The New York City Council introduced a bill to prohibit discrimination against people based on their tattoos. Are they taking discrimination law too far? 

Yes, it's true that employers ban tattoos at the workplace all the time. Yes, there is a stigma attached to those with tattoos. Yes, that stigma is not associated with actual data of lower work quality or effort and it's therefore, wrong. However, unlike sex, religion, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, race, and the rest of the protected classes in New York City, getting a tattoo is a personal choice. Or is it? Don't some religions endorse tattoos (e.g., Buddhism and Hinduism) and isn't tattoo discrimination therefore religious discrimination? But, wouldn't those with religious tattoos already have a discrimination claim if they were denied employment and not need this bill? 

What do you think? Do you think tattoos should be a protected class giving rise to a discrimination lawsuit if someone is denied work because of their tattoo?

Shouldn't jobs be based on work quality alone? Or, shouldn't a boss have some say in who works for the company outside of qualifications? 

This is a tough one.

Wonder why you were denied the last job or promotion you applied for? 

Wonder no more, because there is a good chance that it wasn't a human's decision. In fact, Artificial Intelligence "AI" has become the judge on who is hired or who is promoted for most employers and employment agencies. However, AI isn't perfect and may be infringing on your anti-discrimination rights if it's not properly programmed and regularly audited. 

That is why AI or Automated Employment Decision Tool "AEDT" has been the target of much scrutiny. Experts point out that AEDT are prone to bias in their hiring and promotion process. Biases include racial, sexual, and ethnic discrimination, amongst so many other protected categories. This problem has become so worrisome that New York City is putting in place an amendment to the New York City Administrative Code to curb the use of AI in hiring. 

Such amendment was approved by the New York City Counsel on November 10th, 2021. It can be read here.  The purpose of the Bill is to require employers and employment agencies to assess employees and candidates without the use of machine learned biases. The effects of such machine learned biases are discriminatory in nature.

Now, the Bill is on the Mayor's desk and goes into effect on January 1, 2023.

The Bill is limited to regulating AI decisions that screen candidates for employment or screen employees for promotion. This limitation is not without exception. An AEDT is allowed if the tool has undergone an independent bias audit no more than one year prior to it use. The audit's summary then must become publicly available on the employers' or employment agencies' website.

But how will you know if the employer or employment agency is using AEDT on you? The law enforces notification guidelines that will inform employees and candidates of its use.

If caught in violation of the law, employers and employment agencies face fines of up to $500 for the 1st violation, and fines between $500 to $1,500 for each subsequent violation. Plus, they may be exposed to a discrimination lawsuit with compensatory damages, punitive damages, penalties and attorneys' fees being awarded to the victim. If you believe that you were discriminated against by an AI / AEDT, your lawyer will be able to determine it's involvement during the lawsuit and leverage the company's non-compliance with the NYC Bill to win your case. 

1. Commencing a commercial eviction proceeding against any commercial tenant for the nonpayment of rent;
2. Commencing a foreclosure of any commercial mortgage for nonpayment of such mortgage; and
3. Enforcing of such eviction or foreclosure.

• Only in New York City, residential evictions are prohibited until October 1, 2020 and until September 4, 2020 for commercial evictions. This means eviction proceedings may be commenced but the Marshall cannot evict residential tenants until October 1, 2020 or until September 4, 2020 for commercial tenants.

• Beginning August 20, 2020, NYC Courts will begin accepting requisitions who have obtained judgments of possession issued before March 17, 2020. Such requisitions must be presented by motion on notice to the respondent and such motion must include the Notice to Respondent-Tenant and be served by mail and email, if possible. Trials for commercial evictions will also be conducted and virtual trials are strongly encouraged whenever possible. See DRP 214.

• Beginning August 20, 2020, landlords seeking to enforce a warrant of eviction issued before March 17, 2020 must request permission from the court through a motion on notice to respondent-tenant. Such motion must also include the Notice to Respondent-Tenant and be served by mail and email, if possible.

• In all matters where all parties have appeared, the judge has discretion to address any unexcused absence for noticed virtual or in-person appearances / conferences. The judge may reschedule with a “final” marking, resolve issues against such non-appearing party, impose sanctions, or issue a judgment of contempt.

• For deadlines to file an answer in residential eviction proceedings, no adverse action shall be taken based on the failure to file an answer in an eviction proceeding or failure to submit responsive papers to a motion submitted through the Electronic Document Delivery System (EDDS). All other rules contained in AO 160/20 and 121/20 remain in effect.