New York City Human Rights Law

Our colleagues at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog that will be of interest to our readers in the hospitality industry: “NYC Commission on Human Rights Issues Guidance on Employers’ Obligations Under the City’s Disability Discrimination Laws.”

Following is an excerpt:

The New York City Commission on Human Rights (“Commission”) recently issued a 146-page guide titled “Legal Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination on the Basis of Disability” (“Guidance”) to educate employers and other covered entities on their responsibilities to job applicants and employees with respect to both preventing disability discrimination and accommodating disabilities. The New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) defines “disability discrimination” more broadly than does state or federal disability law, and the Guidance is useful in understanding how the Commission will be interpreting and enforcing the law. …

Read the full post here.

The New York City Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission”) recently proposed new rules (“Proposed Rules”), which, among other things, define various terms related to gender identity, re-enforce recent statutory changes to the definition of the term “gender,” and clarify the scope of protections afforded gender identity status under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). If the proposed rules are adopted, the Commission’s interpretation of the NYCHRL will establish broad protections for individuals covered by the law’s prohibition against discrimination based on gender identity.

Initially, the term “gender” was defined by the New York City Council in 2002, when it enacted Local Law No. 3 of 2002 (“Local Law 3”). Recently, Local Law No. 38 of 2018 (“Local Law 38”) expanded the definition of the term so that it now reads: “’Gender’ includes actual or perceived sex, gender identity, and gender expression including a person’s actual or perceived gender-related self-image, appearance, behavior, expression, or other gender-related characteristics, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth.” (Emphasis added to reflect the most significant revisions to the term’s original definition.) The Commission’s proposed rules adopt this new definition.

Beyond defining the term “gender,” Local Law 38 also defined the term “sexual orientation” as “an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, physical or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender. A continuum of sexual orientation exists and includes, but is not limited to, heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, and pansexuality.” The Proposed Rules also establish definitions for “cisgender,” “gender identity,” “gender expression,” “gender,” “gender non-conforming,” “intersex,” “sex,” and “transgender,” as well as describing covered entities’ non-discrimination obligations.

Significantly, the intent of both Local Law 3 and Local Law 38 was to ensure that the NYCHRL’s prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity covered the full range of affected individuals, and that employers clearly understood the scope of the prohibition’s reach. Toward this end, the proposed rules broadly interpret the breadth of the ban on gender identity discrimination.

For example, under the proposed rules, discriminatory conduct includes:

  • deliberate misuse of an individual’s chosen name, pronoun, or title;
  • refusing to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities or participate in single-sex programs consistent with their gender identity;
  • imposing different dress or grooming standards based on gender; and
  • refusing a request for accommodation on the basis of gender.

Further, covered entities must provide equal employee benefits, regardless of gender, such as ensuring that the health plans they offer provide gender-affirming care.

The Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed rules on September 25, 2018.  Anyone can comment on the proposed rules by signing up to speak at the hearing, or submitting written comments to policy@cchr.nyc.gov or through the NYC rules website. Comments also can be mailed or faxed to Michael Silverman, New York City Commission on Human Rights, 22 Reade Street, New York, New York 10007. The fax number is 646.500.7022.

Our colleague Joshua A. Stein, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the hospitality industry: “Start Spreading the News – EDNY Denies Motion to Dismiss Website Accessibility Complaint.”

Following is an excerpt:

While the ADA finished celebrating its 27th anniversary at the end of July, for plaintiffs looking to bring website accessibility complaints in New York the party is still ongoing. Following on the heels of last month’s decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Five Guys, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in Andrews vs. Blick Art Materials, LLC, recently denied a motion to dismiss a website accessibility action, holding that Title III of the ADA (“Title III”), the NYS Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law all apply to websites – not only those with a nexus to brick and mortar places of public accommodation but also to cyber-only websites offering goods and services for sale to the public. …

Read the full post here.

 

by Susan Gross Sholinsky , Dean L. Silverberg, Steven M. Swirsky, and Jennifer A. Goldman

New York City employers take note: under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), it is now considerably more difficult for employers to establish “undue hardship” in the context of denying an employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation due to his or her religious observance or practice. While previously silent on the issue, the NYCHRL now includes a definition of the term “undue hardship,” as follows: “an accommodation requiring significant expense or difficulty (including a significant interference with the safe or efficient operation of the workplace or a violation of a bona fide seniority system).” This language mirrors the definition currently included in the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), and along with other changes described below, was included in Local Law 54, 2011 (entitled the Workplace Religious Freedom Act) (the “Act”). The Act was unanimously passed by the New York City Council and became effective when signed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg on August 30, 2011.

Read the full advisory online