We just got some guidance from the State as to a law that became effective March 2, 2021 about noticing tenants of their rights to reasonable modifications / accommodations under the Human Rights Law.  To learn about the law, read our blog from that date here. After the law was passed, it was than repealed and replaced. To learn about the repeal and replace, read our blog here. 

The repealed and replaced version of the law stated that "The Division of Human Rights shall promulgate regulations." 

Today, we learned about those proposed regulations, which will be set forth at 9 NYCRR 466.15 when effective. 

Some interesting highlights are:

• The notice shall be in 14 point font;
• The notice can be emailed; 
• The notice can (AND SHOULD) be included in a lease; &
• The notice "must be included with any posting, listing, advertisement, brochure, prospectus, rental application, proposed lease or other similar communication about an available housing accommodation."

The proposed regulation reads as follows:

466.15 Provision of notice by housing providers of tenants’ rights to reasonable modifications and accommodations for persons with disabilities. 

(a) Statutory Authority. Pursuant to N.Y. Executive Law section 295.5, it is a power and a duty of the Division to adopt, promulgate, amend and rescind suitable rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the N.Y. Executive Law, article 15 (Human Rights Law) and pursuant to New York Executive Law section 170-d, the New York State Division of Human Rights “shall promulgate regulations requiring every housing provider …to provide notice to all tenants and prospective tenants … of their rights to request reasonable modifications and accommodations” as such rights are provided for in Human Rights Law sections 296.2-a(d) and section 296.18.

(b) Effective date. Executive Law section 170-d was effective March 2, 2021, pursuant to the Laws of 2021, chapter 82, section 4, by reference to the Laws of 2020, chapter 311. 

(c) Definitions. 

(1) “Housing provider” shall mean: 

(i) “the owner, lessee, sub-lessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or other person having the right to sell, rent or lease a housing accommodation, constructed or to be constructed, or any agent or employee thereof” as set forth in New York Executive Law, article 15 (hereinafter “Human Rights Law”) section 296.5; or 

(ii) “the owner, lessee, sub-lessee, assignee, or managing agent of publicly-assisted housing accommodations or other person having the right of ownership or possession of or the right to rent or lease such accommodations” as set forth in Human Rights Law section 296.2-a. 

(2) “Housing accommodation” includes “any building, structure, or portion thereof which is used or occupied or is intended, arranged or designed to be used or occupied, as the home, residence or sleeping place of one or more human beings” as set forth in Human Rights Law section 292.10. 

(3) “Publicly-assisted housing accommodations” shall include: 

(i) “public housing” as set forth in Human Rights Law section 292.10(a); 

(ii) “housing operated by housing companies under the supervision of the commissioner of housing” as set forth in Human Rights Law section 292.10(b); or 

(iii) other publicly-assisted housing as described in Human Rights Law section 292.10(c), (d) and (e). 

(4) “Property Manager” as referenced in the sample notice is an individual housing provider, or such person as the housing provider designates for the purpose of receiving requests for reasonable accommodation. 

(5) “Reasonable modifications or accommodations” shall refer to those actions required by Human Rights Law section 296.2-a(d) and Human Rights Law section 296.18, which makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for a housing provider or publicly-assisted housing provider: 

(i) To refuse to permit, at the expense of the person with a disability, reasonable modifications of existing premises occupied or to be occupied by the said person, if the modifications may be necessary to afford the said person full enjoyment of the premises, in conformity with the provisions of the New York state uniform fire prevention and building code, except that, in the case of a rental, the landlord may, where it is reasonable to do so, condition permission for a modification on the renter’s agreeing to restore the interior of the premises to the condition that existed before the modification, reasonable wear and tear excepted.

(ii) To refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, including the use of an animal as a reasonable accommodation to alleviate symptoms or effects of a disability, and including reasonable modification to common use portions of the dwelling, or

(iii) In connection with the design and construction of covered multi-family dwellings for first occupancy after March thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-one, a failure to design and construct dwellings in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the New York state uniform fire prevention and building code, to provide that:

(a) The public use and common use portions of the dwellings are readily accessible to and usable by disabled persons with disabilities;

(b) All the doors are designed in accordance with the New York state uniform fire prevention and building code to allow passage into and within all premises and are sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons in wheelchairs; and

(c) All premises within covered multi-family dwelling units contain an accessible route into and through the dwelling; light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls are in accessible locations; there are reinforcements in the bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars; and there are usable kitchens and bathrooms such that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space, in conformity with the New York state uniform fire prevention and building code.

(d) Actions required by Executive Law section 170-d. 

(1) Housing providers must provide notice, as provided for in this regulation, to all tenants and prospective tenants: 

(i) within 30 days after the effective date of their tenancy; 

(ii) for current tenants, within thirty days after the effective date of Executive Law section 170-d;

(iii) for prospective tenants, see below (d)(5) regarding how to provide notice for available housing accommodations.

(2) The notice is to advise individuals of their right to request reasonable modifications and accommodations for disability pursuant to Human Rights Law section 296.2-a(d) (publicly-assisted housing) or Human Rights Law section 296.18 (private housing).

(3) Such notice shall be in writing, shall be in 14 point or other easily legible font.

(4) New and current tenants. Such notice must be provided individually to all new and current tenants, and shall be provided in the following manner: 

(i) by electronic transmission (e.g. email) if electronic transmission is available and can be directed to the individual to be notified, or

(ii) by providing a paper notice to the individual, if electronic transmission is not available, and

(iii) may be accomplished by including the notice in or with other written communications, such as a lease or other written materials routinely provided to tenants.

(iv) “Posting” of the notice, either on paper on a bulletin board, or on an electronic bulletin board or notice area, or by providing a link to such posting, shall not be sufficient notice.

(5) Notice with regard to available housing accommodations.

(i) Such notice must be included with any posting, listing, advertisement, brochure, prospectus, rental application, proposed lease or other similar communication about an available housing accommodation.

(ii) Where such communication is by electronic means other than email, the notice may be included by providing a link to a page containing the notice language. The link must be clearly identified as linking to the “Notice disclosing tenants’ rights to reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.” The notice must be available for printing and downloading.

(iii) Where such communication is in paper form, the notice must be included within such communication, or by providing the notice in an accompanying document.

(iv) Where such communication is sent by email, such email shall include the notice, either in the body of the email or in an attachment.

(e) Content of the required notice. The following shall be deemed sufficient notice when provided to the individual to be notified.

NOTICE DISCLOSING TENANTS’ RIGHTS TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Reasonable Accommodations

The New York State Human Rights Law requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations or modifications to a building or living space to meet the needs of people with disabilities. 

For example, if you have a physical, mental, or medical impairment, you can ask your housing provider to make the common areas of your building accessible, or to change certain policies to meet your needs.

To request a reasonable accommodation, you should contact your property manager by calling ——— or ———, or by e-mailing ———. You will need to show your housing provider that you have a disability or health problem that interferes with your use of housing, and that your request for accommodation may be necessary to provide you equal access and opportunity to use and enjoy your housing or the amenities and services normally offered by your housing provider. If you believe that you have been denied a reasonable accommodation for your disability, or that you were denied housing or retaliated against because you requested a reasonable accommodation, you can file a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights as described at the end of this notice. 

Specifically, if you have a physical, mental, or medical impairment, you can request:*

Permission to change the interior of your housing unit to make it accessible (however, you are required to pay for these modifications, and in the case of a rental your housing provider may require that you restore the unit to its original condition when you move out); 

Changes to your housing provider’s rules, policies, practices, or services;

Changes to common areas of the building so you have an equal opportunity to use the building. The New York State Human Rights Law requires housing providers to pay for reasonable modifications to common use areas.

Examples of reasonable modifications and accommodations that may be requested under the New York State Human Rights Law include:

If you have a mobility impairment, your housing provider may be required to provide you with a ramp or other reasonable means to permit you to enter and exit the building.

If your doctor provides documentation that having an animal will assist with your disability, you should be permitted to have the animal in your home despite a “no pet” rule.

If you need grab bars in your bathroom, you can request permission to install them at your own expense. If your housing was built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 and the walls need to be reinforced for grab bars, your housing provider must pay for that to be done.

If you have an impairment that requires a parking space close to your unit, you can request your housing provider to provide you with that parking space, or place you at the top of a waiting list if no adjacent spot is available.

If you have a visual impairment and require printed notices in an alternative format such as large print font, or need notices to be made available to you electronically, you can request that accommodation from your landlord.

Required Accessibility Standards

All buildings constructed for use after March 13, 1991, are required to meet the following standards:

Public and common areas must be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities;

All doors must be sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons in wheelchairs; and

All multi-family buildings must contain accessible passageways, fixtures, outlets, thermostats, bathrooms, and kitchens.

If you believe that your building does not meet the required accessibility standards, you can file a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights.

How to File a Complaint

A complaint must be filed with the Division within one year of the alleged discriminatory act. You can find more information on your rights, and on the procedures for filing a complaint, by going to www.dhr.ny.gov, or by calling 1-888-392-3644 with questions about your rights. You can obtain a complaint form on the website, or one can be e-mailed or mailed to you. You can also call or e-mail a Division regional office. The regional offices are listed on the website.

* This Notice provides information about your rights under the New York State Human Rights Law, which applies to persons residing anywhere in New York State. Local laws may provide protections in addition to those described in this Notice, but local laws cannot decrease your protections.

You have until June 13, 2021 to comment on these proposed regulations by emailing: caroline.downey@dhr.ny.gov

In housing discrimination, you can't treat people differently in the terms, conditions, privileges, and/or availability of housing. 

Yet, you aren't just responsible for your intended acts of discrimination, known as disparate treatment discrimination. Instead, you are also responsible for your unintended acts that impact groups of people as a secondary effect, which is known as disparate impact discrimination.

Think about it this way, if you don't rent to women, as a policy, that is clearly an act of disparate treatment sex discrimination. However, if you don't rent to long-haired people, aren't you still impacting women in sex discrimination under a different name? That is called disparate impact discrimination.

As to disparate impact discrimination, President Biden just ordered HUD to make sure that the regulations on disparate impact discrimination is preventing practices with an unjustified discriminatory effect. 

Do you think that there should be disparate impact discrimination laws? If so, what do you think they should be? 

On Day 1 of President Biden's Term, he expanded our understanding of the Fair Housing Act by making clear that it includes protections against discrimination on the basis of gender identity & sexual orientation. 

See his Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation for your full understanding.

As explained by the President, the US Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that employment discrimination laws, which expressly prohibit sex discrimination, also prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation; and that the same reasoning behind the Supreme Court's ruling will now be applied to the Fair Housing Act's prohibition of discrimination in the sale and rental of housing across our nation. 

In fact, the Executive Order put all perpetrators on notice by stating that the government will issue plans, within 100 days, to effectuate its policy of enforcing these prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

While many states, such as NY, and other locales, already prohibit gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination in housing, the Federal Government stepping in to enforce violations can change the game.

How will you change your business because of this Order?  

A homosexual detective was just given his chance to prove that he experienced workplace discrimination at a trial and recoup damages.

Here are his facts:

• His homophobic colleagues vindictively called other officers wherever he was stationed & told them to harass plaintiff because he was gay;
• 2 Sergeants constantly made homophobic slurs at civilians & gay officers in his presence; 
• He endured over a year of homophobic derision, harassment, and verbal abuse;
• He was singled out to do tasks, which his peers were not required to do, such as:
• He was repeatedly required to enter a holding cell, by himself, with prisoners still inside, while plaintiff carried metal and wooden cleaning implements. This was potentially dangerous, as plaintiff could have been overwhelmed & attacked by the prisoners. Other officers were not required to do it, as it was usually a task for the maintenance crew; 
• He was required to go on foot patrol alone during the midnight shift in dangerous areas at the 77th Precinct while other officers patrolled with partners;
• He was given extra work when he arrived on the job; and
• He experienced some new or escalated conduct after he started to fight the discrimination, which could be deemed retaliatory.

According to Business Insider, Dollar General is paying their employees to get the COVID vaccine, but is that legal? 

Back in 2017, the federal courts, in AARP v. EEOC, addressed the issue of paying employees for participation in wellness programs and found that both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act were violated because the incentives permitted rendered the programs not voluntary, as required by law. The incentive, at issue in the case, was "up to 30% of the cost of self-only coverage." 

How does that comport with what Dollar General is now doing? 

They are offering four hours of pay to their employees. 

Is that too much to make participation voluntary? 

Ironically, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is proposing a new regulation about this voluntary standard in the Federal Register for public comment. This new regulation proposes to change the 30% incentive limit (as addressed in the federal case above) to a de minimis incentive limit. In fact, the regulation gives examples of a permitted de minimis incentive, like a water bottle or modest gift card.

Isn't four hours of pay worth a lot more than a water bottle? Is Dollar General going to get sued for this program. What do you think? 

The US Department of Transportation just added a new wrinkle into your post-pandemic travel plans if you have an emotional support animal. According to new regulations, effective January 11, 2021, carriers can consider emotional support animals to be pets and therefore, make no special accommodations for you even if you are emotionally disabled and need such emotional support animal to function. This is a particularly troublesome decision by the US Government for veterans suffering from PTSD and autistic individuals who both often need emotional support animals to function. 

The new regulations also have enhanced rules for disabled passengers with service animals. A service animal is now defined as a "dog, regardless of breed or type, that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability." As a result, if you have a service monkey or peacock, too bad - these animals don't count anymore. Previously, they did as per the Department of Transportation's website and pursuant to a 2008 regulation (14 CFR 382.117).  

Even if your service animal is a dog, there are other rules that you still need to know. The Department of Transportation is created a form that can be required for travelers requesting an accommodation. This form requires that you certify that your animal is trained, has good behavior, and good health. Additionally, the form can be required up to 48 hours before flights or at the departure gate for animals that will be transported in the cabin. Finally, the regulations allow carriers to require service animals to be harnessed, leashed, or otherwise tethered while onboard. 

It is imperative that airlines train their teams about these new regulations and travelers are immediately noticed about their lessoned rights and heightened obligations.

Get your anti-discrimination guidance starting on December 10, 2020 on HUD's new searchable website, which will also give guidance on lending, foreclosures, and much more. 

Currently, guidance is available here.  

Starting on December 10, 2020, HUD will make available "a single, searchable, indexed website," and make guidance subject to a 30 day public comment period with a procedure for the public to petition to modify or withdraw guidance per its Interim Final Rule available at 85 FR 71537.

HUD guidance documents "are statements of general applicability and future effect that set forth policy on statutory, regulatory, or technical issues or interpret statute or regulation." In plain English, guidance advises industry as to HUD's interpretation of laws as applicable to described activity. As such, industry is better able to function, in a regulated environment, when industry can request direction on gray areas of law prior to making investment or taking action in that area. 

As background, "[o]n October 9, 2019 (84 FR 55235), the President issued E.O. 13891, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents," which "requires that each Federal agency take certain actions to ensure the transparent availability and use of guidance documents." This Interim Final Rule is made in satisfaction of the E.O.

Effective October 26, 2020, HUD implemented a new disparate impact fair housing standard.

Disparate impact discrimination occurs when housing practices have an unjustified discriminatory effect even though they were not motivated by a discriminatory intent. 

The new standard exists at 24 CFR 100.500 and it makes a claim of disparate impact discrimination far harder to bring and even harder to prove as compared to the prior HUD standard.

Previously, the regulation did not contain an express pleading standard and instead, only required the plaintiff to prove "that a challenged practice caused or predictably will cause a discriminatory effect." 

Now a plaintiff must "sufficiently plead facts to support each of the following elements: (1) That the challenged policy or practice is arbitrary, artificial, and unnecessary to achieve a valid interest or legitimate objective such as a practical business, profit, policy consideration, or requirement of law; (2) That the challenged policy or practice has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of a protected class; (3) That there is a robust causal link between the challenged policy or practice and the adverse effect on members of a protected class, meaning that the specific policy or practice is the direct cause of the discriminatory effect; (4) That the alleged disparity caused by the policy or practice is significant; and (5) That there is a direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged."

With respect to the 3rd element, that is a very heavy burden for a plaintiff to satisfy at the pleading stage of litigation because the requisite evidence is often unavailable until the parties have engaged in the discovery process. 

Moreover, while the prior regulation provided that a defendant would then have to rebut the claim by "proving that the challenged practice is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests[,]" a defendant now can just rebut the first element "by producing evidence showing that the challenged policy or practice advances a valid interest (or interests) and is therefore not arbitrary, artificial, and unnecessary." Changing the term from a "substantial" interest to "a valid interest" results in the defendant's burden seemingly being far lower.

Moreover, under the new standard, once the defendant rebuts the first element, "the plaintiff must prove by the preponderance of the evidence either that the interest (or interests) advanced by the defendant are not valid or that a less discriminatory policy or practice exists that would serve the defendant’s identified interest (or interests) in an equally effective manner without imposing materially greater costs on, or creating other material burdens for, the defendant." Previously, this was the defendant's burden. 

Regardless, there are now also 3 express defenses available, including that "(i) The policy or practice is intended to predict an occurrence of an outcome, the prediction represents a valid interest, and the outcome predicted by the policy or practice does not or would not have a disparate impact on protected classes compared to similarly situated individuals not part of the protected class, with respect to the allegations under paragraph (b). This is not an adequate defense, however, if the plaintiff demonstrates that an alternative, less discriminatory policy or practice would result in the same outcome of the policy or practice, without imposing materially greater costs on, or creating other material burdens for the defendant. (ii) The plaintiff has failed to establish that a policy or practice has a discriminatory effect under paragraph (c) of this section. (iii) The defendant’s policy or practice is reasonably necessary to comply with a third party requirement, such as a: (A) Federal, state, or local law; (B) Binding or controlling court, arbitral, administrative order or opinion; or (C) Binding or controlling regulatory, administrative, or government guidance or requirement."

Housing participants should be particularly interested in the third available defense in the form of a controlling administrative opinion or binding regulatory guidance. It is strenuously suggested that every housing industry participant seeks such opinion or guidance as a necessary incident of any business plan covering a new product or service. To fail to do so is just reckless in a world where such a defense exists. 

That being said, it is noted that this regulation only pertains to a federal housing discrimination claim and states and locales may offer increased protections to their citizens. So, these other laws must also be analyzed for housing participants to the extent that they afford disparate impact claims (e.g., NYC Admin. Code). 

On October 29, 2020, the NYC City Council approved a new law that requires the Department of Social Services to provide a letter to applicants about their rights to be free from source of income discrimination. 

This is yet another reminder that landlords and brokers need to understand that source of income discrimination is illegal and can subject them to large fines / judgments, loss of licensing, and terrible public relations issues. 

Landlords and brokers should review the NYC Commission on Human Right's Best Practices for Licensed Salespersons and Brokers to Avoid Source of Income Discrimination and revise their applications, leases, policy manuals, and trainings to reflect this new expected law. 

For help, contact Lieb Compliance. 

The new law adds new §21-141.1 to the Administrative Code as follows:

Information regarding lawful source of income discrimination. a. Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: CityFHEPS. The term “CityFHEPS” means the city fighting homelessness and eviction prevention supplement program established pursuant to chapter 10 of title 68 of the rules of the city of New York or any successor program. Covered entity. The term “covered entity” means the owner, lessor, lessee, sublessee, assignee, or managing agent of, or other person having the right to sell, rent or lease or approve the sale, rental or lease of a housing accommodation, constructed or to be constructed, or an interest therein, or any agent or employee thereof, who is subject to the prohibition on discrimination based on lawful source of discrimination pursuant to subdivision 5 of  section 8-107. Lawful source of income. The term “lawful source of income” has the meaning as set forth in section 8-102. Shopping letter. The term “shopping letter” means a letter issued by the department to assist a household in its housing search that identifies the household as potentially eligible for CityFHEPS and lists the maximum rent. b. The department shall provide written notice regarding the protections of section 8-107 related to lawful source of income at the time that a CityFHEPS applicant receives a shopping letter. Such notice shall be developed by the New York city commission on human rights pursuant to paragraph p of subdivision 5 of section 8-107 in consultation with the department.

It also amends §8-107(5) by adding new paragraph (p) as follows:

For purposes of this paragraph, the term “CityFHEPS” means the city fighting homelessness and eviction prevention supplement program established pursuant to chapter 10 of title 68 of the rules of the city of New York or any successor program. The commission shall develop and disseminate a written notice of protections of this subdivision related to lawful source of income. The notice shall be made available to the department of social services for use in accordance with section 21-141.1. The notice shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

1. Examples of different forms of lawful source of income; 

2. A description of covered entities required not to discriminate on the basis of lawful sources of income;

3. Examples of actions that may indicate discrimination based on lawful source of income in violation of title 8, such as refusing to accept lawful source of income for rent payment, publishing any type of advertisement that indicates a refusal to accept any lawful source of income, and refusing or delaying repairs because a person uses any lawful source of income for rent payment, publishing any type of advertisement that indicates a refusal to accept any lawful source of income,  and any additional actions landlords or brokers use to unlawfully discriminate against a person on the basis of their using any lawful source of income;

4. A statement that it is illegal for covered entities to refuse to accept a CityFHEPS subsidy for payment of rent or a security deposit voucher in buildings subject to the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of lawful source of income pursuant to section 8-107;

5. A statement that it is illegal for covered entities to request additional payments for rent, a security deposit or broker’s fee because an individual receives rental assistance;

6. A statement that it is illegal for covered entities to publish any type of advertisement that indicates a refusal to accept rental assistance;

7. A statement that it is illegal for landlords to refuse or delay making repairs to an individual’s unit because such individual pays rent with a CityFHEPS subsidy;

8. A statement that an individual has the right to be free from discriminatory, harassing or threatening behavior or comments based on such individual’s receipt of or application for CityFHEPS;

9. Directions on how to contact the commission, the department of social services’ source of income discrimination unit, the state division of human rights and the office of the state attorney general;

10. A description of potential remedies available at the commission if a covered entity is found to have engaged in discrimination based on lawful source of income; and

11. Any other information deemed appropriate by the commissioner and the commission in consultation with the department of social services.

Upon the Mayor's signature, the law will take effect 180 days thereafter. 

According to the EEOC, they pay $174,000 and attorneys' fees on cases that go to trial are between $195,000-$279,000.

You should get your training to prevent discrimination at your workplace today - sexualharassmenttrainingny.com or call 646.216.8038

According to the EEOC, they pay $45,466 to settle cases in conciliation before lawsuit (it only goes up from there).

On October 9, 2020, the EEOC submitted a proposed rule in the Federal Register to change the conciliation procedures in an employment discrimination lawsuit. 

Basically, a conciliation is a required mediation of the discrimination case undertaken after EEOC finds reasonable cause for a charge, but before a lawsuit is filed. Historically, the process has been a mystery for employers as EEOC kept the steps, charges, and process secret. This mystery has resulted in approximately 1/3 of employers refusing to participate in conciliation even though the process is confidential and can't constitute evidence against such employer (unless otherwise agreed upon in writing).

The proposed rule requires that "the Commission will provide to the respondent, if it has not already done so:

(1) A summary of the facts and non-privileged information that the Commission relied on in its reasonable cause finding, and in the event that it is anticipated that a claims process will be used subsequently to identify aggrieved individuals, the criteria that will be used to identify victims from the pool of potential class members;

(2) a summary of the Commission's legal basis for finding reasonable cause, including an explanation as to how the law was applied to the facts, as well as non-privileged information it obtained during the course of its investigation that raised doubt that employment discrimination had occurred;

(3) the basis for any relief sought, including the calculations underlying the initial conciliation proposal; and

(4) identification of a systemic, class, or pattern or practice designation. The Commission also proposes to specify that the respondent participating in conciliation will have at least 14 calendar days to respond to the initial conciliation proposal from the Commission."

These rules are terrific and will result in increased settlements because an employer now has the ability to ascertain risk and then, strategically engage in meaningful settlement discussions in the conciliation process rather than blindly throwing money at a situation to make it go away. 

We encourage you to comment on the proposed rule should you have any suggestions to enhance its effectiveness by writing your thoughts, up until November 9, 2020, and sending them by mail, with reference to RIN Number 3046-AB19, to Bernadette B. Wilson, Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507.

 Watch the hearing live now here 

What do you think? 

The key question was whether there should be legislation to cap the number of salespersons per supervising broker. Wowwwwwww

The Federal Courts, in the Southern District of New York, awarded $125,000 to each individual who was denied cosmetic surgery due to their HIV-Positive status in interesting discrimination case. 

The case was brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The penalty was based upon the HIV-Positive individuals' traumatic experiences, resulting in significant feelings of humiliation, shock, and worthlessness, as well as anxiety, stress, sleeplessness, and feelings of stigma and humiliation.

Again, $125,000 was awarded to each victim of discrimination who experienced emotional distress.

What do you think the award should have been?

1. Nothing
2. $20,000
3. $125,000
4. $1,000,000

On August 11, 2020, NYS passed a law that clarifies "that reasonable accommodation to enable a person with a disability to use and enjoy a dwelling includes the use of an animal to alleviate the symptoms or effects of a disability."

This codification exists at Executive Law 296(2-a)(d)(2) and (18)(2) and explicitly states that refusing "to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be  necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, INCLUDING THE USE OF AN ANIMAL AS A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TO ALLEVIATE SYMPTOMS OR EFFECTS OF A DISABILITY, AND including reasonable modification to common use portions of the dwelling."

This new law is effective immediately.

If you'd like to learn more about service animals, therapy animals, emotional support animals, comfort animals and discrimination lawsuits, read my article in the American Bar Association's Section of Litigation - The Intersection of Pet Policies and Anti-Discrimination Laws in Real Estate.