SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
new york
'Just Cause' Is a Worthy Cause
Activists in Ithaca, New York are mobilizing for the first city-wide ban on arbitrary firings in the US. Other cities should take note.
Nov 22, 2025
Activists in Ithaca, New York are trying something unique: They’re mobilizing support for an ordinance that would prohibit employers in that small city from firing their employees without just cause. If they succeed, they’ll have enacted the first such city-wide ban on arbitrary firings in the country.
Success in this effort will be a big deal, because in the United States, employment—unless otherwise restricted by law, collective bargaining agreement, or individual employment contract—is considered to be “at will.” This means that in the vast majority of cases, employers are entitled to fire workers at their whim, without warning or explanation.
A 2021 report from the National Employment Law Project (NELP) tells us that about half of US workers have been affected by unfair or arbitrary firings at some point in their lives, with devastating consequences for them and their families. Not surprisingly, then, a nationwide survey cited in the report found wide public support for just cause protections, including from 71% of voters in battleground states, with both Democratic and Republican majorities weighing in favorably.
Existing Restrictions on Employers' Right to Fire
Even without new federal, state, or local legislation, employers today face some limits to the at-will doctrine: federal and state laws, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that bar various sorts of discrimination in the workplace; anti-retaliation statutes, like those included in the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and many other whistleblower-protection statutes; and section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, that prohibits firing for union or other "concerted" activity. All these laws fall short of robustly protecting workers from retaliatory or discriminatory firings, however, largely because the burden is on the employee to prove the employer's illegal motivation—no simple feat—when under the general at-will rule the employer can fire the worker for no reason at all.
In addition to these limited statutory constraints on the at-will doctrine, over the past 50 or so years a number of state common law exceptions to the rule have developed. The most prevalent is the "public policy" exception, under which, in theory at least, employers can't fire workers for reasons that are contrary to public policy. Courts generally interpret the exception narrowly, applying it only to employees who exercise a clear legal right, perform a clear legal duty, or refuse to violate the law, or when the employer engaged in an “outrageous violation of a well-established public policy.”
Well-crafted state and local laws and ordinances, with accessible and effective enforcement mechanisms, have the potential to empower workers in new and game-changing ways, especially as federal protections erode before our eyes.
A second exception is the "implied contract of continuing employment" (at least theoretically available in 41 states and the District of Columbia). It's derived from employee handbooks, policies, and the like, that suggest protection from discharge except if the employee performs poorly, violates company policies, or has to be laid off because of the employer's economic necessity. Employers can generally get around this claim by expressly stating in their materials that the employee is working on an at-will basis, and that its various policies can be revised at any time, at the discretion of the employer.
Lastly, 11 states have read into the common law an "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing," imposed on employers and employees, to act fairly. While theoretically this should prohibit firings without cause altogether, in actuality courts rarely find it applies, and then only in the most abusive cases. In other words, none of these common law carve outs from at-will employment have been particularly helpful to workers.
The Ithaca Ordinance
Which brings us to Ithaca’s legislative proposal. As the core provision of its current draft version (embedded at the Ithaca Just Cause website), the ordinance would prohibit discharge of an employee who has completed their (maximum 90-day) probationary period, for any reason other than just cause or a bona fide economic reason. In considering whether the just cause standard has been satisfied, the fact finder is to consider, among other things, whether the employer trained the worker on its performance requirements and bases for discipline, and whether the employer’s policy, rule, practice, or performance standard, including its use of progressive discipline, was reasonable and applied consistently.
Also, except in cases of egregious misconduct, the employer has to specifically notify the worker of what rules they violated or requirements they fell short of, and must utilize progressive discipline prior to firing. Similar notice of reasons is required before discharging a worker on account of bona fide economic necessity. Significantly, if an employee termination is to be upheld, the burden is on the employer to satisfy these requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.
The proposed legislation also adds a "Worker Rights" section to the City of Ithaca Municipal Code, and establishes a commission that would adjudicate complaints of violation. Complaints of violation can also be filed in court.
Retaliation against workers who exercise any of the rights granted by the legislation is expressly prohibited, and use of electronic surveillance as a tool for determining employee performance is restricted. Remedies for employees vary depending on the violation, and include back pay and damages, rescission of discipline and reinstatement, penalties, severance pay, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees.
Other Just Cause Efforts
The proposed ordinance echoes the recommendations laid out in these NELP and Roosevelt Institute reports. Published in 2021, both make the case for why this kind of municipal ordinance, or more potently, a comparable state law (or, as an even more radical aspiration, federal legislation, as promoted by Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders) is justified and overdue for all workers—with NELP focusing particularly on the disproportionate impact of at-will employment on people of color and immigrant workers, who face higher rates of wage theft, discrimination, and retaliation for asserting their rights than the employee population at large.
It should come as no surprise, but it's still shameful, that this country lags far behind many other nations—Australia, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and most of the European Union, to name a few—in providing just-cause protections against arbitrary and unfair firings. Which is why what the Ithaca coalition is doing is really worth noticing. But it's not the first city to take this on: Philadelphia led the (notably small) pack when, in 2019, its city council enacted a just cause termination ordinance for the city's approximately 1,000 parking lot attendants. New York City was next, enacting a comparable ordinance protecting its fast food workers in 2021. Also in New York City, a diverse coalition of unions, advocacy organizations, and high road employers are pressing for passage of a Secure Jobs Act covering all employees who work in the city. With its newly elected democratic socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani, it just might succeed.
The US territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands have just cause laws. In Illinois, a Secure Jobs Act, pressed by Raise the Floor Alliance and a broad array of allies, was introduced in the state legislature in 2021, but has yet to be enacted. In what might come as a surprise, Montana is the only state in the US to have enacted just cause legislation, and it's been on the books for decades. While not nearly as progressive as the Ithaca, New York City, and Illinois models, it is unique in prohibiting, state-wide, firings without good cause.
Will Just Cause Laws Hamper Unionization Efforts?
Some may be concerned that just cause legislation could undercut unions' ability to successfully organize, since that's a key benefit they can provide in collective bargaining agreements. But there are a number of arguments that cut the other way—including that if firing without good cause is made illegal and is readily enforceable, it creates a more effective impediment to employers' efforts to get rid of pro-union activists than the weak and slow remedies the National Labor Relations Act has to offer. And, just cause for all workers would provide a floor, not a ceiling, for union negotiations for even better protections against improper firings at unionized workplaces.
Parting Thoughts
Worker rights advocates should watch Ithaca Just Cause's initiative with keen interest. It also should give food for thought—and inspiration—for those of us who live in other cities and states. It’s clear that just cause protections are popular with workers across party lines. Well-crafted state and local laws and ordinances, with accessible and effective enforcement mechanisms, have the potential to empower workers in new and game-changing ways, especially as federal protections erode before our eyes. For those of us in locales where this might be possible, maybe it's time to give it a try.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire-Funded AI Super PAC Picks Leading Safety Advocate as First Target
"If they are scared of people who understand their business regulating their business, they are telling on themselves," New York State Assemblymember Alex Bores said.
Nov 17, 2025
A super political action committee aimed at taking down elected officials who want to regulate artificial intelligence has chosen its first target for destruction.
CNBC reports that the Leading the Future PAC is going after New York state Assemblymember Alex Bores, a Democrat who is currently running to represent New York's 12th Congressional District.
The PAC, which is backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale, and other AI heavyweights, has singled out Bores' cosponsorship of the AI-regulating RAISE Act as justification to end his political ambitions.
According to CNBC, the bill cosponsored by Bores would force large AI firms "to publish safety protocols for serious misuse... of their tech, such as creating biological weapons or carrying out other criminal activity," and also "to disclose serious incidents, or else face civil penalties from the state attorney general."
Leading the Future accused Bores of pushing though "ideological and politically motivated legislation" that would purportedly "handcuff" America's AI industry.
In promoting the legislation, which passed through both chambers of the New York state Legislature months ago but has not yet been signed by Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, Bores touted it as a "light-touch" regulation that would "require basic guardrails for AI safety.
Bores responded to news that he was being targeted by the pro-AI PAC with defiance, and he said it showed why his push to regulate the big AI firms was so important.
"The 'exact profile' they want to go after is someone with a Masters in Computer Science, two patents, and nearly a decade working in tech," he wrote in a post on X. "If they are scared of people who understand their business regulating their business, they are telling on themselves."
He then posted a link to his campaign's ActBlue page and noted the PAC's ties to supporters of President Donald Trump, writing, "If you don't want Trump megadonors writing all tech policy, contribute to help us push back."
Bores is part of a crowded field to succeed Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who announced his retirement in September.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A 'Dirty Deal With Trump': Hochul Draws Fury Over Fracked Gas Pipeline Approval
"Under Gov. Hochul’s leadership, New Yorkers’ voices were silenced to appease President Trump’s fossil fuel priorities," said one critic.
Nov 07, 2025
Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul came under fire Friday after her administration approved a previously rejected fracked gas pipeline over the objection of climate and conservation campaigners.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced approval of permits including a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipeline. Commonly known as the Williams Pipeline, the expansion project involves the construction of a 23.5-mile fracked gas conduit beneath the Raritan Bay and Lower New York Bay. The pipeline would carry hydraulically fractured gas from Pennsylvania across New Jersey and into New York.
“As governor, a top priority is making sure the lights and heat stay on for all New Yorkers as we face potential energy shortages downstate as soon as next summer,” Hochul said in a statement. “We need to govern in reality.”
DEC assured that it is "committed to closely monitoring the project’s construction and adherence to all permit conditions to ensure the full protection of New York’s waterways."
This, after the agency twice denied water quality certification for the same pipeline for failing to demonstrate compliance with state quality standards.
In 2020, the DEC under then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is also a Democrat, denied certification for the project after finding that the proposed pipeline was likely to harm water quality by stirring up sediment and other contaminants that “would disturb sensitive habitats, including shellfish beds.”
The advocacy group New York Communities for Change noted in a fact sheet that the project "would jack up already-high utility bills" and be a "super-polluter" that would "generate about 8 million tons of additional climate-heating and asthma-inducing air pollution each year."
"The pollution would also foul our water, including stirring up toxic waste during the construction process," the group added. "The project would especially hurt people on the Rockaways, a majority African American community, where it would terminate."
BREAKING: Hochul just did Trump’s bidding by approving the massive Williams fracked gas pipeline.Hochul’s dirty deal with Trump will jack up our utility bills, pollute our air & water, and cook the climate.Join us at 3:30 outside her office 919 3rd Avenue to protest TODAY.
— New York Communities for Change (@nychange.bsky.social) November 7, 2025 at 9:22 AM
However, Williams Companies, the group behind the project, filed a new application this year amid pressure from President Donald Trump for Hochul to green-light construction.
“Today’s decision by New York is a complete reversal of their two previous determinations to reject this pipeline project over threats to the state’s water resources," Mark Izeman, senior attorney for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, said in a statement Friday.
"The pipeline proposal is exactly the same, and state and federal law is the same, so there is no legal or scientific basis for taking a 180 degree turn from the state’s past denials," Izeman continued. "If built, the pipeline would tear up 23 miles of the New York-New Jersey Harbor floor; destroy marine habitats; and dredge up mercury, copper, PCBs, and other toxins."
The project "would also harm sensitive shellfish beds and fishing areas, and undercut billions of dollars New York has invested to improve water quality in the harbor," he added.
Earthjustice New York policy advocate Liz Moran said that “it is shameful that Gov. Hochul and her Department of Environmental Conservation made a decision that fails to protect New Yorkers and our precious waterways."
"We are reviewing the certificate and evaluating our options," Moran added. "The certificate application hasn’t changed since being previously rejected by the DEC, water quality standards haven’t changed—only the political context has changed, and that’s not a basis to completely reverse course.”
Sane Energy Project director Kim Fraczek also condemned the approval, asserting that "under Gov. Hochul’s leadership, New Yorkers’ voices were silenced to appease President Trump’s fossil fuel priorities."
"Hochul has made it abundantly clear that she will abdicate her responsibility as governor, violate New York’s signature climate law, dismiss the environmental and affordability struggles facing New Yorkers, and bend the knee to Trump for political expediency," Fraczek added.
Roger Downs, conservation director at the Sierra Club’s Atlantic chapter, said, "It is truly a sad day when New York leaders cave to the Trump administration and agree to build pipelines that New Yorkers do not need and cannot afford."
“This decision is an affront to clean water, energy affordability, and a stable climate," Downs added.
Food & Water Watch New York state director Laura Shindell called Hochul's approval "a betrayal of New Yorkers."
“In granting the certification for this pipeline, Gov. Hochul has not only sided with Trump, she’s fast-tracked his agenda," she continued. "Hochul has shown New Yorkers she’d prefer to do Trump’s dirty work rather than protect our waterways from pollution."
"She hasn’t kept her promises to fight against skyrocketing energy bills or the climate crisis," Shindell added. "But New Yorkers will fight Hochul’s dirty pipeline every step of the way—alongside our communities—until it is stopped for good.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular