Jackson Lewis maintains its position at the top of Long Island‘s labor and employmentlaw practice area landscape with 49 attorneys at its Melville office on South Service Road. Ana Shields serves as managing principal.
Littler follows with 21 attorneys in this area, also based in Melville on Broadhollow Road under John Bauer as office managing shareholder. T
Bond, Schoeneck & King ranks third with 20 attorneys. The firm in 2025 relocated to South Service Road in Melville, with Craig Olivo and Ralph Rosella serving as co-managing members. Garfunkel Wild holds fourth place with 19 attorneys working from Great Neck under Chairman Andrew Blustein.
McIntyre, Donohue, Accardi, Salmonson & Riordan employs 16 labor and employment attorneys in Bay Shore and represents employees and plaintiffs. Richard Donohue manages the firm as managing partner.
Three firms tie with 15 practice area attorneys each. Fusco, Brandenstein & Rada operates from Woodbury and represents employees and plaintiffs. Ingerman Smith works from Hauppauge under Managing Partner Mary Anne Sadowski. Kaufman Dolowich maintains offices in Woodbury with Michael Kaufman and Ivan Dolowich as co-managing partners.
The rankings extend to firms each with one Long Island-based labor and employment law attorney. Harras Bloom & Archer; Harris Beach Murtha; Law Offices of Alan J. Schwartz; McCabe, Collins, McGeough, Fowler, Levine & Nogan; Meng & Reznak; and Russo, Karl Widmaier & Cordano.
These firms serve clients across Nassau and Suffolk counties in matters involving labor and employment law.
Brings 40+ years of experience in education, municipal and labor law.
Former senior managing partner at Ingerman Smith with extensive trial experience.
Leadership roles in NY legal community include NYSBA and Suffolk Bar.
John Gross, a veteran education law attorney and former senior managing partner at a regional firm, has joined Guercio & Guercio, an education law firm with an office in Farmingdale.
Now of councel at Guercio & Guercio, Gross represents school districts, colleges, municipalities, non-profits and private clients in municipal, education, public sector labor, employment and corporate law. He has maintained an active trial, appellate and administrative practice while serving in leadership roles within the New York State legal community. He frequently litigates before the Commissioner of Education; teacher tenure discharge tribunals; the state’s Division of Human Rights, labor, commercial, and construction arbitration panels; the courts; and the New York State Public Employment Relations Board in improper practice and representational proceedings.
“I am honored to join Guercio & Guercio LLP, a firm with a longstanding reputation for excellence in education, labor, and municipal law,” Gross said in a written statement. “I look forward to working with such a talented group of attorneys in service of public-sector clients across New York State. I am excited to contribute my experience and continue advocating for public institutions and the communities they serve.”
Gross previously served as senior managing partner at Ingerman Smith. With more than 40 years of practice, he has negotiated hundreds of labor contracts.
“We are thrilled to have John join our firm,” Christopher Mestecky, managing partner at Guercio, said in written statement.
“He brings a wealth of education industry knowledge and experience that will undoubtedly benefit not only our educational clients, but every attorney in our firm,” Mestecky said.
“The stature and respect he commands in the education field cannot be overstated,” Mestecky added. “John, along with our founding partner, Greg Guercio, have been the standard bearers and pioneers in education law. Now, with both John and Greg at the firm, our education and municipal clients will have access to a knowledge base and level of service unparalleled in the industry.”
Gross has held numerous leadership roles in professional and bar associations, including president of the Suffolk County Bar Association, vice president and executive committee member of the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA), and chair of multiple NYSBA committees and task forces. He has also served as counsel to the Suffolk County Bar Association for 30 years and as special counsel to the NYSBA.
India has granted legal status to millions of gig and platform workers under its newly implemented labor laws, marking a milestone for the country’s delivery, ride-hailing and e-commerce workforce — yet with benefits still unclear and platforms beginning to assess their obligations, access to social security remains out of reach.
The recognition stems from the Code on Social Security — one of four labor laws the Indian government brought into effect on Friday — more than five years after the parliament first passed them in 2020. It is the only part of the new framework that addresses gig and platform workers, as the remaining three codes — covering wages, industrial relations, and workplace safety — do not extend minimum earnings, employment protections or working-condition guarantees to this rapidly expanding workforce.
India has one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing gig economies, with industry estimates suggesting that more than 12 million people deliver food, drive ride-hailing cabs, sort e-commerce packages, and perform other on-demand services for digital platforms. The sector has become a critical source of employment, especially for young and migrant workers shut out of formal job markets, and is projected to expand further as companies scale logistics, retail, and hyperlocal delivery.
Companies from Amazon and Walmart-owned Flipkart to Indian quick-delivery apps such as Swiggy, Eternal’s Blinkit, and Zepto, as well as ride-hailing firms including Uber, Ola, and Rapido, rely on gig workers to run their businesses in the South Asian nation — the world’s second-largest internet and smartphone market after China. Yet despite powering some of India’s most valuable tech businesses, most gig workers operate outside traditional labor protections and lack access to basic social security.
The newly implemented labor laws are intended to change that, by defining gig and platform workers in statute and requiring aggregators, such as food-delivery and ride-hailing platforms, to contribute 1–2% of their annual revenue (capped at 5% of payments made to such workers) to a government-managed social security fund. But the details remain murky: what exact benefits will actually be offered, how workers will access them, and how contributions will be tracked across multiple platforms, and when payouts will begin all remain unclear, raising concerns that meaningful protections may take years to materialize.
A Zomato delivery boy moves through New DelhiImage Credits:Nasir Kachroo/NurPhoto / Getty Images
The Code on Social Security creates a legal framework for gig workers to be covered under schemes such as the Employees’ State Insurance, provident fund, and government-backed insurance. However, the extent of these benefits — including eligibility, contribution levels, and delivery mechanisms — remains unclear and will depend on future rules and scheme notifications.
A key part of the framework is the creation of Social Security Boards at both the central and state levels, tasked with designing and overseeing welfare schemes for gig and platform workers. The central board must include five representatives of gig and platform workers and five representatives of aggregators, all nominated by the government, alongside senior officials, experts, and state representatives, per the Code. But there is little clarity on how decisions will be made, how much influence worker representatives will actually have, or who will ultimately control decisions on funding and benefit delivery.
Techcrunch event
San Francisco | October 13-15, 2026
“We need to wait and see what exactly is in the government’s mind when it comes to implementing the four Codes, and what it hopes to do for gig workers,” said Balaji Parthasarathy, a professor at IIIT Bangalore and principal investigator of the Fairwork India project. “And then we also have to see what the states translate on the ground.”
Parthasarathy noted that because labor policy in India is shared between the federal and state governments — listed in the “concurrent list” of the Indian Constitution — state governments are responsible for designing, notifying, and administering many of the schemes needed to make the Code on Social Security operational for gig workers.
That raises the possibility of uneven access, as some states move quickly to establish social security boards and roll out mechanisms, while others delay or deprioritize the effort due to political or fiscal constraints. Recent examples — such as Rajasthan’s stalled legislation after it was passed in 2023, and Karnataka’s Gig Workers Act, which was implemented soon after clearing the state assembly — underscore how workers’ protections may ultimately depend on where they live rather than the law itself.
Platform companies have publicly welcomed the reform, but are still largely evaluating what it will require of them. An Amazon India spokesperson told TechCrunch the company supports the Indian government’s intent behind the labor overhaul and is evaluating the changes it will need to introduce. A spokesperson for Zepto said the company welcomes the new labor codes as “a big step toward clearer, simpler rules that protect workers while supporting ease of doing business,” adding that the changes will help strengthen social security for its delivery partners without undermining the flexibility that quick-commerce operations rely on.
Food delivery firm Eternal, formerly known as Zomato, said in a stock exchange filing that the Social Security Code is a step toward more uniform rules and that it does not expect the financial impact to threaten its long-term business.
Nonetheless, Aprajita Rana, a partner at corporate law firm AZB & Partners, said the change “will naturally have a financial impact” on India’s e-commerce sector, as worker contributions are now being formalized. It will also create new compliance obligations, requiring companies to ensure all workers in their networks are registered with the government-managed fund, determine whether individuals are associated with multiple aggregators and how to avoid duplicative benefits, and set up internal grievance mechanisms.
“While the law has the right intent, gig worker structures in India are quite novel, and practical challenges in compliance will emerge as the law takes force,” Rana told TechCrunch.
One of the biggest hurdles for gig workers seeking benefits under the newly implemented law will be registering on the Indian government’s E-Shram portal, launched in 2021 as a national database of unorganized workers. The portal had registered more than 300,000 platform workers as of the end of August, even though the government estimates India’s gig workforce at around 10 million. Trade unions, including the Indian Federation of App-Based Transport Workers (IFAT), which has more than 70,000 members, are working to help gig workers enroll so they can access the benefits.
Ambika Tandon, a PhD candidate at the University of Cambridge and an affiliate of the national trade union Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), said registering on the portal could mean lost wages for gig workers, since they would have to take time off to fill in required details.
“These workers work for 16 hours a day,” she told TechCrunch. “They don’t have time to go and register themselves on the government portal.”
CITU is also among the ten major Indian trade unions calling for the withdrawal of the new labor laws, ahead of nationwide protests planned for Wednesday.
The benefits of registering on the E-Shram portal are not compelling for many gig workers, Tandon noted, because the law does not address more immediate concerns such as fluctuating earnings, account suspensions, and sudden termination of accounts — issues that workers say matter far more right now than access to insurance or provident fund benefits.
Trade unions often organize strikes to push platforms to address these concerns directly. However, such actions can disrupt everyone involved, including consumers, and put workers at further risk, as they are not paid while striking and may even face termination for participating.
Swiggy workers protested in Kolkata in 2023Image Credits:NurPhoto / Contributor / Getty Images
“While the social security rules have now been put in place, we demand a minimum wage and an employer–employee relationship for gig and platform workers, which are yet to be set by the government,” said Shaik Salauddin, founder president of the Telangana Gig and Platform Workers Union (TGPWU), which has more than 10,000 members in the southern state of Telangana, and national general secretary of IFAT. “We urge the government to obtain data from aggregators and secure their monetary contributions to the fund to start offering benefits to workers.”
There is a broader debate over whether gig workers should be treated as employees — a question the new labor laws do not address. The Social Security Code defines gig and platform workers as a separate category, rather than extending them the rights and protections that come with employee status. In contrast, courts and regulators in markets such as the U.K., Spain, and New Zealand have moved toward recognizing platform workers as employees or “workers,” entitled to minimum wages, paid leave, and other benefits. In some U.S. jurisdictions, regulators and courts have pushed for platform workers to be treated as employees or similarly protected workers, though many ride-hail and delivery drivers remain classified as independent contractors.
“With this law, the Indian government has settled this debate by saying that these gig workers do not sit within the ambit of employment or other protections,” Tandon said.
The Indian labor ministry did not respond to a request for comment.
A federal jury finds City of New York recklessly failed to pay FDNY EMTs and paramedics pre-shift and post-shift overtime pay
Press Release –
updated: Oct 28, 2019
NEW YORK, October 28, 2019 (Newswire.com)
– A federal jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, 2,519 EMTs and Paramedics employed by the City of New York, in an action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Following the close of evidence, the jury unanimously found that the City suffered or permitted EMTs and Paramedics to work before and after their shifts without paying them and that the City’s failure to do so was done in reckless disregard of the law. Oren Barzilay, the President of AFSCME Local 2507, Uniformed EMTs, Paramedics & Fire Inspectors, remarked: “After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury returned a verdict telling the City it must pay its first responders for the work they perform before and after their scheduled shifts – all of which is captured in CityTime. The jury did justice.”
The law firm of McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP represented the plaintiffs in a three-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York before the Honorable Judge Vernon S. Broderick. The plaintiffs demonstrated through the testimony of numerous EMTs and Paramedics, and FDNY Supervisors, that they began working at the EMS stations up to 15 minutes prior to the start of their shifts when they, among other things, prepared their medical and protective equipment to ensure that they were ready and able to put their ambulances in service as quickly as possible. The jury further found that the plaintiffs worked after the end of their shift, for up to 15 minutes, exchanging vital medical equipment and information with the next tour of EMTs and Paramedics and safely storing any other personal medical or protective equipment they had used during their shift.
In addition, the jury found that because the EMTs and Paramedics performed these activities while scanned into the City’s electronic timekeeping system, CityTime, the backpay damages could be computed directly from the number of minutes that the City had recorded, but not paid.
Finally, the jury further found that in failing to pay the EMTs and Paramedics for this work, the City of New York willfully violated the law, entitling the EMTs and Paramedics to full recovery under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Following the verdict, Molly Elkin, the plaintiffs’ lead trial counsel, said: “Unlike the City, the jury had the backs of the FDNY EMTs and Paramedics. The EMTs and Paramedics answer thousands of calls every day, risking their lives. They should not be working for free.” Although the precise amount owed will be determined at a later date, the backpay alone for the work performed by the plaintiff EMTs and Paramedics will be in the millions.
Chaz Perry, et al. v. City of New York and New York Fire Department, Case No. 1:13-cv-01015 (SDNY)
