The shift to remote work didn’t just change where people perform their duties, it changed the legal framework in which employers operate. New York companies are now routinely hiring employees based in Florida, Texas, and beyond. That opens up access to great talent. It also opens up a web of multi-state legal exposures that many businesses underestimate.
Here’s where things get complicated: Which state’s law actually applies? Most employers assume New York law governs because that’s where the company is based. That’s often wrong. In many cases, the law of the state where the employee actually works governs, especially for wage-and-hour issues, workplace protections, and statutory rights. So, if your employee is sitting in Miami, Austin, Florida, or Texas, the law is likely in play.
Yes, your employment agreement may say New York law applies. That can help with certain contractual disputes. But it won’t override mandatory protections under the employee’s home state laws.
Wage and Hour: Where Companies Slip
You’re not just dealing with the Fair Labor Standards Act. You’re dealing with state overlays. Florida, for example, has its own minimum wage that exceeds the federal baseline. Texas largely tracks federal law, but that doesn’t mean you’re off the hook.
You still need to make sure you’re abiding by the appropriate laws. Overtime compliance, timekeeping and recordkeeping, proper classification and misclassification risk tends to increase in remote settings, where supervision is looser, and roles can blur.
Taxes and “Nexus” Risk
Hiring out-of-state employees isn’t just an HR issue, it’s a tax issue. Even in states like Florida and Texas (which don’t impose personal income tax), employers may still need to register as an out-of-state employer, pay into unemployment systems, handle payroll and business filings, and critically, you may be creating a “nexus” which can subject your business to broader tax and regulatory obligations in that state.
Non-Competes and Restrictive Covenants
This is where things really diverge. New York will generally enforce reasonable non-competes tied to legitimate business interests. But once your employee is working elsewhere, enforcement becomes less predictable. Texas enforces non-competes, but only if they meet specific statutory requirements. Florida is notably employer-friendly in enforcing restrictive covenants. Where the employee works and where the dispute ends up can materially affect whether your agreement holds up.
Policies Still Matter (Even Remotely)
Remote doesn’t mean “out of sight, out of law.” Employees are still protected by anti-discrimination laws, leave laws, wage payment rules, and state-specific notice and reimbursement requirements. Your policies need to reflect the reality of a distributed workforce, covering expectations around hours, equipment, data security, and compliance with local law.
The Practical Takeaway
There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach to employment anymore. If you are a New York company with employees in other states, you should be updating employment agreements for multi-state compliance, auditing wage-and-hour practices, evaluating tax exposure and registration requirements, and reassessing restrictive covenant strategy. The risk isn’t theoretical, it’s operational.
If your workforce is partially remote, your legal strategy needs to be multi-state by design, not by accident. As always, I offer free consultations to business owners to help determine if they are in compliance with the law and, if not, to craft a solution before it becomes a problem. My goal is to ensure that the FHV industry in New York City survives and thrives well into the future.
Steven J. Shanker, Esq. is General Counsel to the Livery Roundtable,
Inc. and the New York Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund.
