Starting on June 19, 2022, real estate licensees in NYS will be required to complete "at least two hours of instruction pertaining to implicit bias awareness and understanding" as part of their 22.5 hours of continuing education to renew their license because of a new law, S538B. 

According to the law, "'implicit bias' shall mean the attitudes or stereotypes that affect an individual's understanding, actions and decisions in an unconscious manner."

Lieb School is ready and already offers an implicit bias course that counts towards the fair housing and discrimination requirements. To comply with the new law, we are re-submitting this course to count towards the required implicit bias training as well. 

Starting on April 20, 2022, real estate licensees in NYS will be required to complete "at least two hours of cultural competency training" as part of their 22.5 hours of continuing education to renew their license because of a new law, S979A. 

Lieb School is on top of making sure that its students lead the industry, having already drafted curriculum to satisfy this requirement. Our course will educate licensees on the following subtopics:

1. Right to Social Benefits of Integration
2. Misunderstanding in Cultural Competency
3. 4 Elements in Developing Cultural Competency
4. Friction Between Cultural Sensitivity & Discrimination Law
5. Cultural Norms, Preferences, & Challenges
6. Cultural Competence Techniques

Governor Hochul signed Bill A07373 into law yesterday which permits employees to petition their employer (in writing, within ten (10) days after a layoff, or in advance of a layoff) to implement a "Shared Work" program in lieu of a layoff. While employers are not required to implement a Shared Work program, employers must respond to the employees' petition in writing within seven (7) days and may not discriminate or retaliate against any employees who bring a petition.

The Shared Work program was formed to assist employers in avoiding layoffs and maintain trained workers during an economic downturn by allowing employees to receive partial unemployment benefits while working reduced hours. 

Upon the legalization of cannabis in New York State, Section 201-D of the New York Labor Law ("Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities") was amended to prohibit employers from discriminating against employees for using cannabis outside of the workplace on their own time. 

The Department of Labor ("DOL") recently issued guidance (in the form of frequently asked questions) regarding certain elements of the law:

1. Employee Discipline: While employers may not discipline employees for using cannabis while off-duty and off-premises, employers may take action against employees who "manifest specific articulable symptoms of impairment" on the job. The DOL guidance defines "articulable symptoms of impairment" as "objectively observable indications that the employee's performance of the duties of the position are decreased or lessened." For example: operating heavy machinery in a reckless manner would likely qualify. The DOL further specified that the following are not, without more, "articulable symptoms of impairment": 
• positive test for cannabis;
• odor of cannabis; and/or
• other typical observable signs of cannabis use.
2. Use at Work: Employers may prohibit cannabis use and possession during all work hours which include breaks and meals periods, even if the employee leaves the worksite, and when an employee is "on-call."
3. Drug Testing: Employers may not test employees for cannabis outside of the following circumstances:
• It is required by state or federal law for a particular position;
• The employer would lose a federal contract or federal funding; or
• The employee manifests "specific articulable symptoms of impairment" (although an employer may not discipline an employee based solely on a positive test, as stated above).  

Starting on October 12, 2021, discrimination cases before the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) are no longer permitted to conclude with a private settlement. 

Instead, if settlement is achieved, DHR is now requiring "complainant’s attorney [] to state in writing why they are seeking a discontinuance and, if the reason is private settlement, the discontinuance will not be granted." Rather, "the matter [will be resolved] through an Order after stipulation that indicates the terms of the settlement or to proceed through the agency’s public hearing process." 

The purpose of this new rule, according to DHR, is "to ensure that the terms of any settlement comply with our basic standards and do not violate public policy."

Further, given that three-quarters of discrimination cases result in settlement, DHR will be able to collect better data of what is happening in resolving these disputes by monitoring settlements. Hopefully, DHR will actively compile this data and inform the public of their findings so that litigants can make smart, informed decisions, when settling cases into the future. 

 According to the Second Circuit:

This Court entered a temporary injunction in the above-captioned case on Friday, September 24, 2021 for administrative purposes pending decision by a three-judge panel. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the September 24 injunction is DISSOLVED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an injunction pending appeal is DENIED.

That said, not getting vaccinated does not equal automatic termination. 

As the City explained in their opposition to the injunction, "even employees who object to vaccination... can elect to stay home and retain their positions while being placed on unpaid leave with healthcare until early September 2022... And even if plaintiffs decline the extended leave option, the earliest any steps would be taken to terminate their employment would occur in December 2021." 

So, "employees who fail to submit proof of having received one dose of vaccination by September 27, 2021, are to be placed on unpaid leave with health insurance the following day. [internal citation] But an employee who submits proof of vaccination before November 30, 2021, will be able to return to work within a week. [internal citation] And an employee who submits proof of vaccination thereafter, but before September 5, 2022, will be able to return to work within two weeks." 

As to accommodations, the City is granting accommodations "for a religious or medical" needs. However, an underlying arbitration on the matter set "an alternative to any statutory reasonable accommodation process... for the 2021-2022 school year" where the deadline for "any requests to be considered as part of this process... [was] no later than Monday, September 20, 2021, by 5:00 p.m." Therefore, any school employee who has not yet applied for an accommodation, CANNOT get one. 

The City's opposition summed this entire situation up nicely where it stated, "Put bluntly, plaintiffs do not have a substantive due process right to teach children without being vaccinated against a dangerous infectious disease."

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.

The Federal Court for the Northern District of New York has enjoined vaccine mandates based upon sincerely held religious beliefs by way of issuing a Temporary Restraining Order in the case of Dr. A v. Hochul.  

Here is how the plaintiffs' argued that the vaccine violate their sincerely held religious beliefs - "vaccines [] were tested, developed or produced with fetal cells line derived from procured abortions." According to the plaintiffs:

 Johnson & Johnson/Janssen: Fetal cell cultures are used to produce and manufacture the J&J COVID-19 vaccine and the final formulation of this vaccine includes residual amounts of the fetal host cell proteins (≤0.15 mcg) and/or host cell DNA (≤3 ng).

 Pfizer/BioNTech: The HEK-293 abortion-related cell line was used in research related to the development of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

 Moderna/NIAID: Aborted fetal cell lines were used in both the development and testing of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Further, plaintiffs religious beliefs are that they "oppose abortion under any circumstances, as they believe that abortion is the intrinsically evil killing of an innocent" and follow "spiritual leaders... who urge Christians to refuse said vaccines to avoid cooperation in abortion and to bear witness against it without compromise" and finally, their "religious conviction [is] against involuntary or coerced vaccination as an invasion of bodily autonomy contrary to their religious beliefs."

To be clear, the case is far from over with the next court deadline for the defendants to respond being set at September 22, 2021 at 5pm. As of this moment, no preliminary injunction or permanent injunction has been ordered. At this stage, the court has merely granted a temporary restraining order, which prohibits the denial of "religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination" until round two of the case.

However, if you are the type of person who has a sincerely held religious belief against vaccination, you should use this case as your blueprint to request an accommodation.

The MTA needs to explain what reasonable accommodations it made for passengers with disabilities to access the subways during its frequent and inconvenient elevator outages according to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Brooklyn Ctr. for Indep. of the Disabled v. Metro. Transp. Auth.

This raises an important question for all landlords - what do you do to provide access for disabled people when your elevators don't work? 

According to the Court, "[a]n “accommodation must overcome . . . non-trivial temporal delays that limit access to programs, services, and activities.” 

While the the MTA offered accommodations such as busing alternatives, notice of outages, and permanent signage explaining alternative routes, the Second Circuit said that wasn't enough to summarily dismiss the case.

Have you audited your accommodation offerings recently? If not, you should. 

If you still don't understand that housing discrimination happens or if you are confused about the long term impacts of discrimination, you need to watch this great explanation of housing discrimination on HBO by John Oliver - it's a must watch for anyone who doesn't understand that housing discrimination from yesterday impacts lives today. 

Alternatively, here is The Lieb Cast tackling the same issue on our podcast back on January 31, 2021. 

Who does the topic better; Lieb or Oliver?

Shouldn't John have Lieb on his show?

What do you think?

As of July 16, 2021, discrimination victims need not have their discrimination complaints notarized before filing them with the NYS Division of Human Rights, per a change to Executive Law 297(1). 

This applies to both victims of employment discrimination and housing discrimination.

According to the laws justification, the notarization requirement "discourage[d] people from filing complaints" and the Division nonetheless received over 6,000 complaints annually. 

How many complaints will the Division receive now? 

Do you think that this new law makes sense? 

Does it matter if a document is notarized? 

Shouldn't preventing discrimination be as easy as pie? 

On July 16, 2021, new Executive Law 170-e was signed into law and requires that all administrators of housing assistance (governmental / nonprofits) ensure that "individuals who have applied for and are eligible to receive such assistance, payment, subsidy or credit are informed, in writing, of their rights and remedies available under law, with regard to lawful source of income discrimination.”

The law is effective as of September 14, 2021 and that is an important deadline for landlords, brokers, and property managers to get up to speed on the rules to avoid source of income discrimination in their ranks.

To illustrate, a housing provider who requests a credit score from a voucher recipient could be discrimination, a housing provider who demands a minimum income from a voucher recipient could be discrimination, and a housing provider who makes receipt of a voucher a precondition to seeing units could be discriminating.

Do you have policies in place to avoid your team discriminating and subjecting you to a major lawsuit??

More so, those policies better include the forthcoming regulations that the State Division of Human Rights is going to promulgate to particularize this new law.

Are you ready? 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by four African American firefighters, pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act, claiming that the FDNY discriminated against them by denying their request for a reasonable accommodation to grow facial hair.

In Bey et al. v. City of New York et al., the four African American firefighters suffered from pseudofolliculitis barbae ("PFB"), a skin condition most commonly affecting African American males, which causes skin irritation after shaving (The lower court previously dismissed the plaintiffs race discrimination claims). The Second Circuit ruled that the FDNY did not discriminate against the firefighters because they were abiding by a binding safety regulation requiring firefighters to be clean shaven in areas where a respirator seals against the skin on their faces. The Court further stated that any challenge to this regulation should be directed to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), not their employer. 

Do you agree with the decision? 

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?