On 2/19/2025, EEOC Announced a Crackdown on Anti-American Bias with a target of those engaging in unlawful national origin discrimination, including employers and staffing agencies. By emphasizing staffing agencies in its Press Release, it appears that EEOC is targeting staffing agency that focus on foreign workers and they should lawyer-up immediately. 

What You Need to Know

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has announced a renewed focus on combating national origin discrimination, with a particular emphasis on protecting American workers from unlawful hiring preferences that favor non-American employees. Acting Chair Andrea Lucas made it clear that the agency will be increasing enforcement efforts against employers, staffing agencies, and other entities that engage in illegal hiring practices that disadvantage American workers. Read the full EEOC press release here.

Summary of the EEOC’s Announcement

The EEOC is intensifying enforcement against employers that unlawfully prefer non-American workers over American workers, citing violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The agency aims to deter illegal migration and curb the abuse of legal immigration programs by holding employers accountable for discriminatory hiring practices.

What Employers Need to Know

Employers should immediately review their hiring, recruitment, and staffing policies to ensure compliance with Title VII’s prohibition on national origin discrimination. Common illegal practices include:

• Preferring non-American workers over American workers due to perceived cost savings or ease of exploitation.
• Hiring practices that intentionally exclude U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents in favor of visa holders.
• Making employment decisions based on biased stereotypes about work ethic, productivity, or compliance.
• Complying with client demands for a foreign workforce over qualified American workers.

The EEOC has made it clear that these discriminatory practices will not be tolerated, and businesses found to be in violation may face significant legal and financial penalties.

What Employees Need to Know

Employees, whether American or non-American, are protected under federal law from national origin discrimination. If you suspect that an employer is favoring foreign workers over qualified American workers—or engaging in any other form of national origin discrimination—you have the right to file a complaint with the EEOC within 300 days (in NY, but may be 180 days elsewhere) of the discriminatory action. Employees are protected from retaliation for reporting discrimination, and the EEOC can investigate claims and, if necessary, give you a right to sue letter so you can sue in Federal Court to recover lost wages, emotional support damages, and your attorneys' fees.

On February 14, 2025, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rescinded enforcement memorandums that had made companies exposed to suit for utilizing certain non-competes and non-disclosures. In fact, the memorandums provided guidance on how employees could demonstrate harm and how employers were exposed from utilizing such non-competes and non-disclosures for lost wages, benefits, and other expenses incurred by the employee. 

Specifically, the NLRB rescinded: 

1. GC 23-08 Non-Compete Agreements that Violate the National Labor Relations Act
2. GC 25-01 Remedying the Harmful Effects of Non-Compete and “Stay-or-Pay” Provisions that Violate the National Labor Relations Act
3. GC 23-05 Guidance in Response to Inquiries about the McLaren Macomb Decision

AI's rapid growth comes with significant risks, particularly the potential for unchecked discrimination. As a result, new laws may soon require mandatory audits and enhanced training to ensure compliance and fairness.

In this New York Law Journal article, attorneys Andrew Lieb and Claudia Cannam outline the essential steps for conducting a proper AI audit—helping businesses stay ahead of evolving regulations and mitigate legal risks.

🔗 Read more here

On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera that employers only need to prove that employees are exempt under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not) to defeat a wage and hour claim. This decision replaces the tougher "clear and convincing" standard that had been applied by some courts prior to this decision.

The FLSA requires an employer to pay overtime to employees unless the employer can prove that the employees fall under an exemption, such as being an Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees.

In the case before SCOTUS, the employees claimed that they were misclassified as outside salesmen and sued their employer for overtime pay, liquidated damages (double damages), and attorneys' fees. 

The lower court sided with the employees, in using the tougher "clear and convincing" standard, but the employer appealed while arguing that it only had to prove that the exemption applied by a preponderance of the evidence. SCOTUS agreed with the employer and sent the case back to the lower court to reexamine the facts to determine the applicability of the exemption under the preponderance of the evidence standard. 

Regardless, the message is clear: Employers now have a lower hurdle when defending a wage and hour case in proving that an exemption applies to a wage and hour claim under the FLSA. 

Trump's Executive Order 14168 is set to cause a lot of discrimination lawsuits. 

On the one hand, the EO is a playbook for reverse discrimination and hostile environment claims by women because the EO claims that women have been victimized by transgender individuals claiming inclusion in womanhood. The EO states that "men [] self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women's domestic abuse shelters to women's workplace showers. This is wrong." As such, biological women who are subjected to transgender individuals in single-sex spaces can now argue that the space provider created a hostile environment by such inclusion and any woman who was denied access or was otherwise sexually harassed by a transgender individual in such a space has a very good claim under federal law.   

On the other hand, the EO expressly states that SCOTUS's decision on workplace discriminations' protection for "Sex," where it defined the protected class of "Sex" to also include protections for "Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" would be untenable for education discrimination. Specifically, the EO states that "The prior Administration argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which addressed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces under, for example, Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act. This position is legally untenable and has harmed women. The Attorney General shall therefore immediately issue guidance to agencies to correct the misapplication of the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) to sex-based distinctions in agency activities. In addition, the Attorney General shall issue guidance and assist agencies in protecting sex-based distinctions, which are explicitly permitted under Constitutional and statutory precedent." However, the distinction is meaningless between workplace and school environment; discrimination is discrimination wherever it occurs. That is to say, if Trump's administration believes "Sex" protections should not include protections for "Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" at school, they should equally not include those protections at work. This distinction between Title VII and Title IX is just stupid. 

Regardless, the EO is also going to cause lawsuits from intersex individuals because it is facially flawed in stating that "[i]t is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female." Turns out that is biologically false without even discussing a distinction between gender and sex. Specifically, some people are born with biological characteristics of both females and males and this EO specifically targets them while discriminating against their personhood.

Buckle-up - Trump is about to usher in the era of discrimination lawsuits.

Starting April 20, 2025, short-term rental hosts across NYS will be in for a rude awakening by way of A4130C. This law creates a statewide short-term rental registration requirement for owners, which is designed to facilitate the State in collecting occupancy taxes while tracking the hosts. 

To be clear, NYS is now treating short-term rentals like hotel rooms under the Tax Law - this is certainly going to cut into profits for hosts &/or make renting an AirBnB / VRBO more expensive for guests. 

For hosts, this means much more paperwork, stricter rules, and some hefty penalties for noncompliance. Specifically, the Department of State will give you 2 warnings & then, start levying the fines at hundreds of dollars per day, per violation. 

New York is not alone in its quest to regulate short-term rentals. Cities like San Francisco, Boston, and Los Angeles have already implemented similar measures. However, New York’s approach stands out for its focus on statewide coordination, which could become a model for other states grappling with the complexities of regulating the short-term rental industry.

Do you think New York is doing the right thing by cracking down on short-term rentals, or is this overregulation at its worst? Let us know in the comments!

Contact the Author of this post

NYC has clarified that it is illegal to discriminate in housing against applicants / occupants with criminal histories by way of Local Law 24, also known as the Fair Chance in Housing Act 2025, effective January 1, 2025. 

That said, it was already impliedly the law everywhere throughout the US as we previously explained here. 

Regardless, the new NYC law explicitly prohibits property owners, managers, & brokers from:

• Refusing to rent, sell, and/or lease housing accommodations based solely on criminal history, except under specific circumstances outlined in the law.
• Performing criminal background checks outside the law's defined parameters, including searching records and/or asking applicants about their criminal history without proper notice & justification.
• Using criminal history to set terms or conditions that disadvantage individuals with such backgrounds.

Into the weeds, there is nuance in the NYC Local Law because it differentiates between “reviewable” and “non-reviewable” criminal history where sealed convictions, youthful offender adjudications, and certain federal or out-of-state offenses cannot be used to deny housing, but convictions for serious offenses (e.g., recent felony convictions) may be reviewed through a detailed and exposure riddled process, including providing notice and conducting an individualized assessment. The process requires: 

• Making a conditional offer to the applicant.
• Notifying the applicant in writing of any intended criminal background check.
• Allowing the applicant to provide mitigating information if adverse action is contemplated.

Plus, a landlord must demonstrate a legitimate business interest tied to the decision if they'd like to deny on criminal history. 

That all said, the main takeaway is that housing applicants / occupants with criminal histories are going to be filing housing discrimination complaints starting in 2025. If you are a property owner, manager, or real estate broker, expect to get served by the NYC Commission on Human Rights if you plan to make any housing decisions based on an applicant's / occupant's criminal history. Plus, there are big numbers that you can lose including the "victim's" attorneys' fees if they sue you with a private attorney. Take this very seriously & immediately stop screening based on criminal history today. 

Effective June 19, 2025, the New York State Fashion Workers Act, A05631E, will protect New York's 180,000 fashion industry professionals--models, influencers, photographers, and stylists--from their management company's exploitation through unfair pay, sexual abuse, harassment, and discrimination.

Now, victims can bring a new lawsuit for experiencing unsafe working conditions, exploitative contracts, delayed payments, and abuse where they can collect liquidated damages (double to three times damages) and attorneys' fees. 

The Act Requires:

• A zero tolerance policy for abuse, harassment, or other forms of inappropriate behavior
• Models to receive copies of the final agreement that has been negotiated 
• Overtime payments of at least 50% higher than contracted hourly rate for work exceeding 8 hours in a 24 hour period 
• Meal breaks for jobs over 8 hours
• Liability insurance for models’ health and safety
• Management agencies commission is capped 20%
• Management agencies must utilize transparent contracts & provide copies to models
• Clear consent for the use of digital replicas
• Modeling agencies to register with the State of New York to operate

These new lawsuits are designed to close a loophole that modeling agencies have utilized to escape licensing & regulation by considering themselves management companies, rather than talent agencies, under New York State General Business Law § 171(8), known as the "incidental booking exception." 

Starting on June 11, 2025, NY residential real estate purchasers will receive a new pamphlet, called "What Mortgage Applicants Need to Know," pursuant to A9686.

This pamphlet is going to be created by the NYS Department of Financial Services and it will be available on the Department's Website - https://www.dfs.ny.gov/ where lenders have an affirmative duty to provide the form and put it on their website, as described in the law.

The pamphlet will equip all mortgage applicants, and especially non-English speaking homebuyers, with information on interest rates and market comparisons before they engage with lenders and bankers. Lenders and bankers are also required to provide buyers with the pamphlet. 

Loan officers (LO) beware - this pamphlet directs consumers to file a complaint with CFPB if such consumer believes that such LO violated the law. 

Real Estate Brokers beware - this pamphlet directs consumers to file a complaint with DOS if such consumer believes that such broker violated the law "in working with you to purchase a home," which is without limitation to lending. 

In fact, the pamphlet, developed by the Department of Financial Services, must include the following minimum requirements:

"'WHAT MORTGAGE APPLICANTS NEED TO KNOW'
   AS AN APPLICANT FOR A RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO:
   1. COMPARE AND NEGOTIATE THE CHARGES OF DIFFERENT MORTGAGE BROKERS AND
 LENDERS TO OBTAIN THE BEST LOAN POSSIBLE.
   2.  ASK YOUR MORTGAGE BROKER TO EXPLAIN SUCH PERSON'S RESPONSIBILITIES
 WITHIN THE MORTGAGE LENDING PROCESS.
   3. KNOW HOW MUCH THE MORTGAGE BROKER IS COMPENSATED  BY  YOU  AND  THE
 LENDER FOR YOUR LOAN.

 4. A CLEAR AND TRUTHFUL EXPLANATION OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
 LOAN.
   5.  KNOW IF THE LOAN BEING OFFERED IS A FIXED OR ADJUSTABLE RATE MORT-
 GAGE LOAN, WHETHER THE LOAN CAN BE TRANSFERRED OR REFINANCED,  KNOW  THE
 EXACT  AMOUNT  OF  YOUR  MONTHLY  LOAN PAYMENTS, INCLUDING ANY PROJECTED
 ESCROW PAYMENTS, KNOW THE FINAL ANNUAL PERCENTAGE  RATE  (APR)  AND  THE
 AMOUNT OF REGULAR PAYMENTS AT THE LOAN'S CLOSING.
   6.  ASK  FOR  LOAN  ESTIMATE DETAILING ALL LOAN AND SETTLEMENT CHARGES
 BEFORE YOU AGREE TO THE LOAN AND PAY ANY FEES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITA-
 TION LOAN APPLICATION FEES, TITLE SEARCH AND  INSURANCE  FEES,  LENDER'S
 ATTORNEY  FEES, PROPERTY APPRAISAL CHARGES, INSPECTIONS, RECORDING FEES,
 LATE PAYMENT FEES, TRANSFER TAXES, POINT AND  ORIGINATION  FEES,  ESCROW
 ACCOUNT BALANCES, WHICH SERVICES A LOAN APPLICANT CAN SHOP FOR AND WHICH
 THEY  CANNOT, AND YOU ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE SUCH ESTIMATE WITHIN THREE
 BUSINESS DAYS OF APPLYING FOR A LOAN.
   7. OBTAIN CREDIT COUNSELING BEFORE CLOSING A LOAN.
   8. DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO FINANCE ANY PORTION OF THE POINTS OR FEES.
   9. REFUSE TO PURCHASE CREDIT INSURANCE FOR ANY MORTGAGE LOAN.
   10. HAVE YOUR PROPERTY APPRAISED BY AN  INDEPENDENT  LICENSED  PROFES-
 SIONAL AND TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE APPRAISAL.
   11. NOT BE SUBJECT TO DECEPTIVE MARKETING PRACTICES.
   12.  ASK  FOR THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU'S BOOKLET "YOUR
 HOME LOAN TOOLKIT".
   13. RECEIVE THE FOLLOWING  DOCUMENTS,  AND  EVERY  DOCUMENT  OTHERWISE
 REQUIRED  TO BE GIVEN TO YOU AT CLOSING UNDER FEDERAL AND NEW YORK STATE
 LAW:
   A. LOAN ESTIMATE,
   B. CLOSING DISCLOSURE.
   14. KNOW WHAT DEPOSITS AND FEES ARE NOT REFUNDABLE IF  YOU  DECIDE  TO
 CANCEL THE LOAN AGREEMENT.
   15.  RECEIVE  IN  WRITING  THE  REASON  FOR  THE DENIAL OR CONDITIONAL
 APPROVAL OF YOUR LOAN APPLICATION.
   16. IF REFINANCING, YOU MAY CANCEL A LOAN WITHIN  THREE  DAYS  OF  THE
 CLOSING  BY  PROVIDING  WRITTEN  NOTIFICATION  OF  CANCELLATION  TO  THE
 LICENSED LENDER OR BANKING INSTITUTION.
   17. RECEIVE THE CLOSING DISCLOSURE THREE DAYS BEFORE THE CLOSING TAKES
 PLACE.
   18. HAVE ANY LENDING DISPUTES RESOLVED IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE MANNER.
   19. A CREDIT DECISION  THAT  IS  NOT  BASED  UPON  YOUR  RACE,  COLOR,
 NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, SEX, FAMILY STATUS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, DISA-
 BILITY OR WHETHER ANY INCOME IS FROM PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
   20.  FILE  A  COMPLAINT  WITH THE DEP
ARTMENT OR THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL
 PROTECTION BUREAU IF YOU BELIEVE THAT A MORTGAGE  BROKER  OR  ANY  OTHER
 ENTITY  LICENSED  BY THE DEPARTMENT OR THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
 BUREAU HAS VIOLATED ANY RULES, REGULATIONS OR  LAWS  WHICH  GOVERN  SUCH
 PERSON'S CONDUCT IN WORKING WITH YOU TO GET OR PROCESS A MORTGAGE LOAN.
   21.  FILE  A  COMPLAINT WITH THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE OR
 THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU IF  YOU  BELIEVE  THAT  A  REAL
 ESTATE  BROKER  HAS VIOLATED ANY RULES, REGULATIONS OR LAWS WHICH GOVERN
 SUCH PERSON'S CONDUCT IN WORKING WITH YOU TO PURCHASE A HOME."

Victims of employment discrimination in New York will be well pressed to file for Workers' Compensation concerning any related emotional distress starting on January 1, 2025 or they will be very limited in recovering emotional distress damages as part of their discrimination claim.

Specifically, Workers' Compensation Law 10(3)(b) has been amended, by A5745, to permit all "worker[s to] file[] claim[s] for mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress incurred at work."

Previously, the availability of Workers' Compensation for "mental injury premised upon extraordinary work-related stress" only applied to emergency service workers (police, firefighter, emergency medical technician, paramedic, & emergency dispatcher), but now it applies across the board to all workers. Moreover, Worker's Compensation for such mental injuries was previously limited to "work-related emergency" and now it just must occur "at work." This amended law is very broad and clearly applies to all workers for work related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

That all said, a worker seeking to obtain Workers' Compensation benefits for such mental injuries still has the burden of demonstrating a causal relationship supported by a rational basis between his work and his documented PTSD diagnosis. To prove this connection, a worker should hire both Workers' Compensation counsel and Employment Discrimination counsel as the two claims are now wholly interrelated and a failure of one will hurt the other and vice-versa.