Supreme Court Denies Healthcare Workers' Injunction Request on Vaccinate Mandate

The Supreme Court denied an injunctive request by healthcare workers who were required, by regulation, to be vaccinated over dissents by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito who said the mandate violated The Free Exercise Clause. 

The basis of the request was that the regulation included exemptions for medical reasons, but not for sincere religious beliefs. According to the 20 workers seeking the injunction, "their religion teaches them to oppose abortion in any form, and because each of the currently available vaccines has depended upon abortion-derived fetal cell lines in its production or testing." 

According to New York State, the reason that no religious exemption existed was because no "sanctioned religious exemption from any organized religion" existed and in fact, religions were "encouraging the opposite." 

Interestingly, the Gorsuch dissent explains that his views on a religious exemption aren't absolute. Instead, he explains that "a State might argue, for example, that it has a compelling interest in achieving herd immunity against certain diseases in a population. It might further contend the most narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest is to restrict vaccine exemptions to a particular number divided in a nondiscriminatory manner between medical and religious objectors. With sufficient evidence to support claims like these, the State might prevail." As such, his main issue is allowing for medical related exemptions and not religious exemptions violates The Free Exercise Clause. 

Regardless, the vaccine mandate may be enforced in the healthcare setting moving forward throughout NYS.  As background, the Second Circuit had previously denied the injunction and also permitted the mandate to be enforced.

 

New York is Ready to Receive Your Calls on Housing Discrimination

The New York State Legislature passed Bill S3437C that establishes a dedicated phone line for public use to voice complaints of housing discrimination. New York State’s Division of Human Rights will operate the phone line during regular business hours. The phone number will be posted on the Division of Human Rights website.

The Bill amends Human Rights Executive Law The General Powers of the Human Rights Division, Section 295 . It awaits the Governor's signature to become effective, as law, 120 days after it is signed.

 

Nothing in this Bill prevents you from hiring an attorney to pursue damages resulting from discriminatory conduct. If you believe that you suffered injuries as a result of housing discrimination, you may be entitled to compensatory damages and punitive damages plus, you can have your attorneys' fees paid for by the defendant. 

Details Released for NYS Mask Mandate Including $1,000 Fines for Each Violation.

New York State's Department of Health issued new details for Governor Hochul's statewide mandate requiring face mask/covering at all indoor public places effective December 13, 2021 until January 15, 2022 (State will re-evaluate after this date), for all persons, over age two and able to medically tolerate a face covering/mask, regardless of vaccination status. Indoor public places are any indoor space that is not a private residence. 

The mandate does not apply to indoor public areas that require proof of vaccination as a condition of entry. However, a business cannot "mix and match" i.e. permit individuals who show proof of vaccination to enter mask free while permitting those who do not present proof of vaccination to enter wearing a mask. Either no one is permitted entry that cannot provide proof of vaccination or everyone must wear a mask (whether vaccinated or not).

For example, in a law office where everyone must show proof of vaccination to enter (employees, clients, vendors, etc.) masks are not required.  However, a retail store that does not require proof of vaccination to enter is required to ensure that all individuals present at the store (employees, customers, etc.) wear face coverings regardless of vaccination status.

Per the Department of Health, the following institutions must ensure everyone over the age of two, unless subject to applicable CDC exceptions, is masked (there is no proof of vaccination option): correctional facilities, detention centers, homeless shelters, transportation hubs, schools.

The new requirements are pursuant to New York State administrative rule 10 NYCRR 2.60.  A violation of any of these requirements is subject to a fine of $1,000 for each violation. Businesses should, thus, immediately ensure compliance or face potential crippling fines.

The Beginning of the End for Paper Copy Lease Agreements

It is the beginning of the end of paper copy lease agreements in NYS, at least for rent stabilized tenants. 

Moving forward, rent stabilized tenants are going to be processing their leases electronically because Bill A02679 passed the legislature and is pending Gov. Hochul's signature. This Bill requires that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal ("DHCR") develops regulations allowing electronic leases and signatures to be used for both leases and lease renewals of rent stabilized tenants. 

However, the Bill makes clear that electronic leases are not yet required. As such, those who may not be well-versed in technology, such as the Baby Boomer generation, need not worry about how this could affect their lease execution process as tenants will be able to choose whether or not they want to execute their lease via electronic means or via a traditional paper copy. A tenant will be presented with a form, developed by DHCR, in the top 6 languages that will confirm that the tenant has the choice whether to consent to the use of electronic records and signatures. Therefore, landlords will not be permitted to require their tenants to execute their lease by electronic means.

It is expected that electronic leases are going to become the norm sooner rather than later. They cut down on costs of office supplies, such as printer ink and paper, while provide for improved organization and retrieval. They save time by avoiding face-to-face meetings and can maximize safety in this COVID world. 

Do you think most rent stabilized tenants will choose to have their leases executed electronically? Or, will paper copies stand the test of time in a constantly evolving technology driven world? Seems unlikely. It's my guess that as the Boomer generation dissipates, paper copy leases will as well. 

Be Careful When Adding a Detached Garage or Something Similar to your Hamptons’ Home

 As of October 7^th, 2021, the Town of East Hampton made changes to their Zoning Laws that are relevant to constructing an accessory structure.

 

§ 255-11-20 of the Town of East Hampton Zoning Laws states that accessory buildings, including garages, if detached from the main building, shall be not less than five feet from the main building and/or from any other accessory building, subject to two exceptions.

 

One exception is that two or more accessory buildings (including open-air appendages such as porches and screened patios) may be approved to be built or remain, without a minimum five-foot separation, so long as the total aggregate square footage of the buildings is less than 600 square feet, and none of the accessory buildings are a pool house, an art studio, or an accessory apartment, unless all three are open air appendages.

 

The second exception, is that an enclosed hallway, breezeway or other design feature that functionally separates two livable spaces in a single-family dwelling or separates a livable space in a single-family dwelling and a detached garage, does not apply to § 255-11-20, so long as the width of such hallway, breezeway or design feature is equal to or greater than ½ of its length.

 

An accessory building is a building which is customarily secondary to a main building. Accessory units do not include a building which is designed, equipped, or used for cooking, living or sleeping purposes. A common accessory building is a garage.

 

So, if you plan on purchasing a house with an accessory building like a detached garage, or even plan on building one at your Hamptons house, you should comply with this law to avoid liability.

Increased Discrimination Training For Real Estate Brokers & Salespersons

Starting on July 1, 2022, Bill (S2132B) will add increased fair housing and discrimination training for Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons. 

Summary:

• Requires course content to include:
1. Legacy of segregation, unequal treatment, and historic lack of access to opportunity in housing;
2. Unequal access to amenities and resources on the basis of race, disability and other protected characteristics;
3. Federal, state, and local fair housing laws;
4. Anti-Bias training.
• Requires 152 hours of training to obtain a Real Estate Broker license
• Requires 77 hours of training to become a licensed Real Estate Salesperson
• Requires approval of faculty to sign a document, under oath, approved by and submitted to the Department of State, attesting to compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements pertaining to the instruction of the established curriculum. There will be penalties for faculty that fail to meet their obligations including suspension and revocation of their instructor certificate.

New RE Brokerage Law: NYS Funding For Fair Housing Testing Efforts

Now there is another initiative by New York State to combat discrimination in real estate.

Effective as of December 21, 2021 a $30 fee has been added for real estate broker / salespersons licenses to cover the costs of the Attorney General to fund fair housing testing throughout NYS. 

Senate Bill S32133A adds a surcharge to the fee paid for issuing or reissuing a real estate broker or salesmen license. 

Owners & Landlords Are No Longer Able to Recover Legal Fees Unless Given Authority by the Court

A new law on landlord's ability to collect legal fees was signed by Gov. Hochul on December 21, 2021 and is effective immediately. The law, S2014, means a lot to owners and landlords in New York. The Bill prohibits owners and landlords from charging lessees any legal fee, surcharge, or other charges for legal services in connection to operating or renting a residential unit, unless the owner/landlord has the legal authority to do so. A lessee is only responsible to pay legal fees if directed by a court order. However, you only get a court order if you go to court and do not resolve issues beforehand. As a result, legal fees for out-of-court negotiations, lease drafting, amendments, and the like are no longer recoverable.

Do you think that owners and landlords will be less likely to resolve disputes without going to court if they can't recover their legal fees? 

It’s no secret that legal work can be costly. So, it is typical for landlord-petitioners to try and recoup the money that they spend retaining an attorney and all of the expenses that come with legal work and legal actions. Aside from legal representation, additional legal fees can include court fees, notary public charges, and administrative charges, to name a few. This bill is aimed at the costs of lease preparation, pre-litigation negotiations, and all the work that landlords need in order to avoid a court case. 

Co-ops are technically landlords to their residents and as a result, all legal fees imposed by the Board for sales, document review, and the like may no longer be recoverable based on this law.  There is no carveout for Co-ops and that needs to be addressed. Perhaps, Governor Hochul should have told the legislature to get it right before she signed the Bill into law.

This is just another obstacle for owners and landlords, which increases the cost of business, and eventually, the rent paid by tenants.

TX Abortion Case Decided by US Supreme Court

To remind you, this is the case that deputized private citizens to enforce the Texas Heartbeat Act (S. B. 8) and rewarded citizens with a $10,000 bounty for their services. 

In its decision, the Supreme Court permitted courts to hear pre-enforcement challenges to test S. B. 8’s compliance with the Federal Constitution rather than forcing those who were subject to it to first violate the law, be prosecuted, and defend themselves before first raising such Constitutional challenges. Had the Supreme Court not so ruled, it was expected that the threat of the law would chill abortions across TX even if the law ultimately was found to violate the US Constitution.  

A pre-enforcement challenge permits anyone who thinks that a law violates the constitution to bring a lawsuit, in court, and have a court rule whether the law is enforceable or should be struck down before that person violates the law. It's like asking for permission for your actions in the face of a law, that exists, but is possibly violative of the US Constitution. 

The Court limited its holding by dismissing the Judge, Clerk, and Attorney General named in the lawsuit. Instead, the Court directed that a pre-enforcement challenge must be brought against executive licensing officials, in state court, or through other unnamed avenues.

Stay tuned, this was just round one of the TX abortion law. 

COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Federal Contractors Stayed by Federal Judge.

The ruling by a Georgia federal judge does not prevent employers or businesses from enforcing vaccine mandates. Rather, the Court issued a nationwide stay of President Biden's Executive Order which required all federal contractors to be fully vaccinated by January 18, 2021.

While the Judge expressed his understanding of the dangers of this public health crisis, he, nevertheless, issued the stay because he believed the Executive Order exceeds the President's authority. The Court further reasoned that the potential harm from enforcing a vaccine mandate on federal contractors (causing many federal contractors to breach their contracts when their employees refuse to get vaccinated) outweighs the harm to public health if the contractors are not vaccinated.

Biden will likely appeal this ruling to end the stay. Do you agree with the Judge's reasoning? Would this Executive Order result in a federal contractor employment crisis? Let us know in the comments below.

We'll be sure to keep you updated as this legal fight continues!