On September 25, 2021, Gov. Hochul released a comprehensive plan to address possible shortages within hospital and health care facilities in preparation for today's vaccination deadline. 

The plan includes the following: 

• Signing an executive order (if necessary) to declare a state of emergency that would increase workforce supply in the hospital and health care facilities and allow qualified health care professionals in other states or countries, recent graduates, and retired health care professionals to practice in New York;
• Exploration of ways to expedite visa requests for medical professionals; 
• Possible deployment of medically-trained National Guard members; &
• Partnering with the Federal Govt. to deploy Disaster Medical Assistance Teams ("DMATs") to assist local health and medical systems. 

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ("TCJA") caused the gift, estate, and gift-skipping transfer ("GST") tax exemptions to be $11.7 million per person in 2021. However, it is scheduled to decrease to $5 million, adjusted for inflation on January 1, 2026. Have you been planning for that cliff? 

Even scarier for estate tax planning is the Build Back Better Act, which is a projected $3.5 trillion COVID-19 plan proposed by President Biden to create jobs, cut taxes, and lower costs for working families, which includes lowering taxes, prescription drug, childcare, health care, and education costs. This law proposes to accelerate the estate tax exemption decrease by four (4) years, to January 1, 2022. 

Yet, the Build Back Better Act is not yet enacted into law. It is currently being marked up by the House Ways and Means Committee. 

Have you spoken to your congressperson about your feelings about speeding up the estate tax exemption cliff? 

Do you think it should be included in the Build Back Better Act? 

Stay tuned for updates concerning the Build Back Better Act in the upcoming weeks to follow... 

If you want to avoid a workplace vaccine mandate, be very careful what you post on social media about politics and vaccines.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace, "[s]ocial, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII." This is cited in the EEOC Compliance Manual § 12–I(A)(1).

Instead, per the EEOC, a religious belief concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death."

To qualify for a vaccine exemption, you need a religious or medical reason, not a political one. 

In fact, employers are already combing the internet to confirm whether your claimed religious belief is insincere and merely a manifestation of your politics. Taking this a step further, if you sue your employer for failing-to-accommodate your religious beliefs, be warned that your social media posts are fair game and are a gold mine for a good trial lawyer who will tear you apart on the stand. 

As background, the underpinnings of the EEOC's position stems from the United States Supreme Court, which first set the test for a sincerely held religious belief in U.S. v. Seeger, when conscientious-objectors sought accommodations from service in the armed forces (a/k/a, draft exemptions). Per the Supreme Court, the test is "whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption." This test was adopted to the employment discrimination context by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Protos v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. 

Back to you. An employer can and should challenge whether you sincerely hold your espoused religious belief before granting you an accommodation from its rules and policies, like a vaccine mandate. 

As an illustration of what you are looking at in such a challenge, see the case of Sidelinger v. Harbor Creek School Distr., where an employee sought a religious exemption from his employer's "requirement of wearing an identification badge" because of his claims that wearing a badge evoked the "sins of pride and hypocrisy contrary to his religious belief... [as] an old-fashioned, very conservative Roman Catholic." In the case, the District Court made clear that while it would not question the truth of the belief, it would certainly question whether the employee truly held that belief. Further, the Court emphasized that it is an employee's burden "to show that he holds a sincere religious belief in conflict with his employer's requirements." Finally, the Court explained that an employee's sincerity and credibility are the basis for a factbinder's assessment, which includes internet posts. By the way, the Court found that the employee did NOT qualify for a religious accommodation. 

Are your claimed religious objections to the COVID vaccine sincere or BS political crap? 

Landlords and brokers should pay close attention to Long Island Housing Servs. Inc. v. NPS Holiday Square LLC in the Eastern District of New York. 

This case addressed whether minimum income requirements for rentals are discriminatory. 

What do you think?

Should a landlord be able to screen tenants based on their income?

The landlords in this case utilize "a two-to-one income requirement, which generally requires applicants without housing vouchers to have an income double the monthly rent." If they have vouchers, the vouchers are credited "as one month's rent and [the] applicants [] have [to have] an income equal to between 80 percent and 100 percent of one month's rent." 

To be discriminatory, this policy would have to have "'a significantly adverse or disproportionate impact' on housing voucher users." 

Currently the plaintiffs and defendants are battling over experts, but this case is going to teach landlords, brokers, property managers, and the like how to frame their policies moving forward. 

So, keep a close eye on this one. 

The New York State Supreme Court (lowest level court with jurisdiction) issued a temporary restraining order until the sooner of a hearing or 9/22/21 concerning New York City's vaccine mandate for public education employees who instead argue for a Vax-Or-Test policy. 

To see the arguments yourself, in The New York City Municipal Labor Committee et al vs. The City of New York et al, click here. 

Specifically, the Order, at issue, "requires [vaccines for] all DOE staff, City employees, and contractors who 'work in person in a DOE school setting or DOE building'; and '[a]ll employees of any school serving students up to grade 12 and any UPK-3 or UPK-4 program that is located in a DOE building who work in-person, and all contractors hired by such schools or programs to work in-person' to – no later than September 27, 2021"

The teachers union makes three arguments against the Order, as follows:

• "[B]odily integrity and the right to refuse medical treatment;"
• A violation of "due process rights" because it prevents "permanently-appointed DOE and City employees declining vaccination from engaging in their employment;" and 
• It "fails to provide required exceptions for those with medical contraindications or sincerely-held religious objections". 

The best argument is clearly the third because "DOE has advised that it will not allow those with medical or religious exceptions – should those be accepted – to continue working in person under a strict testing regimen, or remotely with those students receiving remote instructions. Nor is it clear at this stage how those who refuse vaccination will be treated as to leaves, benefits, and other statutory rights." 

While DOE may be able to refuse a given accommodation request that results in an employee working in a building, accommodations must be decided on a case-by-case basis, under binding law, and therefore, such a blanket policy is legally problematic. 

As we've been suggesting from the outset, NYC Government should negotiate with the Union as to appropriate accommodations. Think about it like a class action of the cooperative dialogue (required mediation following an accommodation request under NYC employment discrimination law).

Otherwise, NYC Government will continuously find itself engaging in individualized cooperative dialogues with each employee that requests an accommodation. That is a financially infeasible result for NYC plus it will cause many teachers to bring suit following each cooperative dialogue. All of this can and should be amicably resolved through advance negotiations by giving the Unions a seat at the table.