Last week, HHS issued a "clarification" to their final rule "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance," which creates more confusion than it solves and is expected to lead to litigation. 

The clarification is that the actual regulatory text of the final rule does not include gender dysphoria as a disability. Instead, it aligns with existing exclusions in federal law (29 U.S.C. 705(20)(F)), which exclude "gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments" from the definition of disability.

However, this can clarification can lead to litigation because it creates confusion with the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) by not explaining that states and locales can have more protections. In fact, the NYSHRL has broader protections in that it explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. This protection is significantly broader than the federal stance clarified by HHS, which, based on the Rehabilitation Act and ADA exclusions, does not recognize gender dysphoria as a disability in its regulatory text (unless it results from physical impairments). This creates a direct conflict:

• Federal Level: Under federal regulations, as clarified, individuals experiencing gender dysphoria (not resulting from physical impairments) may not be considered disabled and thus may not be protected under federal disability non-discrimination laws in programs receiving federal funding.
• New York State Level: Under the NYSHRL, discrimination based on gender identity is explicitly prohibited, regardless of whether it's classified as a disability under federal law. This means individuals in New York experiencing discrimination related to their gender dysphoria could have legal recourse under state law, even if they don't under the clarified federal interpretation.

• Individuals: People with gender dysphoria in New York might be unsure of their rights and protections. They might incorrectly believe that the federal clarification limits their rights under state law.
• Entities Receiving Federal Funding in New York: Organizations and programs receiving federal funding in New York are obligated to comply with both federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The federal clarification might lead some to mistakenly believe they don't need to accommodate individuals with gender dysphoria under disability non-discrimination principles, even though the NYSHRL's broader definition of discrimination based on gender identity would still apply. This could lead to discriminatory practices and subsequent litigation under state law.
• Potential for Legal Challenges: The federal clarification could be used by defendants in New York state law discrimination cases to argue that gender dysphoria is not a disability and therefore not protected under disability-related provisions, even though the NYSHRL's protection is based on gender identity, not solely disability status. This could lead to legal challenges where courts in New York will need to clearly delineate the scope and applicability of the NYSHRL's protections for gender identity in light of the federal clarification.
• Enforcement Discrepancies: State agencies in New York responsible for enforcing the NYSHRL may continue to investigate and prosecute discrimination claims based on gender identity, even if the federal government takes a different approach based on its disability regulations. This difference in enforcement could lead to further confusion and potential legal clashes.

While the HHS clarification aims to resolve ambiguity at the federal level regarding the enforceability of preamble language, it simultaneously creates a potential conflict and source of confusion with the broader protections offered by the New York State Human Rights Law concerning gender identity. This divergence in legal interpretation and scope is likely to lead to litigation in New York as individuals and the state seek to uphold the protections afforded under state law.

On June 6, 2024, the New York State Senate passed Bill S4467, to clarify the state’s anti-discrimination law, the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). 

Under the law, a plaintiff only needs to prove that unlawful motivation was a motivating factor and not "the sole motivating factor" or a "but-for cause" of the challenged treatment. 

This clarification allows mixed-motive claims to succeed by showing that discrimination was one motive driving a negative work-related decision. 

This Bill addresses an issue with age discrimination where it was unclear if New York mirrored the standard from federal law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which requires sole motivating factor. Clearly, the legislature knows that all victims of discrimination in New York need to be treated the same with the same standards. 

This clarification will go into effect immediately once passed by the New York State Assembly and signed by the Governor. 

If you’d like to read more, click here. 

To contact an Associate Attorney see below.

NYS' Senate passed a bill, S345, on February 28, 2024, that would change the look-back period (a/k/a, statute of limitations) for employment discrimination in the State from 3 years to 6 years. 

Under Title VII, federally, employees only have 300 days to bring claims so moving the deadline for state claims from 3 years to 6 years would be huge.

How long is the right period that employees should be able to sue for employment discrimination? 

Do you think the Assembly should pass this bill or let it die like they did last time around?

On October 31, 2023, the NY AG Letitia James released a report detailing racial disparities in homeownership and financing throughout NY while calling to enhance the state's anti-discrimination law, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). 

The Report highlights that mortgage applicants of color are denied mortgages at nearly double the rate of white applicants, regardless of credit score, income, size of the loan, and other factors. Plus, they are more likely to be charged higher interest rates on their loans and less likely to be approved to refinance to lower rates. These higher costs total over $200 million extra to minorities. 

The Report calls for the strengthening the NYSHRL to explicitly cover disparate impact discrimination based on race, including increased enforcement against lenders. In fact, it has a 3 step plan:  

1. Obtain increased $$ for government agencies to conduct fair lending work.
2. Strengthen NYSHRL to prohibit lenders from engaging in discrimination any practice by requiring lenders to have a legitimate and nondiscriminatory justification for their actions. 
3. Passing Senate Bill 795 to prohibit unfair business practices. 

If you'd like to read more about the report click here.

Starting on October 19, 2022, fines are going to be issued to any person who obstructs handicapped parking areas at a shopping center with one to four retail stores throughout New York State pursuant to S8822. 

That is not to say that this is all that can happen if landlords don't enforce and/or provide for handicapped parking at their shopping centers. Landlords who do not provide for access for the disabled can be sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state specific laws like the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). So, such landlords should actively enforce their handicapped parking by also towing violators. Nonetheless, individuals who obstruct such spaces can't be sued under the ADA, so, it's a welcome sign that such obstructors will, at least, be ticketed for their thoughtless infraction.