DHR's Proposed Regulations Focus on Settlement, But the Real Story Is Due Process

Editor's Note: This analysis is based on the New York State Division of Human Rights' June 17, 2026 proposed amendments to 9 NYCRR Part 465. A copy of the proposed regulations is available at the end of this article.

On June 17, 2026, the New York State Division of Human Rights ("DHR") proposed amendments to its regulations at 9 NYCRR Part 465. Much of the proposal focuses on creating greater and sooner opportunities for settlement through both informal and formal conciliation. The proposed regulations also establish criteria for evaluating settlement offers, identify minimum standardized terms for settlement agreements, and clarify the process by which a complainant may object to a settlement proposal that DHR otherwise deems fair and in the public interest.

The full 19-page proposal is available for review at the end of this article.

While the proposal is largely framed as a settlement initiative, the most consequential change may have little to do with settlement at all. Instead, it may be DHR's recognition that respondents are entitled to a more definite statement of the allegations against them before being required to defend a discrimination claim.

The real story is due process.

Specifically, DHR proposes to add subdivision 465.11(f), entitled More Definite or Detailed Statement, which would allow a respondent to apply in writing to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a more definite or detailed statement of the complaint. According to the proposal, this amendment is intended to ensure compliance with the State Administrative Procedure Act.

That is significant because, for years, discrimination respondents have often been required to defend claims based on vague allegations that do not clearly identify the specific conduct, dates, statements, decisionmakers, policies, comparators, or facts underlying the alleged discrimination. In practice, respondents have frequently been left guessing as to the actual allegations they must defend against.

If adopted, the proposed rule would provide respondents with a direct procedural mechanism to seek clarification before hearing, rather than waiting until after an adverse determination to argue that the proceeding failed to comply with the State Administrative Procedure Act. This is more than a technical amendment. It is a recognition that a respondent cannot meaningfully defend a discrimination claim without adequate notice of the allegations being asserted.

Settlement Reform Is Still Important

The proposed regulations also expand DHR's settlement framework. The amendments contemplate conciliation before a complaint is filed, conciliation after a complaint is filed but before a determination after investigation, pre-hearing settlement conferences, division-initiated settlements, and settlement review during the hearing process.

In evaluating whether a settlement offer is substantial enough to warrant termination of a proceeding in the public interest, DHR may consider factors including the probability of success, the reasonableness of the offer, the complainant's economic loss, evidence of mental pain and suffering, the egregiousness of the alleged discrimination, and whether the public interest is best served by continuing the proceeding.

That expanded settlement framework may create earlier opportunities for respondents to resolve cases, particularly where a complainant refuses a settlement that DHR deems reasonable. However, the value of that process will depend heavily on how DHR evaluates settlement value, damages, public interest, and the reasonableness of objections.

What the Proposal Still Does Not Fix

Although the proposed amendments move DHR toward greater procedural structure, they do not go far enough to solve two critical problems in DHR proceedings.

First, the proposed regulations do not create a meaningful discovery dispute resolution process. Litigants may still be required to commence a special proceeding in Supreme Court to enforce subpoenas or compel disclosure. In fact, the proposed amendments appear to move in the opposite direction by eliminating language that previously allowed an Administrative Law Judge to "agree to the issuance of subpoenas" during the preliminary conference process.

That omission matters. DHR proceedings can involve complex employment, housing, education, public accommodation, and business records. Without a clear administrative mechanism to resolve discovery disputes, parties may continue to face delay, inefficiency, and unnecessary court intervention when evidence is withheld.

Second, the proposed regulations do not expressly state that DHR settlements and awards must be evaluated under New York's Consistency-of-Remedies Principle, as established in Thoreson v. Penthouse International, Ltd., 80 N.Y.2d 490 (1992), and affirmed in Thoreson v. Penthouse International, Ltd., 179 A.D.2d 29 (1st Dep't 1992).

To be sure, the proposed regulations reference the "reasonableness of offer," but they do not go into evidence of emotional distress. Stated otherwise, they do not expressly state that damages should be assessed by reference to comparable state and federal case law. That omission is particularly important with respect to emotional distress damages, where DHR determinations are often challenged based on alleged departures from judicial precedent.

Why This Matters for Respondents

For employers, housing providers, real estate brokerages, educational institutions, municipalities, public accommodations, and businesses, the proposed due process amendment could become an important defense tool. If a complaint is vague, conclusory, or insufficiently detailed, respondents may soon have a formal mechanism to demand clarity before proceeding to hearing.

That can impact litigation strategy from the outset. A more definite statement can help respondents identify relevant witnesses, preserve documents, evaluate exposure, prepare defenses, and assess whether early settlement is appropriate.

Stated differently, the proposed regulations are not merely about settlement. They are about how discrimination cases are framed, defended, valued, and resolved before DHR.

What Happens Next

The public comment period is open for 60 days before adoption.

While DHR's proposed amendments are framed largely as a settlement initiative, the more consequential development may be the agency's recognition that respondents are entitled to sufficient notice of the allegations against them. If adopted, the new procedure for seeking a more definite or detailed statement could become a significant due process tool in defending discrimination claims before the Division.

However, the proposal leaves unresolved major issues involving discovery enforcement and consistent damages valuation. Stakeholders should review the proposed regulations carefully and consider whether comments should be submitted before the rule is finalized.

---

Source Material

This article is based on the New York State Division of Human Rights' proposed amendments to 9 NYCRR Part 465, published in the June 17, 2026 edition of the New York State Register as I.D. No. HRT-24-26-00008-P.

View the Official New York State Register Publication

Download the Proposed Regulatory Text (PDF)

---

Discrimination defense requires more than knowing the law. It requires knowing how administrative agencies apply it. Lieb at Law, P.C. represents employers, housing providers, real estate brokerages, educational institutions, municipalities, public accommodations, and businesses in discrimination litigation and administrative proceedings throughout New York. If your organization is facing a claim before the New York State Division of Human Rights, contact Lieb at Law, P.C. to develop a strategic defense from the outset.

*attorney advertising

NY Could Double the Time Required to Become a Real Estate Broker

New York Real Estate Licensing Update

New York May Double the Experience Requirement to Become a Real Estate Broker

The New York State Legislature has passed A9518, which would amend Real Property Law § 441(1)(b) and increase the required supervised salesperson experience from two years to four years before qualifying for a broker’s license.

What Would Change?

Currently, a New York real estate salesperson may qualify for a broker’s license after working under the supervision of a licensed broker for at least two consecutive years, assuming the applicant also satisfies the other licensing requirements.

A9518 would change that supervised experience requirement from two years to four years. In other words, future broker applicants would need twice as much supervised practical experience before becoming eligible for a broker’s license.

Why It Matters

Brokers do far more than close deals. They supervise salespersons, oversee compliance, manage risk, handle agency issues, and are responsible for ensuring that licensed activity is conducted lawfully.

The Big Question

Does more time under supervision actually create better brokers, or does competency depend more on training, mentorship, transaction exposure, and legal education?

The Argument for More Supervision

The responsibilities of real estate brokers have become more complex. Today’s brokers must understand fair housing compliance, agency disclosure, advertising rules, commission issues, antitrust risk, buyer representation agreements, escrow obligations, supervision duties, and Department of State enforcement priorities.

From that perspective, requiring more supervised experience may help ensure that future brokers have a broader base of practical exposure before they are permitted to supervise other licensees and operate brokerage businesses.

The Argument Against It

Time alone does not guarantee competency. Some salespersons receive meaningful mentorship, handle complicated transactions, and study the law intensely within two years. Others may spend four years with limited supervision, limited training, and limited exposure to complex issues.

The better question may be whether New York should focus only on years served, or whether broker readiness should be tied more directly to education, testing, supervision quality, compliance training, and actual experience.

Should the Governor Sign It?

If signed into law, A9518 would be a major shift for future broker applicants and brokerage companies planning for recruitment, succession, and growth.

Whether the change improves consumer protection will depend on whether the additional two years produce better supervision, better legal understanding, and better brokerage practices — or merely delay qualified salespersons from advancing.

Either way, every New York salesperson thinking about becoming a broker should be watching this bill closely.

Learn the Law Before You Lead the Brokerage

Lieb School teaches real estate professionals the legal updates, compliance risks, and practical rules they need to understand before supervising others.

Take Real Estate Continuing Education with Lieb School

NY Just Took Aim at Private Listing Networks: What Zillow, Compass, and Every Brokerage Need to Know

New York Just Took Aim at Private Listing Networks

Assembly Bill A10679 would require public marketing of residential listings unless a seller or landlord gives informed written consent to opt out.

This past Friday, May 29, 2026, the NYS Assembly passed Bill A10679.

On June 1, 2026, it passed the NYS Senate. 

According to the bill jacket, the purpose of the bill is to require timely public advertising or marketing of listed residential properties on platforms accessible to the general public, while permitting non-public marketing only where the seller gives informed, written direction after receiving a standardized state disclosure that explains the risks and tradeoffs of withholding a listing from public marketing.

Why This Matters

The bill directly targets private listing networks, pocket listings, private exclusives, and other restricted marketing strategies where properties may be shown to limited audiences before being publicly available.

The bill justification states that access to information shapes outcomes for buyers and sellers. It identifies Private Listing Networks as a strategy used by real estate brokers to quietly market properties to internal audiences for indefinite periods of time, outside the view of other brokerages and a broader pool of potential buyers.

If enacted, the law would create a new section of the Real Property Law, RPL 443-b, and would require a standardized disclosure form for any seller or landlord who opts out of public marketing.

The Proposed Opt-Out Disclosure

The proposed disclosure form would require sellers and landlords to acknowledge, in writing, the potential consequences of withholding a property from public marketing, including:

• Reduced visibility to buyers, tenants, and agents outside the listing brokerage.
• Limited online exposure through websites, syndicated feeds, email blasts, listservs, newsletters, and similar channels.
• Fewer offers and possible impact on price and timing because reduced exposure may affect the seller’s ability to sell or lease sooner, on better terms, or at a higher price.
• Restricted marketing channels including publicly accessible listing websites, MLS websites, online marketplaces, social media platforms, and broad digital services.
• Continued fair housing obligations because any marketing that does occur still cannot discriminate against protected classes.

Compliance Risk for Brokerages

Real estate brokerage firms should immediately review their private listing, pocket listing, and seller opt-out procedures. Even if this specific bill is not enacted, written informed consent can help show that the brokerage and its agents acted competently, explained material risks, and fulfilled their fiduciary duties.

The proposed law would also prohibit listing agents from altering or omitting required disclosure language in the standardized form. Any additional language added by a listing agent could not be misleading or inconsistent with the purpose of the disclosure.

For brokerages, this is not just a marketing issue. It is a litigation risk issue. If a seller later claims that a private listing strategy reduced exposure, suppressed competition, delayed a sale, or impacted price, the brokerage’s records, disclosures, and consent process will matter. 

Stay Ahead of Brokerage Litigation Risk

Private listing policies are rapidly becoming one of the most scrutinized issues in real estate. Whether this bill becomes law or not, brokerages should review their policies, disclosure forms, and seller communications now to reduce exposure to fiduciary duty, negligence, fair housing, and consumer protection claims.

If your brokerage needs guidance on private listings, seller disclosures, compliance procedures, or defending against real estate litigation, contact Lieb at Law, P.C. to discuss your risk management strategy before regulators, competitors, or plaintiffs' attorneys do.

*attorney advertising

Joint Employer Rule Coming from DOJ Requires Deliberate Action in Setting Evidence Rather than Napkin Contracting

The US Department of Labor recently proposed a rule, which if adopted, will increase the possibility that two distinct companies are determined to be a joint employer with respect to claims under the FLSA (wages/overtime), FMLA (leave), and MSPA (seasonal work). 

The DOL’s proposal provides two ways joint employment can be established:

1. Vertical Joint Employment: two or more employers benefit simultaneously from an employee’s work.
2. Horizontal Joint Employment: an employee works separate hours for "sufficiently associated" employers.

The DOL’s factors for determining vertical joint employment include:

1. Whether the person/entity hires or fires the employee
2. Whether the person/entity substantially supervises or controls the employee’s work schedule or conditions of employment 
3. Whether the person/entity determines the employee’s rate and method of employment
4. Whether the person/entity maintains employee’s employment records

DOL’s factors for determining horizontal joint employment include:

1. Whether an employer acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of another employer
2. Whether there is an arrangement between employers to interchange employees
3. Whether one employer controls or is controlled by another employer, or is under common control with another employer

Businesses can submit comments until June 22, 2026 by two methods where the proposed rule should be identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1235-AA48:

• Electronic Comments: Submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Address written submissions to: Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.

Should this be adopted, employment contracts and policy manuals are going to be the evidence needed to defend yourself from being named on a related entities wrong. This is not a time to napkin contract if you want to avoid great exposure. 

When wage and hour, leave, or seasonal worker claims expand into disputes over joint employer liability, the exposure can quickly spread across affiliated entities, ownership groups, management companies, and related businesses.

Lieb at Law, P.C. litigates complex employment disputes involving FLSA, FMLA, misclassification, and joint employer claims, while helping businesses build defensible agreements and operational structures before litigation begins.

*Attorney Advertising

The Rules Just Changed: Crime Rates and School Data Are Now First Amendment Protected—What Brokers Must Know

The landscape of Fair Housing liability is shifting on the federal level. While the industry has long avoided discussing "neighborhood quality" for fear of steering, a landmark April 24, 2026, HUD Memo has directed a change in course. Now, according to HUD, truthful, non-racial discussions are protected by the First Amendment when discussing neighborhood quality. However, this freedom comes with a modern twist: the risk of Disparate Impact Claims, like those that were reported on in Newsday's Long Island Divided.

The Lesson from Criminal Background Checks

To understand today's risk, we must first look backwards to 2016 HUD guidance where HUD established that even "neutral" policies, like blanket bans on tenants with criminal records, can be discriminatory because they disproportionately affect racial minorities. This created a three-step burden-shifting test:

1. Does the policy have a discriminatory effect?

2. Is there a "legitimate business interest"?

3. Is there a "less discriminatory alternative"?

2026 HUD Guidance: Facts vs. Steering

HUD’s 2026 position changes that test. HUD now states that providing identical, factual information about crime rates or schools to all clients is not "racial steering" because steering requires unequal treatment or discriminatory intent. That said, factual does not mean the information merely exists, but is actually accurate and not outdated. 

The Convergence: A New Theory of Liability

Yet, as discovered in Long Island Divided, the issue is that real estate brokers do not always give all clients the same information. To do so, a broker would be well served by putting the information into marketing materials to prove its the same. That works well for listing side brokerage when highlighting the positive of an area, but what happens in buyers' brokerage when highlighting the negative? Even on buyers' brokerage, if those materials highlight a negative, the real estate broker will be hurting their chances of obtaining future listings in that area, which is why most just do a discretional whisper. Yet, that whisper can get a broker sued for discrimination even after HUD's 2026 memo.

On top of that, don't forget local laws, such as NYC’s 2025 Fair Chance in Housing Act, which mandates case-by-case reviews of criminal histories rather than blanket denials, agents must be careful with neighborhood data. If a firm’s "neutral" crime-rating system systematically discourages buyers from minority-heavy tracts, it could trigger a Disparate Impact claim—even without discriminatory intent.

Strategic Recommendations

• Fact-Only Communication: Use objective, third-party data rather than anecdotal descriptions.

• Consistency is King: Provide the same data sets to every client to avoid steering allegations, through written proof of consistency.

• End Blanket Prohibitions: Move away from "blacklisting" certain ZIP codes because that is often undertaken based on discriminatory feelings rather than data. 

When these claims hit, they don’t start small. Lieb at Law represents brokerages in high-stakes Fair Housing and disparate impact litigation and helps prevent claims through proactive compliance strategy. Contact us to discuss your exposure.

*attorney advertising

New Executive Order Ties DEI Compliance to False Claims Act Risk for Federal Contractors

New Executive Order Ties DEI Compliance to False Claims Act Risk for Federal Contractors

On March 26, 2026, the White House issued an executive order titled Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors. The order states that its purpose is to “promote economy and efficiency in Federal contracting by preventing racial discrimination.” 

The order does not regulate DEI programs in the abstract. It directly connects certain practices to federal contracting eligibility, payment, and potential liability under the False Claims Act. Interestingly, the False Claims Act is now before the Supreme Court in Eli Lilly and Company v. United States, et al., ex rel. Ronald J. Streck, where it could undercut or strengthen this executive order by clarifying the rights of a private citizen to bring a claim in claiming an "injury" exists to the United States. 

What the Executive Order Requires

The order requires federal agencies to include a clause in contracts stating that:

“The contractor will not engage in any racially discriminatory DEI activities…”

It also defines those activities as “disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment… contracting… program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity's resources.”

Contractors must also:

• “furnish all information and reports, including providing access to books, records, and accounts”
• report subcontractor conduct that “may violate this clause”
• comply with agency-directed remedial actions

Payment and the False Claims Act

The order expressly links compliance to payment under federal contracts. The required clause states:

“The contractor recognizes that compliance with the requirements of this clause are material to the Government's payment decisions…”

The order further directs that the Attorney General shall:

“consider whether to bring actions under the False Claims Act against any contractors or subcontractors that violate the clause…”

It also requires prompt review of whistleblower actions brought under 31 U.S.C. § 3730, but again, see the case now before the Supreme Court. 

As a result, practices tied to hiring, promotion, training programs, or vendor selection may have implications beyond contract compliance where payment certifications are involved.

Subcontractor and Vendor Requirements

The order applies to subcontractors and lower-tier subcontractors. It requires that:

“The contractor will report any subcontractor's known or reasonably knowable conduct that may violate this clause…”

It also provides that contracts may be:

“canceled, terminated, or suspended… and the contractor or subcontractor may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts.”

Scope of Covered Programs

The order defines “program participation” broadly to include:

“training, mentoring, or leadership development programs; educational opportunities; clubs; associations; or similar opportunities…”

This definition extends beyond hiring and promotion and includes internal programs sponsored by the contractor.

Enforcement Framework

The order directs agencies to take action for noncompliance, including:

• contract cancellation, termination, or suspension
• suspension and debarment

It also directs federal agencies to identify “economic sectors that pose a particular risk” and issue further compliance guidance. 

Implementation Timeline

• Within 30 days: agencies must begin including the required clause in contracts
• Within 60 days: interim FAR guidance is expected
• Within 120 days: agencies must review and report on implementation

What General Counsel Should Review

• Hiring and promotion practices tied to federal contracts
• Eligibility criteria for training, mentorship, and leadership programs
• Vendor and subcontractor selection and oversight
• Contract terms addressing compliance and reporting obligations
• Internal records, communications, and documentation subject to agency review
• Statements or certifications tied to payment requests
• The case before the Supreme Court and the precedent it sets

Bottom Line

This executive order establishes that certain internal practices may affect federal contract eligibility, payment, subcontractor oversight, and potential False Claims Act exposure. It requires alignment between company practices, documentation, and contractual representations in connection with federal work.

Lieb at Law, P.C. represents companies in litigation arising from federal contract compliance, including False Claims Act claims, contract termination disputes, and enforcement actions. We focus on defending complex matters where regulatory risk becomes litigation.

*attorney advertising