New York Enacts Paid Prenatal Personal Leave
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.09.24
Beginning January 1, 2025, New York employers will be required to provide employees with 20 hours of paid “prenatal personal leave” during any 52-week calendar period to attend prenatal medical appointments during or related to pregnancy. New York is the first state in the country to mandate paid leave specifically for pregnant employees. “Prenatal personal leave” is included in an amendment to New York’s budget, recently signed into law as Sections 196-b.2 and 4-a of the New York Labor Law by the governor and cleared by the state legislature.
The amendment defines “paid prenatal personal leave” as follows:
leave taken for the health care services received by an employee during their pregnancy or related to such pregnancy, including physical examinations, medical procedures, monitoring and testing, and discussions with a health care provider related to the pregnancy.
Paid prenatal personal leave applies to all New York employers, with no minimum employee threshold, and is applicable to both full-time and part-time employees. Employees may take paid prenatal personal leave in hourly increments, and must receive compensation at their regular rate of pay, or the applicable minimum wage established pursuant to New York law—whichever is greater. Employers are not required to pay an employee for unused prenatal personal leave at the time of separation from employment.
This leave is in addition to the leave already required by the New York Paid Sick Leave Law, but is otherwise subject to the same requirements, including that employers may not (a) require the disclosure of confidential information relating to a mental or physical illness, injury, condition, a sexual offense, etc., as a condition of providing paid prenatal personal leave; or (b) penalize, discriminate or retaliate against an employee for requesting or taking such leave.
The law does not provide direction on a number of substantive topics related to paid prenatal personal leave, including documentation and employee notice requirements, carry-over from year to year, interplay with other types of paid time off, and whether an employee is permitted to use all 20 hours of paid leave immediately upon hire. We expect that the New York Department of Labor will publish regulations or FAQs to clarify these and other interpretative questions in the coming months.
In the meantime, New York-based employers should review and update their current leave policies in preparation for the law’s January 1, 2025 effective date. Although New York is the first state to implement a standalone paid prenatal leave policy, the policy aligns with current trends as demonstrated by recently-enacted federal laws, including the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act, and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers (“PUMP”) Act, requiring employers to provide time and employment protections for pregnant and nursing employees.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
