New NYS Law Protects Against Hate Crimes Targeting Religious Attire Creating Evidence of Discrimination

New York State is taking a strong stand against hate crimes and by doing so, are enhancing discrimination claims in the workplace, in housing, and in education. Specifically, starting on November 26, 2024, it became a crime to remove or threaten to remove someone's religious attire. 

The new law (S05302) amends Section 240.30 of the New York Penal Law, which defines certain acts of aggravated harassment as crimes. The amendment explicitly makes it a crime to remove or threaten to remove a person's "religious clothing article or headdress" with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm them and be motivated by a belief or perception about the person's:

• Race
• Color
• National Origin
• Ancestry
• Gender
• Gender Identity or Expression
• Religion
• Religious Practice
• Age
• Disability 
• Sexual Orientation

Because such topics are protected classes under the New York State Human Rights Law (protecting against discrimination in employment, housing, and education), the act of the assailant in forcibly removing a person's hijab, turban, kippah, and the like, will render discrimination claims much stronger with the presence of this new law.

Stated otherwise, if you or someone you know has experienced harassment or discrimination related to religious attire, this new law provides a clear path for seeking justice—don’t hesitate to take action and protect your rights.

Addressing Ethnic and Age-Based Harassment: Understanding Your Legal Options

Discrimination in the workplace can take many forms, affecting employees' well-being and career progression. If you're facing or have observed discrimination based on a combination of ethnicity and age, it's important to recognize that such behavior not only undermines professional environments but also violates federal and state laws.

Example of Discrimination:

Consider Angela's experience—a Hispanic woman in her fifties working as a technician in a manufacturing plant. Despite her dedication and hard work, Angela was subjected to continuous ethnic and age-based harassment from her colleagues. This harassment created a toxic atmosphere, making it difficult for her to perform her duties effectively. Angela attempted to address the issue by reporting the harassment to her shift supervisor, who unfortunately failed to take the necessary steps to escalate the complaint to human resources. This neglect allowed the harassment to persist, severely affecting Angela’s work life and mental health.

Guidance from the EEOC:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) emphasizes that employers have a legal obligation to address harassment once they are aware of it, regardless of whether the complaint comes directly from the victim or a third party. The EEOC guidelines help to clarify that any indication of harassment should prompt an employer to investigate and take appropriate action. This includes situations where the harassment is not explicitly labeled as such but is evident through the conduct described, such as unwanted physical contact or derogatory comments.

Advice from Andrew Lieb, Managing Attorney at Lieb at Law, P.C.:

"Employers must take immediate and effective action to investigate any allegations of harassment. Simply having a policy is not enough; the policy must be enforced to protect employees and maintain a respectful workplace. Victims should not hesitate to seek legal redress when their concerns are dismissed or inadequately addressed by their employer because they have a right to be protected."

Taking Legal Action:

If you relate to Angela’s situation or witness similar discriminatory practices, it's crucial to know that you have legal options available. Reporting the issue within your organization is a critical first step. If the response is insufficient, contacting a legal professional can help you navigate the complexities of filing a formal complaint and pursuing further legal action.

For personalized legal guidance and to explore the full scope of your rights and options, reach out to Lieb at Law, P.C. Our dedicated team is committed to advocating for those affected by workplace discrimination and ensuring that they receive the justice and support they deserve.

*Attorney Advertising

Learn more about the author of this blog

Antisemitism Definition for Title VI Education Discrimination Passes House

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Notably absent from that list is religion. So, are jews protected from antisemitism in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary (colleges & universities) schools?

In 2021, former President Trump signed Executive Order 13899 on Combating Anti-semitism, which explains that "[i]n enforcing Title VI, and identifying evidence of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, all executive departments and agencies (agencies) charged with enforcing Title VI shall consider the following: (i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.  Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.'” 

An explanation of the impact of that Executive Order on education was then set forth in a Q&A by the Department of Education, here. 

Now, the US House of Representatives have passed a codified version of this EO and further defined antisemitism in the face of rising discrimination faced by jewish students in colleges and universities throughout the country. We await the Senate and then the President to see if this Bill, HR 6090, will become the law of the land. 

If this bill is passed, it expressly provides that the definition of antisemitism under Title VI "means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State." In fact, the bill states that antisemitism can constitute a hostile educational environment, under Title VI, as follows: "individuals who face discrimination based on actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics do not lose protection under such title for also being members of a group that share a common religion."

While HR 6090 should become the law, the real question is why Congress didn't just expand Title VI to include religion as a protected class to be free from discrimination? Fortunately, states like New York have done just that in Executive Law 296(4). So, if you are a victim of religious discrimination in education in New York, you have rights.

To learn more contact Lieb at Law

SCOTUS - Discriminatory Job Transfers - The Simple Injury Standard is Born

The Supreme Court just adopted The Simple Injury Standard to identify discriminatory terms and conditions of employment when it ruled unanimously that an employer's act of transferring an employee "from one job to another because she is a woman" (or another protracted trait) is actionable discrimination under Title VII.

The case, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, states that discrimination is actionable so long as the employee can identify "some harm" regardless if that harm is "significant" because to “discriminate against” refers to “differences in treatment that injure” employees. Specifically, in Muldrow, the plaintiff sued because her "terms [or] conditions" of employment were changed, even though her "rank and pay remained the same," because her new position changed her "responsibilities, perks, and schedule," based on who she was. SCOTUS explained that this "meet[s] that test with room to spare" in overturning the lower court's dismissal based on the now extinct "materially significant disadvantage" standard.  

In Muldrow, the simple injuries experienced that support a discrimination claim were:

1. "She was moved from a plainclothes job in a prestigious specialized division giving her substantial responsibility over priority investigations and frequent opportunity to work with police commanders." 
2. "She was moved to a uniformed job supervising one district’s patrol officers, in which she was less involved in high-visibility matters and primarily performed administrative work." 
3. Her schedule became less regular, often requiring her to work weekends; and she lost her take-home car."

Specifically, SCOTUS held that "[a]lthough an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test." That is the new test, resolving a split in the Circuit Courts, as to the definition of an adverse employment action for an employment discrimination claim. 

NewsNation: Employment Attorney Andrew Lieb Discusses Proposed Laws Against Fat Discrimination

Attorney Andrew Lieb appears on NewsNation to talk about potential legislation prohibiting discrimination based on weight or obesity. He discusses the potential enforcement of laws against 'weight discrimination' and their implications for employers, including the consideration of obesity as a protected category akin to race or religion in anti-discrimination laws. 

In the discussion, Lieb tackles employers' worries, such as the possibility of a gym or health-centric business being unable to hire someone who doesn't align with their brand ethos. He delves into the intricate legal aspects and underscores the importance of fostering an inclusive work environment, steering clear of shaming individuals.