NYC Fair Workweek Enforcement Puts Employers on Notice, by Aaron Solomon, Esq. and Ted Hillebrand, Esq., 10-1-2026

New York City employers covered by the Fair Workweek Law may want to take a fresh look at their scheduling and recordkeeping practices as the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) continues to pursue significant monetary relief for alleged violations.

Although the Fair Workweek Law has been in effect since 2017, recent enforcement activity underscores the potential consequences of noncompliance. In December 2025, DCWP announced a $38.9 million settlement resolving alleged widespread violations of the law, the largest worker-protection settlement in New York City history. 

More recently, DCWP has continued to pursue Fair Workweek enforcement actions involving both fast-food and retail employers. In March 2026, the agency announced settlements providing more than $1.8 million in restitution to more than 830 workers to resolve Fair Workweek Law violations, as well as a separate enforcement action alleging thousands of Fair Workweek and Protected Time Off Law violations affecting approximately 1,000 additional workers. In July 2026, DCWP announced another round of worker-protection settlements, including two Fair Workweek settlements involving retail employers that provided more than $1.7 million in combined restitution to more than 620 workers.

For covered employers, these developments provide a timely reminder that routine scheduling decisions can create significant compliance risks, particularly when violations occur repeatedly across employees, shifts and locations.

What the Fair Workweek Law Requires
New York City’s Fair Workweek Law establishes scheduling protections for employees of covered fast-food, retail, and utility-safety employers.

Covered retail employers generally must provide employees with written work schedules at least 72 hours before the first shift on the schedule. They may not cancel scheduled shifts with less than 72 hours’ notice, require employees to work with less than 72 hours’ notice without their consent or schedule employees for on-call shifts, subject to limited exceptions. The retail provisions generally apply to employers operating retail businesses with 20 or more employees that are primarily engaged in the sale of consumer goods at one or more stores in New York City.

The law’s fast-food provisions generally apply to employers of employees working at fast-food establishments in New York City. A covered fast-food establishment is one whose primary purpose is serving food or drink, where customers order or select items and pay before eating, that offers limited service and is part of a chain of 30 or more establishments nationally, including qualifying franchise locations.

Fast-food employers are subject to more extensive requirements. Among other obligations, they must provide employees with a written regular schedule and work schedules at least 14 days in advance. Work schedules generally must be consistent with employees’ regular schedules.

Schedule changes may trigger additional requirements. Depending on the circumstances, employers may need to obtain an employee’s written consent and pay a schedule-change premium, with the amount depending on the nature and timing of the change. Employers should therefore ensure that required consents and schedule changes are properly documented.

Additional Protections for Fast-Food Employees
Fast-food employees receive additional protections under the law. Employers generally must offer available shifts to current employees before hiring new employees or using subcontractors, subject to the law’s requirements. Employers must also comply with seniority-based reinstatement requirements when hours become available following a layoff.

The law also restricts “clopening” shifts—two shifts spanning two calendar days with fewer than 11 hours between them. With limited exceptions, employers may not require employees to work such shifts without written consent and payment of a $100 premium.

Fast-food employees also have job-security protections. After completing their probationary period, employers generally may not discharge or indefinitely suspend an employee, or reduce the employee’s hours beyond applicable thresholds, without “just cause” or a bona fide economic reason.

Except in cases involving egregious misconduct or an egregious failure to perform duties, employers generally must use progressive discipline under a written policy provided to the employee before discharging an employee for just cause. Employers must also comply with applicable written-notice requirements when discharging an employee or reducing an employee’s hours.

Compliance Often Comes Down to Day-to-Day Practices
Fair Workweek issues can arise from ordinary operational decisions: an employee covers an unexpected absence, volunteers for an available shift or has a schedule changed after it has been posted. These routine decisions can implicate advance-notice, written-consent, premium-pay and recordkeeping requirements.

Employers should ensure that frontline managers understand these requirements and have procedures for obtaining and retaining required written consents. Employers using scheduling technology should also confirm that their systems account for applicable notice periods, capture schedule changes and employee consents, calculate required premiums and preserve necessary records.

What Employers Should Do Now
In light of DCWP’s recent enforcement activity, covered employers should consider reviewing their scheduling and shift-change practices, procedures for obtaining and retaining employee consent, premium-pay practices, manager training and recordkeeping systems.

Fast-food employers should also review regular schedules, procedures for offering available shifts, and disciplinary, termination and reduction-in-hours practices for compliance with the law’s just-cause protections.

Recent enforcement serves as a reminder that Fair Workweek compliance is more than an administrative scheduling issue. Routine practices can create significant liability when statutory requirements are not consistently followed and documented.

Authors:
Aaron Solomon
Partner

Ted Hillebrand
Associate