying potential discrimination and retaliation violations (including oral complaints); and (2) refraining from retaliating and/or instructing others to refrain from retaliating against NYC employees who made EEO complaints concerning Commissioners, Agency Heads, and/or EEO Officers.  It further alleges that NYC had a policy or practice of retaliation against employees who made sex discrimination, race discrimination, or related retaliation EEO complaints against Commissioners, Agency Heads, and/or EEO Officers.

Ms. Perez-Pedemonti’s complaint, in addition to seeking individual relief, seeks a class-wide injunction requiring the reevaluation of EEO complaints against Commissioners, Heads of Agency, and EEO Officers, that the Law Department previously found to be “unsubstantiated,” during the relevant class period, as well as prospective evaluation of such future EEO complaints, by an independent body such as an independent office, ombudsman, or the NYC Office of the Public Advocate.

Perez-Pedemonti v. The City of New York et al., No. 1:22-cv-06180 (NRB) (JW), is proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York before the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald.

Media Contact: Cyrus E. Dugger, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC, (646) 560-3208, cd@theduggerlawfirm.com

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC Files Disability Discrimination Case on Behalf of Former DVS Asst. Comm. Jamal Othman Against NYC Mayoral Candidate and Former DVS Commissioner Ret. General Loree Sutton

jaml photo..jpg

On November 7, 2019, U.S. Marine Corps veteran Jamal Othman filed a disability discrimination, retaliation, and interference complaint against the City of New York’s Department of Veterans’ Services (“DVS”), New York City mayoral candidate and former DVS Commissioner Ret. Gen. Loree Sutton, and current DVS Assistant Commissioner Jason Parker. 

Most recently the Assistant Commissioner for Engagement & Community Services for DVS, Mr. Othman worked as an Assistant Commissioner for DVS from 2016-2019.  He previously served as the Chief of Staff for Mayor Bloomberg for the New York City Mayor’s Office of Veterans’ Affairs (2012-2014) and the Deputy Director of the New York State Division of Veterans’ Affairs (2014-2016). 

Mr. Othman’s complaint alleges that, despite DVS’s stated mission of supporting NYC veterans, including those with mental health disabilities, former Commissioner Sutton engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against DVS’s military veteran employees with mental health disabilities, including targeting them for termination of employment from DVS.

The complaint alleges that shortly after Mr. Othman disclosed his service-connected mental health disability, former Commissioner Sutton demoted him, pressured him to resign, terminated his employment (by way of an armed escort out of DVS’s offices), and banned him from entering any property under the jurisdiction of DVS.

The complaint further alleges that former Commissioner Sutton created a hostile work environment for veterans with mental health disabilities.

The complaint alleges that her conduct included: (1) telling Mr. Othman that she wanted to find a reason to fire a veteran with a mental health disability in part because of their mental health disability (in addition to their political views); (2) expressing her pleasure, and becoming visibly giddy, after hearing of the departure of a veteran with a mental health disability from DVS; and (3) repeatedly instructing Mr. Othman “no more troubled veterans.”

The complaint additionally alleges that five days after former Commissioner Sutton terminated his employment because of his mental health disability and/or protected activity, she testified about veteran mental health to the New York City Council’s committees on Veterans and Mental Health, Disabilities, and Addiction, Oversight Hearing on “Veteran Suicide and Mental Health.”

Filed in the Southern District of New York pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), the fourteen-count complaint’s claims include: (1) disability discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) harassment and hostile work environment; (4) failure to accommodate; (5) interference; and (6) aiding and abetting liability.  The complaint also utilizes the NYCHRL’s 2017 amendments enacting anti-discrimination protections for uniformed service members (i.e. veterans), which Mr. Othman assisted in passing while at DVS.

Mr. Othman’s complaint seeks back pay, front pay, reinstatement, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, as well as punitive damages and FMLA liquidated damages from former Commissioner Sutton and Assistant Commissioner Parker in their individual capacities.

On November 6, 2019, The New York Times reported that former Commissioner Sutton had declared her candidacy for Mayor of New York City.

The case is Othman v. The City of New York et al., No. 19 Civ. 10351, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Media Contact: Cyrus E. Dugger, The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC (646) 560-3208 cd@theduggerlawfirm.com

Press release is available here.

Pregnant New York Workers Have Greater Potential Accommodation Rights Than Under Federal Law

GettyImages_453176359.jpg

The recent NY Times article titled "Miscarrying at Work: The Physical Toll of Pregnancy Discrimination" is an important overview of the challenges faced by many pregnant American workers under current federal law.

“It was the worst thing I have ever experienced in my life,” Ms. Hayes said.

Three other women in the warehouse also had miscarriages in 2014, when it was owned by a contractor called New Breed Logistics. Later that year, a larger company, XPO Logistics, bought New Breed and the warehouse. The problems continued. Another woman miscarried there this summer. Then, in August, Ceeadria Walker did, too.

The women had all asked for light duty. Three said they brought in doctors’ notes recommending less taxing workloads and shorter shifts. They said supervisors disregarded the letters. . . . But refusing to accommodate pregnant women is often completely legal. Under federal law, companies don’t necessarily have to adjust pregnant women’s jobs, even when lighter work is available and their doctors send letters urging a reprieve. . . . It says that a company has to accommodate pregnant workers’ requests only if it is already doing so for other employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.” (link)

Fortunately, pregnant women working in New York State and New York City (and several other states) have broader protections than under federal law.

“Outside Washington, there have been fewer roadblocks. At least 23 states have passed laws that are stronger than current federal protections.” (link)

For employers with at least four employees, New York and New York City law explicitly requires employers to reasonably accommodate pregnant workers. This right means that, unless the accommodation would imposes what the laws describes as “an undue hardship” on the employer, the employer is legally required to provide an accommodation to a pregnant worker (physically working in New York). Under some circumstances, pregnant workers working for employers in NYC are covered by this law even if the company classifies its workers as independent contractors.

You can find guidance on the New York State pregnancy discrimination law here and the New York City pregnancy discrimination law here.

Because the potential right to a pregnancy accommodation can be a complicated legal question involving a back-and-fourth “interactive process” with the employer, pregnant workers are well-advised to seek legal guidance as soon as possible after becoming pregnant.

Washington Post: "Even Janitors Have Noncompetes Now. Nobody Is Safe."

Even janitors have noncompetes agreements now . . .

“One of the central contradictions of capitalism is that what makes it work — competition — is also what capitalists want to get rid of the most.

That’s true not only of competition between companies, but also between them and their workers. After all, the more of a threat its rivals are, and the more options its employees have, the less profitable a business will tend to be. Which, as the Financial Times reports, probably goes a long way toward explaining why a $3.4 billion behemoth like Cushman & Wakefield would bother to sue one of its former janitors, accusing her of breaking her noncompete agreement by taking a job in the same building she had been cleaning for the global real estate company but doing it for a different firm.” (Continue Reading)

165959324.jpg

New York Attorney General Releases: Non-Compete Agreements In New York State: Frequently Asked Questions

Money+Drop;.jpeg

New York employers have been increasingly using non-compete agreements in employment contracts. In addition to bringing litigation against employers to address the use and abuse of overly broad non-compete agreements, the New York Attorney General recently released: Non-Compete Agreements In New York State: Frequently Asked Questions.

Beyond providing a helpful overview of the legal limits on non-compete agreements under New York law, the FAQ advises New York employees to take several steps and ask several questions before signing any non-compete agreement:

Before signing a non-compete 

1. Before accepting a new job, ask the employer if you will have to sign a non-compete. 

2. Before signing, make sure you read and understand any document that an employer asks you to sign. 

3. Remember that a non-compete is a contract and that you can try to negotiate its terms. 

Consider these questions before signing: 

What businesses are considered competitors? A non-compete may not be enforceable if the definition of a competitor is too broad or prevents you from working in an entire sector or industry. 

How long does the non-compete period last? Non-competes should be limited in time. 

What geographic area does it cover? Is the geographic scope so large that you might have to move to get a job with another employer in the industry? 

Are you getting anything in exchange for signing the non-compete? For example, some employers provide a bonus or specialized training, guarantee employment for a certain time, or provide payment for some or all of the non-compete period in exchange for signing a non-compete. 

Can you have a lawyer review the language and advise you on its potential consequences or negotiate with the employer on your behalf? 

Whether you’re considering signing a non-compete or already signed one, New York law may limit the enforceability of your non-compete agreement. Obtaining legal advice regarding your specific non-compete can be essential to protecting your rights following your departure from an employer.