The New York State Department of Labor has finally issued the long awaited Model Airborne Infectious Disease Exposure Prevention Plan.

As a refresher, on May 5, 2021, Governor Cuomo signed the New York Health and Essential Rights Act ("NY HERO Act") into law requiring employers to take various measures to protect employees in the event of a future airborne infectious disease outbreak. 

One of those measures was to adopt a prevention plan. Now that the NYSDOL released the model plan, employers have until August 5, 2021 to either customize and adopt the model plan or create their own plan which, at a minimum, meets the requirements of the model plan.

While employers must immediately adopt a plan, it is important to note that, per the NYSDOL website, the plan is not currently required to be in effect until the New York State Commissioner of Health designates an infectious disease as a "highly contagious communicable disease that presents a serious risk of harm to the public health." 

A proposed amendment relating to license requirements for land surveyors seeks to uphold the Land Surveyor's Education Bill (which previously amended section 7206-a of the Education Law, by updating certain education experience requirements for licensure as a land surveyor to fall in-line with the national standards). 

The proposed amendment seeks to further update the education and experience requirements for a land surveyor license by the following methods: 

• Establishing program registration requirements for land surveyor education programs (which include registration and curriculum requirements);

• Amending the land surveyor education requirements for licensure to conform with national standards; and 

• Amending admission requirements for the fundamentals of surveying, principles, and practice of surveying, and the NYS jurisdicional examinations. 

Many more disability lawsuits are anticipated after the 2nd Circuit ruled that temporary injuries qualify as disabilities under ADA. 

An injury that only lasts 19 days can constitute a qualifying disability for purposes of a failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, according the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Hamilton v. Westchester Cnty. 

For background, disabled individuals have a legal right to demand a reasonable accommodation from rules, policies, and procedures so that they can have equal access to public services, enjoyment of property, and opportunities at work. 

When disabled individuals are denied rightfully requested accommodations, lawsuits happen for big $$. 

When disabled individuals aren't provided with a forum to negotiate an accommodation, known as the interactive process, lawsuits happen for big $$. 

When disabled individuals aren't even provided with an opportunity to request an accommodation in the first place (such as by a form or notice), lawsuits happen for big $$. 

Simply, disability discrimination law is a really big deal, with big numbers at stake, to employers and property owners / managers. In fact, 26% of US adults have some sort of disability according to the CDC. As a result, every employer and property owner / manager must understand this new change in the law. 

Before this case, it was unclear in the Second Circuit, which controls NY, CT, & VT, whether an individual with a short-term disability from an injury could qualify for an accommodation under the law. 

Now, we know that they qualify. 

While the case before the Circuit Court was about an inmate at the Westchester County Jail, who claimed a denial of an opportunity to participate in or benefit from services, programs, or activities, under Title II of the ADA, the takeaway is that temporary disabilities can trigger the protections of the ADA under all three of its Titles, including:

• Title I - Employment & Hiring
• Title II - Public Services, Programs, & Activities
• Title III - Public Accommodations (i.e., commercial property & websites) 

It is clear that the Circuit Court intended all three Titles to apply to temporary disabilities because it expressly based its decision on the 2008 ADA Amendments Act, which broadened the definition of "disability" under the ADA to include temporary or Transitory injuries. In so reasoning, the Circuit Court pointed to 28 CFR 25.108(d)(ix) (i.e., the regulations to the ADA) to find that a "'disability' shorter than six months in duration now can be actionable under the ADA." 

Now, all employers, property owners, brokers, property managers, and governmental officials in NY, CT, & VT better adjust their policies and afford rights to those disabled from injuries (even really short-term injuries) or they are going to get sued?

Have you ever been denied your rights to have policies adjusted to enable you to have the full enjoyment of life, which was otherwise problematic because of your disability?

Shouldn't disabled people be given every benefit to fully enjoy life?

This is good law.

The Town of Southampton has issued a new compliance protocol (Town Code at Chapter 262) for Foreclosure Plaintiffs in response to an increase in crime and deterioration in property appearance. 

The new law sets forth a Registration Scheme with new maintenance obligations:

• Homes are to kept free and clear of weeds, overgrown brush, trash, dead vegetation, debris, etc.
• No graffiti
• Requirements for watering, irrigation, cutting and mowing of lawn
• Pools and spas to be clear of pollutants and debris

• Locked windows, doors, and gates
• Repairs to broken windows, doors, and gates
• Designation of a property manager to maintain and perform necessary work

Penalties & Fines include:

• $1,000 fine or up to 15 days in jail (or both), for each violation
• $1,000-$5,000 fine or up to 15 days in jail (or both) for a second or subsequent violation
• $150 for first day of violation, $250 for second day of violation, $500 for third day of violation and continuing.

Public work projects involving New York State entities are lengthy, extensive, chaotic, and often result in a variety of disputes based on timeframe, requisition for payments, and when payments are due.

Consequently, NY amended a previous law that changes the definition of how contractors get paid to make it an easier and quicker process. 

Substantial completion is now defined as the completion of "work or major portions thereof as contemplated by the terms of the contract.

Based on this new definition, it's time for contractors to revise the terms of the government contracts with this new language. 

For reference, the new NYS law amends State Finance Law §139-f and General Municipal Law §106-b, which require contractors working on a public work project to submit requisitions for payment of completed work that is "substantially completed" to a public owner. The amendments clarify the meaning of  "substantial completion" in public work projects.  

Previously, Senate Bills S.7664 and and A.9117 amended section 139-f of the state finance law to define "substantially completed" work on a public work project as "the state in the progress of a project when the work required by the contract" is completed. 

The new law supersedes both Senate Bills S.7664 and A.9117 with its new definition of "substantial completion.

Based on this narrow and concise definition of "substantial completion,", this amendment will undoubtedly create far less chaos, confusion, and turmoil during the course of an ongoing public works project. 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of New York recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by four African American firefighters, pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act, claiming that the FDNY discriminated against them by denying their request for a reasonable accommodation to grow facial hair.

In Bey et al. v. City of New York et al., the four African American firefighters suffered from pseudofolliculitis barbae ("PFB"), a skin condition most commonly affecting African American males, which causes skin irritation after shaving (The lower court previously dismissed the plaintiffs race discrimination claims). The Second Circuit ruled that the FDNY did not discriminate against the firefighters because they were abiding by a binding safety regulation requiring firefighters to be clean shaven in areas where a respirator seals against the skin on their faces. The Court further stated that any challenge to this regulation should be directed to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), not their employer. 

Do you agree with the decision? 

New legislation, which passed the NYS Senate and Assembly on June 9, 2021 and is awaiting signature by Governor Cuomo, will require employers who monitor employees' e-mail or internet usage on any electronic device (e.g. phone or computer) to provide notice of such monitoring to all employees.

The notice must be in writing (acknowledged by the employee), provided to all employees upon hiring and posted in the workplace. 

The bill further provides that the notice must contain the following:

"An employee shall be advised that any and all telephone conversations or transmissions, electronic mail or transmissions, or internet access or usage by an employee by any electronic device or system, including but not limited to the use of a computer, telephone, wire, radio or electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems may be subject to monitoring at any and all times and by any lawful means." 

Employers who fail to provide the required notice are subject to fines of between $500- $3,000 per offense. 

The bill is effective 180 days after Governor Cuomo signs the bill into law.

In Burns v. Town of Palm Beach, the 11th Circuit said free speech does not let you build a mansion when zoning prohibits it.

This case is a true Palm Beach tale. 

Donald Burns sought to knock down his "traditional" beachfront mansion and build an entirely new one, double the size, in a mid-century modern style. 

Get that - mansion #1 wasn't big enough so he needed mansion #2. 

In order to build his new mansion, Burns had to obtain approval from the Town of Palm Beach's architectural review commission. 

However, the commission denied Burns' building permit and found that his new mansion was not in harmony with the proposed developments in land in the general area and was excessively dissimilar to other homes within 200 feet in terms of architecture, size, and mass. 

This prompted Burns to take the dispute to federal court where Burns sued the town, claiming that the denial of his building permit was a violation of his First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. 

Our hats are off to Burns' attorneys for this creative argument (lawyers that think outside the box are the best client advocates). Yet, Burns lost. 

The 11th Circuit found that architectural design was not protected by the First Amendment because "there was no great likelihood that some sort of message would be understood by those who viewed Burns's new beachfront mansion." 

In the majority opinion, Judge Robert Luck stated that "one day, we may even find some residential architecture to be expressive conduct. . .but Burns' new mansion is not Monticello or Versailles. . ." 

Do you agree?

Should artistic expression override zoning laws?

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the Houston Methodist Hospital's policy requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, under the threat of termination, is lawful.

In Bridges et al. v. Houston Methodist Hospital et al., 117 hospital employees sued the hospital for "unlawfully forcing its employees to be injected with one of the currently-available vaccines or be fired." The plaintiffs alleged that they were wrongfully terminated and compared the vaccination requirement to "forced medical experimentation during the Holocaust."  

Citing to EEOC guidance (which is not binding) stating that employers can mandate COVID-19 vaccinations subject to reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities or sincerely held religious beliefs, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' wrongful termination claim (Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit a criminal act). The Court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that requiring vaccinations is against public policy because the employees were not coerced to take the vaccine (clearly distinguishing a mandatory vaccination policy from plaintiffs' absurd example of forced injections in concentration camps). Rather, the hospital is trying to protect against a spread of COVID-19 and employees "can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else." The Court equated a mandatory vaccination policy to changing an employee's schedule or office location in the sense that "every employment includes limits on the worker's behavior in exchange for his remuneration. That is all part of the bargain." 

This is the first of likely many challenges to employer mandatory vaccination policies. Do you think permitting employers to implement mandatory vaccination policies is against public policy? If so, why?