• Definition and scope of automated decision tools.
• Requirement for annual disparate impact analyses to assess potential discrimination.
• Mandate for transparency and public reporting of the analyses.
• Obligation for landlords to notify applicants when such tools are used.
• Empowerment of the Attorney General and Commissioner to investigate and act upon violations.

On October 30th, 2023, President Biden issued an Executive Order (EO) addressing discrimination caused by artificial intelligence (AI), amongst other topics. 

The White House announced this EO in seeking to prevent AI from leading to and deepening discrimination, bias, and other issues in justice, healthcare, and housing. 

Now, agencies will be empowered to combat algorithmic discrimination, while enforcing existing authorities to protect anti-discrimination rights and safety. 

In summary, the Executive Order: 

• Calls for clear guidelines to keep AI algorithms from being used to exacerbate discrimination by landlords, Federal benefits programs, and Federal contractors.
• Tackles algorithmic discrimination through training, technical assistance, and coordinates with the Department of Justice and Federal civil rights offices for best practices to investigate and prosecute AI civil rights violations.
• Ensures fairness throughout the criminal justice system by developing best practices for the use of AI in sentencing, parole and probation, pretrial release and detention, risk assessments, surveillance, crime forecasting and predictive policing, and forensic analysis.

The Biden Administration Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights sets out steps those using AI can take to ensure fairness and equality. The steps include regularly checking for and addressing any biases in the design and use of AI systems, using diverse and representative data to avoid discrimination or unfair impacts, ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities during the design and development of AI systems, conducting tests to identify and address any disparities before and after the AI system is in use, providing clear oversight from organizations to ensure fairness, and conducting independent evaluations and sharing easy-to-understand reports, including test results and how any issues are being addressed, to ensure these protective measures are in place.

If companies fail to comply and use AI incorrectly to deepen discrimination and bias, this Executive Order will become the basis for discrimination lawsuits as a result of the incorrect use.

To learn more about the Executive Order click here. To read the Biden Administration Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights click here. 

On October 25th, 2023 Governor Hochul signed A05010 to amend New York State's education law to prohibit religious private school and non-religious private schools from using corporal punishment on students. This amendments is effective as of October 25th, 2023. 

The bill discusses how every two years, the US Department of Education asks every public school in the country to report on the number of students it has physically punished during the previous year. In an analysis of that data it was revealed that males, young persons of color and students diagnosed with a disability are significantly more likely to be the victims of this abuse by their teachers and school administrators.

If you are  male, person of color, or have been diagnosed with a disability and received corporal punishment at a private school in New York within the last year, you may have a claim for discrimination under New York City Human Rights Law ("NYS Human Rights Law").  

If you are a male, person of color, or have been diagnosed with a disability and received corporal punishment at a private school in New York not within a year you may still have a national claim. 

For males who were enrolled in a religious private school in the last 3 years you may be able to submit gender discrimination claim under Title VI claim. However, Title VI does not include emotional distress damages.  

For persons of color who were enrolled in a private school in the last 4 years you may be able to bring a disparate treatment case, under 1981 and get emotional distress damages. You may also be able to submit a Title VI claim but this won't include emotional distress damages. 

For persons with a diagnosed disability who were enrolled in a private school in the last 3 years you may be able to bring a claim under the Americans with Disability Act and are not limited to non-emotional distress damages. 

If you are not a New York resident you still may have a national claim under Title VI, 1981, and/or Americans with Disability Act. Check your state's local laws to see if you potentially have a claim under state law. 

To read more about this amendment to the education law click here. 

Service dogs play a pivotal role in the lives of many individuals with disabilities, acting as their lifeline in countless situations. Given their importance, it's crucial for people to know their rights when it comes to these trained companions, especially in places of public accommodation and housing. Understanding the legal landscape surrounding service dogs is vital. Those with disabilities deserve to live without fear of discrimination, and it's imperative for facilities and establishments to understand and respect their rights.

The Legal Background:

By way of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), service dogs are widely acknowledged as reasonable accommodations for those with statutorily recognized disabilities. This recognition extends across the nation, covering a range of establishments, both public and private.

Should anyone find themselves denied these rights, they can legally bring forth a lawsuit for failure-to-accommodate. The range of potential damages is extensive, from recovery for emotional distress and other compensatory damages (like expenses that arose due to the denial) to punitive damages based on the circumstances and the intent behind the denial. Significantly, victims might be awarded attorneys' fees, ensuring they can secure top-notch representation without bearing the financial burden.

For a successful claim, victims must substantiate five key elements:

1. Proof of a statutorily recognized disability.
2. Evidence that the discriminator knew (or reasonably should have known) about the disability.
3. The asserted accommodation (i.e., the service dog) should not pose undue hardship, making it reasonable.
4. The service animal must directly address the needs of the person with the disability, signifying its necessity.
5. There must have been a denial of the accommodation or a refusal to participate in the interactive process.

It's important to note that state laws can sometimes offer even more protection to victims. For instance, the New York State Human Rights Law expands on the federal definition of disabilities. Unlike federal law, it doesn't demand that an impairment substantially impacts a major life activity to be recognized. Given these intricacies, victims are advised to consult with a discrimination attorney before taking any action, apart from promptly documenting the 6 Ws of Discrimination: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and Witnesses. The process is far from simple.

Service Animal vs. Emotional Support Animal: The Distinction Matters:

It's pertinent to highlight the differentiation between a service animal and an emotional support animal. Under the ADA, this distinction becomes relevant in public places. Yet, under the FHA, both these categories are considered viable reasonable accommodations. Some states, like New York, recognize rights to emotional support animals at public places as well. 

The bone of contention here lies in the inherent definitions. As per the Code of Federal Regulations, a service animal is explicitly trained to execute tasks or perform work benefiting an individual with a disability. This can range from physical and sensory disabilities to psychiatric or intellectual ones. In contrast, emotional support animals don't undergo such specialized training. It's essential to recognize that proving a service animal's training and the necessity of its skills requires evidence.

Relying on a conversation with a representative at the ADA is fraught with risk. The interpretation of the law should be grounded in statutes, regulations, and case law, not someone's subjective opinion. Facilities would do well to engage with their legal counsel in such situations and embark on the 'interactive process' as necessitated by the ADA.

Attorney Andrew Lieb joins Newsmax to debate with Heritage Foundation attorney about a lawsuit trying to let foster parents discriminate against children's sexual orientation by blaming free speech and religious rights. Lieb argues on behalf of the children from the perspective of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families in defending the decision to deny the couple's foster application. He cites Massachusetts regulations requiring foster parents to support and affirm the sexual orientation and gender identities of LGBTQ foster children. Lieb claims this policy is needed to ensure vulnerable foster children know that they will be loved no matter who they are because the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.