On June 18, 2025, we wrote about "New Discrimination Complaint Filing and Investigation Procedure in NYS Proposed by Division of Human Rights."

At that time, we didn't have the proposed regulatory text - now we have it. It's 9 pages long so we won't give you it all, but here is the most interesting outtakes (underlines are additions and brackets are deletions):

• 465.2 Service of papers. Determinations, notice of hearing, complaints, respondents' answers, and division decisions, findings of fact and orders shall be served by personal service [or registered or certified mail, or ordinary], first class mail, email or other appropriate electronic means. [However, where a nonresident person or foreign corporation is charged with violating any provision of the law by virtue of the provisions of section 298-a thereof, the complaint and notice of hearing shall be served only by personal service or by registered mail, return receipt requested, directed to such person or corporation at the last known place of residence or business.] - this is interesting because lawsuits don't permit service by email, but now administrative proceedings permit it without advance order of the administrative law judge. 

• 465.3 Complaint. 
• (a) Who may file:
• (2) an organization claiming to have suffered an injury because of alleged unlawful discriminatory practice(s) or whose members, clients or those they represent have suffered an injury because of such practice(s); - this is interesting because it gives standing to organizations whose members or clients have suffered an injury (think non-profit community organizations). 
• [(4) Any complaint filed in accordance with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subdivision may be filed on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated.] - this is interesting because it eliminates class actions.
• (b) Form. 
• [(e)] (d) Time of Filing. The complaint must be filed within [one year from the date of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice] three years from the date of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice (or within one year for alleged sexual harassment in employment occurring prior to August 12, 2020, or for any other alleged discrimination occurring prior to February 15, 2024). If the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice is of a continuing nature, the date of its occurrence shall be deemed to be any date subsequent to its inception, up to and including the date of its cessation. - this is interesting because it acknowledges the different times that the statute of limitations was expanded, first for sexual harassment and then, for every other protected class, but expressly does not provide retroactivity. 
• [(f)](e) Manner of filing. [The complaint may be filed by personal delivery, ordinary mail, registered mail or certified mail, addressed to any of the division's offices.]
• (1) Reporting discrimination. Prior to filing a complaint, a complainant must provide information and documentation to support the allegations of discrimination to the division. The information must be submitted on a form promulgated by the division.
• (i) Online. The division form may be submitted online through the division’s portal which can be accessed on the division website. The user will be prompted to fill out the web-based form.
• (ii) By Telephone. A division form may be submitted by telephone through the division’s call center. A representative will assist the caller by taking in necessary information and reducing the information to writing utilizing the division’s web-based form.
• (iii) In the discretion of the division, reports of discrimination received via other means may be accepted as submitted.
• (iv) The submission of a division form or other report of discrimination does not constitute the filing of a complaint of discrimination. 
• (2 ) The division will review the submitted form. The division may make corrections for formatting, jurisdictional or other requirements or request additional information or documentation.
• (3 ) After review and any corrections, the information contained in the approved form will become the complaint. The division will return the complaint to the complainant for verification and filing with the division. 
• (4 ) A complaint will be deemed filed once it has been verified, submitted and received by the division. - this is going to be an unmitigated disaster because the complaint is jurisdictional and must be filed within the time periods set forth above (generally 3 years), but now this requires the Division to act before the complaint can be filed and there are going to be many cases dismissed based on this gap on waiting for the Division to act; anyone who works with DHR knows that they are overwhelmed and this will take time, lots of time. 

As a reminder, comments are permissible 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

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.