Prohibits agreements between employers that directly restrict the current or future employment of any employee; allows for a cause of action against employers who engage in such agreements.
Summary
This bill, titled the "End Employer Collusion Act," would amend New York’s General Obligations Law to prohibit certain restrictive employment agreements in franchise arrangements. Specifically, it defines a "restrictive employment agreement" as a term in a franchise agreement that bars or limits one franchisee from soliciting or hiring employees or former employees of the franchisor or another franchisee. The bill makes such agreements void and bars franchisors, or anyone acting on their behalf, from entering into, renewing, enforcing, or even threatening to enforce them.
The bill also creates a private right of action for individuals who are denied employment or otherwise harmed by a prohibited agreement. A successful plaintiff could recover actual damages, punitive damages as allowed by the court, and attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, the Attorney General would be authorized to pursue enforcement under existing executive law authority. The measure would take effect immediately upon enactment.
Impact
The bill would add a new section 5-338 to the General Obligations Law, directly limiting the enforceability of franchise-based no-hire or anti-solicitation provisions between employers. It would affect franchisors, franchisees, employees, former employees, and the Attorney General by voiding covered clauses and creating both civil and public enforcement mechanisms. In practical terms, it would reduce the ability of franchise systems to use contract terms that restrict worker mobility across locations or between franchisees.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears framed as a worker-protection and anti-collusion reform aimed at increasing employment opportunities and labor mobility. The absence of voting history or discussion prevents a reliable assessment of legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s pro-employee purpose.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between employee mobility and franchisor/franchisee contract freedom. Supporters would likely emphasize that no-hire and anti-solicitation provisions suppress wages and job opportunities and can function as anti-competitive restraints on workers. Opponents, if any, would likely argue that such clauses help protect business investments, training, and brand stability within franchise networks. Because no transcripts or votes are available, the specific positions of legislators, industry groups, labor advocates, or business interests are not documented in the provided record.
Same As
Prohibits agreements between employers that directly restrict the current or future employment of any employee; allows for a cause of action against employers who engage in such agreements.