Goldman’s Women-Only Program: DEI or Discrimination Risk?

Goldman Sachs 100000 Women Online Program 2025 clearly has noble aspirations of providing educational training to women to succeed in business. However, are those same noble pursuits legally problematic and a hotbed of exposure to Goldman? Stated otherwise, doesn't Goldman have exposure to a reverse discrimination lawsuit brought by a male who is prevented from obtaining this free education because of his sex / gender given that the program expressly limits its availability to just women, as follows: "open to women entrepreneurs from around the world." For all companies, doesn't providing educational programs to ONLY women violate Title VII or IX? Isn't this a prime example of a sex / gender-conscious affirmative action DEI educational program that SCOTUS recently ruled as discriminatory, in 2023, when it struck Harvard's and UNC's affirmative action policies that tied educational admissions advantages to the race of applicants? 

To be fair, the 2023 SCOTUS decision of Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College was about race-consciousness, under Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause, whereas the Goldman Sachs' training is about gender-conscious issues under Title VII and Title IX. However, these anti-discrimination statutes share a lot in common, and the 2023 decision provides some tea-leaves as to how future Title VII and Title IX decisions will go when faced with reverse discrimination claims involving affirmative action. 

As to Title IX, the statute prohibits sex discrimination in education and is the closest corrolary to Title VI, which prohibits race, color, and national origin discrimination in education. However, unlike Title VI, Title IX expressly allows education to be limited to one sex. Nonetheless, the Goldman program is run by Coursera, which is not so limited. Therefore, that exception likely won't save Goldman. Regardless, Goldman is likely saved from a Title IX claim because such a claim is only applicable to recipients of federal funding and it is unlikely that this Goldman program receives federal funding (albeit, this is unknown, but speculated). 

As to Title VII, the statute prohibits sex discrimination (amongst other protected classes) in employment. Under this statute, Goldman would only have problems if an employee, or potential employee, could demonstrate a relationship between Goldman Sachs 100000 Women Online Program 2025 and the availability, terms, conditions, and/or privileges of employment. Stated otherwise, a claim would be dependent on whether receiving the training results in Goldman's employees or prospective employees receiving a corresponding employment benefit? If so, under Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, an employee, or a potential employee, advancing a Title VII claim would likely prevail because they would show "some harm" as a result of their denial from participating based on sex / gender. So, let's evaluate Goldman's Program with the presumption that an employee or prospective employee can benefit from having participated, because it's likely a benefit when interviewing to have taken Goldman's education.

Under Title VII, before the 2023 SCOTUS decision of Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, the 100000 Women Online Program would be permissible based on precedent from the 1979 SCOTUS case United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber where the Court expressly ruled that a voluntary race-conscious training program was permissible if it was established only until, under that case's facts, the percentage of black craft workers in the plant was commensurate with the percentage of blacks in the local labor force given that the purposes of the plan mirrored those of Title VII and the plan did not unnecessarily trammel the interests of white employees, it was a temporary measure, it was not intended to maintain racial balance, and it was simply designed to eliminate a manifest racial imbalance. Therefore, we wonder if Goldman's program has statistical data with such an aspirational goal. We further wonder if the program was designed to sunset. Finally, we wonder how men are being disadvantaged at Goldman who did not have the opportunity to participate in this program. 

Nonetheless, the 2023 case of Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College changed all that in providing that "the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual - not on the basis of race." Likewise, qualification to the Goldman Program should be based on individual experience, not on their gender / sex. On top of that, and as previously alluded to, Goldman's Program does not state any measurable objectives or sunset as to its availability. Yes, it is not subject to Title IX because Goldman is not a recipient of federal financial assistance, but it is subject to Title VII and Goldman may have exposure here. That all said, Goldman is playing with fire in advancing this program in 2025, post-Students for Fair Admission, and any employer offering educational opportunities to employees or potential employees should similarly proceed with caution. Moreover, and beyond education, these same risks apply with employers offering Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) that are based on shared demographics rather than just engaging in the safe option of Affinity Groups that are based on shared interest, like sports. This is 2025 and offering program access based on participant demographics is not smart business.  

Employers - don’t get burned by well-intentioned DEI or training programs. Before launching initiatives that limit access based on demographics, consult with the attorneys at Lieb at Law, P.C. to ensure compliance and protect your business from reverse discrimination claims.

*Attorney Advertising

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).

PAID Program: False Promise or Smart Strategy for Employers?

The US Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) recently relaunched a self-audit program for US private employers called the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program. It bills itself as a "program to help employers resolve potential minimum wage and overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as well as certain potential violations under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)." Sounds like a great idea to resolve pay issues quickly without penalty, right?

However, while the program purports to "allow[] employers to correct mistakes efficiently and ensure employees receive back wages or other remedies promptly, all while avoiding litigation," THIS IS FALSE ADVERTISEMENT and the program should be avoided by employers, except in very limited circumstances. 

Employers should be warned that PAID cannot waive employee's federal FLSA / FMLA / Discrimination related claims and does not even address state claims, such as NYS Paid Family Leave or state wage and hour suits under the New York State Labor Law. Here is the rub, while PAID is designed to "quickly provide 100% of the back wages due" to employees, under applicable federal law employees who bring suit can recover liquidated damages, or 200% of the back wages, plus attorneys' fees and costs. In fact, under the NYS labor law, if unpaid wages are found to have been willful, recovery jumps to a possibility of 400% of the back wages. So, ask yourself, would you be happy, as an employee, in only getting 100% when you can recover 400%. For employers, it seems like a much better strategy in mitigating exposure to negotiate tailored settlements with each individual employee who is owed wages where the employer should obtain a release prior to ever considering revealing evidence to the government and alerting those employees as to their rights, no? 

Don't forget that an employee can seek a penalty under paid family leave and potentially, if there is also discrimination involved, which is frequently the case when paid family leave is wrongfully denied, an employee can also recover emotional support damages. 

So, if an employer utilizes the PAID program, an employee should immediately consult with an employment attorney and pursue getting paid the damages that they are due. 

If you’re facing wage, leave, or discrimination issues, consult with the experienced employment attorneys at Lieb at Law, P.C. to protect your rights and develop a winning strategy.

*attorney advertising

Explained: Acting as Your Own Broker and Earning Commission When Buying Property in NY

Under New York law you may act as your own broker when purchasing real estate, and secure a commission, but there are several important considerations.

First, you do not need to be a member of REBNY or NAR to earn a commission. In fact, REBNY and NAR have expressly stepped out of the commission enforcement role following the Sitzer/Burnett v. NAR litigation and the March/Friedman v. REBNY litigation. That said, there is no longer an automatic right to commission simply by being a licensed real estate broker. Instead, you must confirm whether the seller (or the seller’s listing broker) is offering a buyer-side commission. If not, you may need to “gross up” your offer to include the amount of the commission you expect to earn. Either way, a party to the transaction can share commission pursuant to RPL 442(2). 

The antitrust lawsuits removed the centralized practice of posting cooperative commission offers on MLS/RLS systems, but they did not prohibit private commission arrangements. Many listing agreements still authorize listing brokers to offer compensation to buyer brokers. When representing a third party, note that any commission paid by the listing broker cannot exceed the amount stated in your buyer-broker agreement, if you are a real estate licensee.

You do not need to sign a REBNY or NAR co-brokerage agreement to participate in a transaction and you do not need to associate with another brokerage firm solely to collect a commission if you are a party to a transaction.

For reference about REBNY & NAR being out of the commission game, see:

• REBNY RLS Compensation Fields Update

• NAR Settlement FAQs

Practice Tip: As brokerage counsel, Lieb at Law strongly advises reviewing the specific listing agreement and, if applicable, the settlement documentation of the listing broker to determine what commission terms govern your deal. For smaller brokerages that have not issued their own settlement forms, the default terms from Sitzer/Burnett typically apply. Keep in mind that REBNY litigation is ongoing and not at final disposition, so these rules may continue to evolve. Updated September 2025. 

Have questions about brokerage law? Lieb at Law counsels real estate brokers and salespersons on commission disputes, licensing issues, compliance with REBNY and NAR rules, and the impact of recent antitrust litigation. Call 646.216.8009 or email info@liebatlaw.com to speak with Lieb at Law today.

*attorney advertising

FTC Drops Non-Compete Ban: What Employers and Employees Need to Know About Enforceability

On September 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission gave up on its federal non-compete ban. As a result, employees who are subject to non-competes can no longer expect a white night, in the form of the FTC, to free them from their handcuffs when seeking to jump jobs. Instead, non-competes will once again need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for enforceability by counsel prior to an employee considering their options and a new employer considering hiring while being subject to a tortious interference with a contract claim. Otherwise, questions like the non-compete's duration, scope of activities, and geographic restrictions will be before the courts. Judges will need to determine if an employee had specialized training or investment from the employer, whether the non-compete concerns a job function dealing with trade secrets and conditional information, and how goodwill was utilized in forming the customer relationship. Then, there is the issue of the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses (predetermined damages for breach) and whether the court will fully strike an overly broad non-compete or instead blue pencil it into a more modified non-compete. Either way, employers who cannot gamble as to what a judge will do and face deep-pocket competitors, who will happily battle out poaching a start employee, should consider garden leave where the employee remains on payroll for the period of the non-compete to avoid ever having to earn a living otherwise while preserving loyalty for as long as the employer seeks. 

Facing a Non-Compete Issue?
Whether you’re an employer seeking to enforce an agreement or an employee evaluating your options, Lieb at Law can help. Our attorneys are experienced in litigating restrictive covenants, negotiating employment agreements, and advising on strategies to protect your rights and business interests.

📞 646-217-8009

✉️ info@liebatlaw.com

Contact us today to schedule a consultation.

*attorney advertising

Remote Work and the ADA: Why Employers Should Think Twice Before Mandating Return to Office

Smith v. District of Columbia should embolden all disabled employees, whose disability necessities remote work to perform the essential function of their job, in their reasonable accommodation requests. 

Interestingly, this case stems from a court employee of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. Here, plaintiff was in remission from breast cancer and operatively, was permitted to work remotely for over 2 years because COVID heightened her health risks where she received exemplary reviews, but was then instructed to return to the office under a hybrid rotational schedule, which caused her to resign based on a failure to accommodate her health-related needs. 

The issue before the Court was whether return to office was an essential function of the case-specific job, and thus, the refusal to return would pose an undue hardship, which would permit the employer to deny the accommodation request. To determine this issue, the Court advised that: 

• "The plaintiff bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that she has a disability but can perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation."
• “Essential functions are ‘the fundamental job duties of the employment position.’”  
• "In determining what duties are 'fundamental,' the ADA expressly provides that 'consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential.'" 
• “[I]f an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.” 
• "Also relevant are the “work experience of past incumbents in the job.” 
• "The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.”  
• "Whether the employer actually requires employees in the position to perform the functions that the employer asserts are essential” and “[i]f so, then the question of essentiality comes down to ‘whether removing the function would fundamentally alter that position.’

During the case, the "Defendant identified a list of no less than 18 public-facing job function," which were substantiated by "[t]he written job description... and a USA job posting." Additionally, plaintiff failed to identify any comparator "who worked only from home." In all, the evidence demonstrated a very good case for a hardship, except for plaintiff's prior remote work where she "received the highest overall performance ratings during this time," where her work was even described as "exemplary."

In all, the Court held that because "she was able to perform the job at the highest levels while working remotely for two years[, a] reasonable juror may conclude from that fact that the on-site elements of the job were marginal, rather than essential."

The lesson is simple - employers who give remote work and then take it away, by requiring return to office whereby they argue that in-office is an essential function of the job, are going to have a hard time getting failure-to-accommodate cases dismissed on summary judgment.  

If your employer denied your request for remote work or other accommodations related to your disability, you don’t have to face it alone. Contact Lieb at Law, P.C. today to discuss your rights and legal options.