NY DHR Adopts New Complaint Filing & Investigation Rules (9 NYCRR 465) — Effective Sept. 10, 2025

New Discrimination Complaint Filing and Investigation Procedure in NYS Proposed by Division of Human Rights

Update (Sept. 10, 2025): The Division of Human Rights’ rulemaking is now adopted and effective. For a practitioner-ready breakdown and how to comply, see our new resource page: NY DHR Complaint Filing & Investigation Rules.

---

The New York State Division of Human Rights, which oversees administrative adjudication of discrimination claims statewide, first proposed updates to complaint filing and investigations in the New York State Register on June 18, 2025. Those changes have now been adopted without changes and took effect on September 10, 2025 (Notice of Adoption: amendments to 9 NYCRR §§ 465.1, 465.2, 465.3, 465.5, 465.6; repeal of § 465.8). For the official adoption notice, see the Register (Issue 36, 9/10/25).¹

What changed in Part 465 (high level)

• Service of papers (§ 465.2): Modernized to allow first-class mail, email, and other appropriate electronic means.
• Who may file (§ 465.3(a)): Clarifies individuals, organizations (consistent with caselaw), attorneys/guardians, custodial parents/guardians for minors; confirms DHR may file on its own motion; removes class-action pathway per caselaw limits on relief to non-filers.
• Form & verification (§ 465.3(b)): A complaint can be verified by declaration (Ch. 304, L. 2021) and must be on a Division form (web-based form allowed).
• Required contents (§ 465.3(c)): Must include:
  • a concise statement of the discriminatory acts sufficient for investigation,
  • sufficient identification of the complainant(s) and alleged wrongdoer(s), and
  • factual allegations sufficient to support the claim.
• Time to file (§ 465.3(d)): Generally 3 years from the alleged discriminatory practice (with limited historical exceptions).
• How to file (§ 465.3(e)): Confirms web portal intake and a telephonic option via DHR’s call center; complaint is filed when verified and received.
• Withdrawals / discontinuance / dismissals (§ 465.5):
  • Withdrawal allowed any time before probable cause.
  • Discontinuance after probable cause requires commissioner consent; private settlements are not accepted post-PC (must be a stipulated settlement with the Division).
  • Other dismissal bases clarified/added (e.g., admin convenience, annulment of election to pivot to court, untimeliness).
• Investigations (§ 465.6): Confirms commissioner’s authority to appoint employees to act for regional directors/housing investigations; emphasizes prompt, fair investigations and leadership review for factual/legal sufficiency.
• Probable cause review (§ 465.8): Repealed (obsolete due to electronic records; duplicative).

Exact rule text

The above is a summary. The controlling authority is 9 NYCRR Part 465. You can review the adoption notice in the Sept. 10, 2025 State Register and our evergreen rule explainer here:

• Register Notice of Adoption (9/10/25): see “Division of Human Rights — Complaint Filing and Investigation Procedures” (Issue 36).¹
• NY DHR Complaint Filing & Investigation Rules — Lieb at Law (summary + practical guidance).

What this means for you

• Employees/tenants/public-accommodations users: The 3-year filing window and online intake lower barriers—but your complaint must be specific and verified. We can structure your facts to meet Part 465’s sufficiency standards.
• Employers/housing providers/businesses: Expect more filings and electronic service. Update your intake/litigation protocols and evaluate early dismissal strategies (jurisdiction, probable cause, admin convenience) and forum strategy (annulment to court when appropriate).

Need help now? Don’t DIY Part 465. Request a consultation or call (646) 216-8009.

---

Attorney Advertising. This post is for informational purposes only and not legal advice. Updated 9.10.25.

¹ NYS Register, Issue 36 (Sept. 10, 2025), “Division of Human Rights — Complaint Filing and Investigation Procedures,” Notice of Adoption (amending 9 NYCRR §§ 465.1, 465.2, 465.3, 465.5, 465.6; repealing § 465.8).

New Discrimination Complaint Filing and Investigation Procedure in NYS Proposed by Division of Human Rights

The New York State Division of Human Rights, which oversees the administrative adjudication of discrimination claims throughout the State, has proposed new rules for Complaints and Investigations in the New York State Register on June 18, 2025. 

Under this Proposed Rule Making, the following changes are submitted for comment on or before August 17, 2025 to Erin Sobkowski, Division of Human Rights, 350 Main St., 10th Fl., Suite 1000B, Buffalo, New York 14202, (716) 847-7679, email: Erin.Sobkowski@dhr.ny.gov:

• Section 465.1, Definitions, has been amended to reflect the change in title to the Deputy Commissioner of Investigations.
• Section 465.2, Service of Papers, has been amended to provide for electronic service of papers. In addition, the provision regarding service on nonresident persons and foreign corporations has been removed because such service is now dictated by the Civil Practice Law and Rules. 
• Subdivision 465.3(a) is amended to clearly state that any person within the meaning of Executive Law Section 292(1) may file a complaint, or, on behalf of such person, an attorney, legal representative appointed by a court, or a custodial parent or legal guardian of a person under the age of 18. In addition, language has been added to clarify what type of organization may file a complaint, consistent with caselaw. The language has been updated to reflect the current title of the Executive Director of the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs. The provision permitting class actions has been deleted pursuant to a court decision disallowing the division from awarding relief to persons who did not file a complaint. 
• Subdivision 465.3(b), Form, is updated to reflect a statutory amendment made to the Human Rights Law pursuant to Chapter 304 of the Laws of 2021, permitting a complaint to be verified by declaration. In addition, this section requires complaints to be in a form promulgated by the Division. Such amendment is necessary to better ensure complaints filed with the Division meet sufficient standards to allow for effective investigation and adjudication and redirect Division time and resources from attempting to correct complaints that do not meet such standards. 
• Subdivision 465.3(c), Contents, is amended to clarify that complaints must include: a concise statement of the alleged discriminatory acts, sufficient to enable the division to investigate the claims; sufficient identification of the complainant(s) and the person(s) alleged to have committed unlawful discriminatory acts; factual allegations sufficient to support the claim. These changes are required to better ensure that complaints received by the Division contain sufficient information to allow for timely and effective investigation and to prevent unnecessary resources from being spent correcting complaints that do not meet legal standards for filing. 
• Former subdivision 465.3(d), Place of Filing, has been removed to conform with the modern technological reality that complaints may be filed virtually. 
• Former Subdivision 465.3(e), Time of Filing, is now Subdivision 465.3(d), and has been amended to reflect a statutory amendment, pursuant to Chapter 656 of the Laws of 2023, requiring a complaint be filed within three years of the alleged discriminatory conduct. 
• Former Subdivision 465.3(f), Manner of filing, is now Subdivision 465.3(e), has been amended to reflect current use of technology, including the use of an online portal for filing and the creation of a telephonic option for filing complaints with the assistance of the Division’s call center. 
• Section 465.5, Withdrawals, discontinuances and dismissals before a hearing, subdivisions 465.5(a) and (c) have been amended to clarify that a complainant may withdraw their complaint before a determination of probable cause has been issued and may discontinue their complaint with the consent of the commissioner after such a determination is made. A new sentence has been added to subdivision 465.5(c) to reflect the Division’s practice, in effect since October 12, 2021, that the commissioner will not consent to discontinue a complaint that has been settled privately without the Division. 
• Subdivision 465.5(d) has been amended to clarify that the commissioner may duly appoint any Division employee to act on behalf of a regional director or the director of housing investigations. 
• Subdivisions 465.5(f) and (g) are added to include other types of dismissals issued by the Division. 
• Section 465.6, Investigations, has been amended to clarify that the commissioner may duly appoint any Division employee to act on behalf of a regional director or the director of housing investigations. 
• Section 465.8, Probable cause review, has been deleted because it is obsolete due to electronic records storage and is otherwise unnecessary because it requires duplicative review of probable cause determinations.

However, the actual text of the proposed changes is not provided and must be requested from Edith Allen, Division of Human Rights, One Fordham Plaza, 4th Floor, Bronx, New York 10458, (718) 741-8398, email: Edith.Allen@dhr.ny.gov. We've made that request, so stay tuned.

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.

Amazon's Exposure to Failure-to-Accommodate Claims Based on New Reasonable Accommodation Policy

Amazon recently updated its Reasonable Accommodation Policy as to employees seeking disability accommodations to work from home.  

Here is an explanation of their updated policy based on Bloomberg Reports. 

In a nutshell, the policy includes a more rigorous vetting process, multilevel leader review, and month-long return to the office trials. 

As a result, Amazon may wind-up defending more failure-to-accommodate claims while enacting this policy update. Specifically, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. The ADA mandates that employers engage in an interactive process, assessing requests individually in a timely manner. By implementing a more complex approval system, Amazon may be making it harder for employees with disabilities to receive the accommodations that they need, potentially violating the ADA. 

First, the new process requires a complex "multilevel leader review," which could lead to significant delays before employees' requests are approved. This extended waiting period could violate the ADA's requirement to address requests for accommodations in a timely manner, which is seen as a constructive denial of the requested accommodation that makes a failure-to-accommodate lawsuit ripe for adjudication. 

Additionally, the policy is problematic because it applies to both new requests and extensions of existing accommodations. Employees who have already been granted accommodations may now be required to return to the office for month-long trials to assess whether their needs are being met. This one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable for all disabilities, and pushing employees back to the office without considering their specific needs could be seen as a failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA.

If employees are unable to obtain the accommodations they require and are forced to work in ways that don’t suit their disabilities, they may feel forced to leave the company. In such cases, this could be considered constructive discharge, where the work environment becomes so intolerable that employees feel they have no choice but to quit.

If Amazon's new policy fails to comply with the ADA or similar state and local laws, it could face serious legal consequences. Affected employees should file complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is a condition precedent to bringing an ADA claim. Remember, dependent on location, such a charge must be filed with EEOC in as early as 180 days (some states extend this to 300 days, but federal sector employees only have 45 days to contact an EEO Counselor to get the ball rolling). 

Amazon's actions highlight the need for employers to carefully balance workplace goals with their legal obligations to uphold disability rights under federal, state, and local laws.

A Win for Fairness: NYS Court Expands Discrimination Protections for Nonresidents Seeking Jobs

On March 14, 2024, New York State's Court of Appeals rendered its decision on Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., which holds that New York City and New York State Human Rights Laws apply to nonresidents who are not yet even employed by a company in the city or state, but who are proactively seeking an actual city or state based job opportunity. 

This decision expands the protections of NY's / NYC's discrimination laws to include individuals who were denied employment based on discrimination even if said individuals were not yet residents or employees in New York State or City.

If you'd like to read the case and learn more about the court's decision, click here.