New York Senate Bill S09842

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/7/26
• Refer: 4/7/26

Caption

Relates to disqualification from receiving benefits for separation from employment in cases where the claimant's employer maintained or refused to cure a health or safety condition that made the environment unsuitable.

Summary

S09842 amends New York’s Labor Law provisions governing unemployment insurance disqualification after separation from employment. The bill creates a new rule that a claimant will not be disqualified from receiving benefits if they left a job because the employer maintained, refused to cure, or failed to cure a health or safety condition that made the workplace unsuitable. It also specifies that notice of the condition can be shown if the claimant notified the employer, another employee notified the employer, or the employer knew or should have known about the condition. The bill further states that it is enough, but not required, to show unsuitability by pointing to violations or inconsistency with laws, rules, policies, orders, or agency guidance on suitable working conditions. The bill also amends the misconduct section of the Labor Law to protect workers who are fired after refusing to work, leaving a shift early, or declining an assigned task in response to an employer’s failure to fix an unsuitable health or safety condition. In those circumstances, the separation would not be treated as misconduct and would also not be treated as a voluntary quit without good cause. The bill makes corresponding technical changes to use gender-neutral language and takes effect immediately, with one provision tied to the effective date of a prior 2021 law.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would broaden eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits by limiting when workers are disqualified after leaving unsafe jobs or being terminated for refusing unsafe work. It would affect Labor Law section 593 by adding a new basis for preserving benefits in cases involving unsafe or unsuitable workplace conditions and by clarifying that certain safety-related refusals or departures are not misconduct. The practical effect would be to strengthen protections for employees facing health and safety hazards and to place greater responsibility on employers to address reported workplace conditions.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a worker-protection and workplace-safety bill. Its language is affirmative toward employees who leave or refuse work because of unsafe conditions, suggesting a policy goal of preventing unemployment benefit penalties in those situations. No contrary views are documented in the provided materials, so the available record shows no explicit opposition or support beyond the bill’s protective framing.

Contention

The main policy issue raised by the bill is how broadly to define an “unsuitable” workplace and what proof should be required to show that the employer knew or should have known about the hazard. Employers may be concerned that the bill lowers the threshold for unemployment eligibility by allowing notice through another employee or constructive knowledge, and by treating inconsistency with agency guidance as sufficient evidence of unsuitability. Workers and labor advocates would likely support these standards because they make it easier to preserve benefits after leaving or refusing unsafe work. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no documented legislative dispute in the materials.