The Federal Government recently passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which significantly strengthens protections for pregnant workers and enhances the process for addressing discrimination claims related to pregnancy and related medical conditions in several ways including:

• Clear Prohibitions: The PWFA explicitly prohibits discrimination against pregnant employees, including adverse actions, denial of employment opportunities, and coercion. This clarity empowers pregnant workers to assert their rights without fear of retaliation.
  
• Mandatory Reasonable Accommodations: Covered entities are required to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees unless it causes undue hardship. This ensures that pregnant workers can continue working without facing unnecessary barriers due to their pregnancy or related medical conditions.

• Interactive Process Requirement: The Act mandates an interactive process between employers and employees to determine appropriate accommodations. This process promotes transparency and collaboration, ensuring that accommodations are tailored to meet the specific needs of pregnant workers.
  
• Expansive Definitions: The PWFA provides comprehensive definitions of terms such as "known limitation" and "related medical conditions," broadening the scope of protections for pregnant workers. This clarity reduces ambiguity and strengthens the basis for discrimination claims.
  
• Limits on Supporting Documentation: The Act imposes limits on the type of supporting documentation employers can request from pregnant employees seeking accommodations. This prevents employers from creating unnecessary barriers or burdens for pregnant workers seeking to exercise their rights.

The Supreme Court just adopted The Simple Injury Standard to identify discriminatory terms and conditions of employment when it ruled unanimously that an employer's act of transferring an employee "from one job to another because she is a woman" (or another protracted trait) is actionable discrimination under Title VII.

The case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, states that discrimination is actionable so long as the employee can identify "some harm" regardless if that harm is "significant" because to “discriminate against” refers to “differences in treatment that injure” employees. Specifically, in Muldrow, the plaintiff sued because her "terms [or] conditions" of employment were changed, even though her "rank and pay remained the same," because her new position changed her "responsibilities, perks, and schedule," based on who she was. SCOTUS explained that this "meet[s] that test with room to spare" in overturning the lower court's dismissal based on the now extinct "materially significant disadvantage" standard.  

In Muldrow, the simple injuries experienced that support a discrimination claim were:

1. "She was moved from a plainclothes job in a prestigious specialized division giving her substantial responsibility over priority investigations and frequent opportunity to work with police commanders." 
2. "She was moved to a uniformed job supervising one district’s patrol officers, in which she was less involved in high-visibility matters and primarily performed administrative work." 
3. Her schedule became less regular, often requiring her to work weekends; and she lost her take-home car."

Specifically, SCOTUS held that "[a]lthough an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test." That is the new test, resolving a split in the Circuit Courts, as to the definition of an adverse employment action for an employment discrimination claim. 

Attorney Andrew Lieb appears on NewsNation to talk about potential legislation prohibiting discrimination based on weight or obesity. He discusses the potential enforcement of laws against 'weight discrimination' and their implications for employers, including the consideration of obesity as a protected category akin to race or religion in anti-discrimination laws. 

In the discussion, Lieb tackles employers' worries, such as the possibility of a gym or health-centric business being unable to hire someone who doesn't align with their brand ethos. He delves into the intricate legal aspects and underscores the importance of fostering an inclusive work environment, steering clear of shaming individuals.

On November 30, 2023, Governor Hochul signed A0372A establishing a new section of the Public Health Law, Section 2803-c-2. 

This new addition to the Public Health Law combined with Executive Law 296 creates express discriminatory events that are actionable. 

The new Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and People Living with HIV Long Term Care Bill of Rights provides that it is unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff member to discriminate against any resident on the basis of such resident's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status. 

Under this new addition facilities are required to post notices about their nondiscrimination policies with information about reporting violations, employ procedures for recordkeeping purposes that include residents' gender identity, correct name as indicated by the resident, preferred pronoun as indicated by the resident, protect personally identifiable information regarding residents' sexual orientation and more. 

Facilities are also now required to ensure that facility staff that are not involved in providing direct care to residents are not present during physical examinations or the provision of personal care without the express permission of the resident or the resident's legally authorized representative and ensure that at least once every two years, each facility staff member who works directly with residents receives training on cultural competency focusing on patients who identify as LGBT and/or HIV.

If a facility  discriminates against an individual protected by Section 2803-c-2, that discriminatory conduct may be actionable under the New York State Human Rights Law. 

On November 17, 2023, Governor Hochul signed Bill A00581, amending NYS' General Obligations Law to prohibit settlements, or other resolution, of sexual harassment claims or any other form of unlawful discrimination from including any term or condition that requires the survivor to pay the defendant liquidated damages if the complainant violates a non-disclosure agreement.

Survivors of sexual harassment and discrimination are often required to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) as a condition for receiving compensation for their horror. NDAs frequently include provisions requiring survivors to pay liquidated damages (predetermined damages) if they violate the agreement and these damages can be devastating. 

As a result, survivors, who later change their minds or those who were coerced into signing an NDA, face financial hardships for speaking out about their experience. This new law will protect survivors by no longer allowing financial penalties against them for sharing their stories about experiencing harassment and discrimination.

This Bill takes effect immediately and will apply to agreements entered on or after its effectiveness Agreements can no longer require the survivor to forfeit part or all of the consideration for violating an NDA. Additionally, defendants can no longer require survivors to sign an affirmative statement, assertion, or disclaimer stating that they were not subject to discrimination or retaliation.