Amazon recently updated its Reasonable Accommodation Policy as to employees seeking disability accommodations to work from home.  

Here is an explanation of their updated policy based on Bloomberg Reports. 

In a nutshell, the policy includes a more rigorous vetting process, multilevel leader review, and month-long return to the office trials. 

As a result, Amazon may wind-up defending more failure-to-accommodate claims while enacting this policy update. Specifically, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. The ADA mandates that employers engage in an interactive process, assessing requests individually in a timely manner. By implementing a more complex approval system, Amazon may be making it harder for employees with disabilities to receive the accommodations that they need, potentially violating the ADA. 

First, the new process requires a complex "multilevel leader review," which could lead to significant delays before employees' requests are approved. This extended waiting period could violate the ADA's requirement to address requests for accommodations in a timely manner, which is seen as a constructive denial of the requested accommodation that makes a failure-to-accommodate lawsuit ripe for adjudication. 

Additionally, the policy is problematic because it applies to both new requests and extensions of existing accommodations. Employees who have already been granted accommodations may now be required to return to the office for month-long trials to assess whether their needs are being met. This one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for all disabilities, and pushing employees back to the office without considering their specific needs could be seen as a failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA.

If employees are unable to obtain the accommodations they require and are forced to work in ways that don’t suit their disabilities, they may feel forced to leave the company. In such cases, this could be considered constructive discharge, where the work environment becomes so intolerable that employees feel they have no choice but to quit.

If Amazon's new policy fails to comply with the ADA or similar state and local laws, it could face serious legal consequences. Affected employees should file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is a condition precedent to bringing an ADA claim. Remember, dependent on location, such a charge must be filed with EEOC in as early as 180 days (some states extend this to 300 days, but federal sector employees only have 45 days to contact an EEO Counselor to get the ball rolling). 

Amazon's actions highlight the need for employers to carefully balance workplace goals with their legal obligations to uphold disability rights under federal, state, and local laws.

The New York City Council has approved the FARE Act (Int 0360-2024), a new bill that eliminates upfront broker fees for most renters. 

Currently, New York is one of the only places in the country where tenants are required to pay these fees, often around 15% of the yearly rent, even when they’ve never met the broker. This has meant an average upfront cost of $13,000 for renters, which includes broker fees, security deposits, and first month’s rent. Under the FARE Act, the responsibility for paying the broker fee will shift to the party that hires the broker—usually the landlord or building manager—unless the tenant specifically hires the broker. 

The bill passed with solid support, at 42 votes to 8. Proponents argue it’s common sense that the party hiring the broker should pay for their services, adding that the FARE Act will help make housing more accessible for working- and middle-income renters. However, critics, including the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), have raised concerns that the law could lead to higher rents, make it more difficult to find housing, and harm brokers.

On April 14, 2025 there will be no more of the never ending loop of frustration in trying to cancel your recurring subscriptions and memberships. The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has issued its finalized "Click to Cancel" rule, making it simpler for consumers to cancel recurring subscriptions. 

This rule targets those frustrating hurdles that consumers face to unsubscribe from services like streaming platforms and subscription boxes. In the past companies often required phone calls, long forms, or multiple steps for cancellations, even though signing up was easy with just a few clicks. This new rule ensures that if a business offers an online option to subscribe, they must also offer an easy online option to cancel in a similar manner. 

Businesses must now provide a clear, direct path for cancellation and requires companies to offer annual reminders of subscription renewals and to communicate any changes clearly to consumers. If a company proposes additional offers, alternatives, or incentives for consumers who are considering cancellation, the consumer must be able to decline those offers and proceed to cancel without additional hurdles. Check out the FTC's fact sheet here, which summarizes this new rule. 

This rule is the result of the thousands of complaints the FTC has received about recurring subscription practices each year. This rule will now provide a consistent legal framework by prohibiting companies from:

1. Misrepresenting any material fact made while marketing goods or services with a recurring subscription feature;
2. Failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose material terms prior to obtaining a consumer’s billing information in connection with a recurring subscription feature;
3. Failing to obtain a consumer’s express informed consent to the recurring subscription feature before charging the consumer; and
4. Failing to provide a simple mechanism to cancel the recurring subscription feature and immediately halt charges.

Violating the FTC’s new rule comes with a $51,744 civil penalty, injunctive relief, rescission or reformation of contracts that violate the Click-to-Cancel Rule, refund of money or return of property, the payment of damages, and public notification of the violation. Plus, there is additional exposure for state specific unfair or deceptive act or practice laws, such as NY General Business Law 349 for attorneys' fees and statutory penalties of $1,000 per violation. 

For more details, you can view the FTC's official release here. 

On September 30, 2024, President Biden officially proclaimed October as National Disability Employment Awareness Month while promoting inclusive workplaces. 

This year's focus is advancing access and inclusion which aligns with the core principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA eliminated the barriers individuals with disabilities faces, including employment. The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations and ensure that job opportunities are accessible to those with disabilities. This allows the over 61 million Americans living with a disability the opportunity to be included, participate, and be respected in the workforce.  

Remember, employers don't have a choice; if an accommodation is wrongfully denied, the employee can sue for back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. 

If you'd like to read President Biden's proclamation, click here. 

Effective on 9/27/2024, a new NYS law, A3710, extends employment protections to all active duty members of the national guard.

The law's justification explains the need for the law, as follows: "The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act does not apply when a National Guard member is called up by the governor to serve state active duty to respond to state emergencies such as fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods."

Under the law, service members are guaranteed re-employment in the same position or a position of similar prestige and pay, unless it is impossible or unreasonable for the employer to offer this.

Active duty national guard members called into service by NYS or another state must apply for re-employment within 90 days after being relieved from such service.

The law provides for compensation of lost wages and benefits if an employer breaches the law.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a Retention of Disabled Employee Report with recommendations for federal agencies to improve retention of disabled employees in federal public sector jobs.

The Report is based on 3 years of data & recommends that Fed Agencies should have: 

1. Disability accommodation procedures that comply with federal law;
2. Compliance procedures for processing personal assistance services requests; & 
3. Systems for processing such requests & publicizing them to employees & applicants on their website.

As of July 19, 2024, there is now a new deed type in New York State and it is already impacting homeownership and estate planning.

Simply, this new "Transfer on Death Deed Law," eliminates the need for probating real estate, is much less expensive than a trust, and is revocable, unlike a life estate with a remainder interest. In fact, all it takes is a recorded deed form, that was signed before two witnesses, and notarized. The form can be found here.

By executing a Transfer on Death Deed, property owners, including individual and joint owners of real property as well as corporations, can now initiate the automatic transfer of real property upon their death without needing to execute a will, trust, or life estate deed.

Per the statue, a Transfer on Death Deed must include:

other questions, consult a lawyer.

The NYSBA just released Ethics Opinion 1273 which opines that "[a] lawyer may accept real estate clients referred by an associate in the lawyer’s firm who is also a licensed real estate broker, provided the lawyer does not share legal fees or real estate commissions with the broker/associate and the lawyer obtains the client’s informed consent, confirmed in writing."

However, attorneys should remember that Rule 1.0(j) defines "informed consent" to "denote[] the agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated information adequate for the person to make an informed decision, and after the lawyer has adequately explained to the person the material risks of the proposed course of conduct and reasonably available alternatives."

Consequently, simply alerting the client of the situation is not enough. There must be "adequate" explanation of the risks and other options - which theoretically includes hiring an attorney from another firm.

While this opinion will likely be well received by brokers and transactional attorneys alike, it's still filled with a litany of problems because any scorned client is going to claim that they did not receive an adequate explanation to make an informed choice. It's also important to note that the opinion is about the associate referring her client's to the attorney, but what about referring the other side of the deal? That's not addressed by the opinion and it's theorized that would be non-waivable because of the concurrent conflict of interest, but who knows.