#StopTheIck

Reddit Story: My Boss Lifted My Skirt to “Check Dress Code” — This Is Why We Say #STOPTHEICK

“He said my outfit was ‘too suggestive’ but that it would be fine to wear if I was his personal assistant. Then he stood up, lifted my skirt, and put his hand down my underwear. He said, ‘if I can do this, it’s breaking dress code.’”

— Reddit user, r/TwoXChromosomes

A young woman posted this after starting her first job as a front-desk receptionist. Her boss made “offhand jokes,” calling her eye candy and saying front-desk work was “a woman’s job.” She brushed it off. Most of us do because we’re told to be professional, not make it weird, and keep our heads down.

But this story shows what happens when the ick goes unchecked. What started as comments escalated into assault.

It Starts With the Ick

That uncomfortable feeling in your gut when someone in power jokes about your body or clothes? That’s not oversensitivity. That’s your instincts warning you. That’s the ick.

When workplaces ignore it when people say “he didn’t mean it like that” the behavior festers until someone gets hurt.

Here’s the Truth

What this boss did is not a “misunderstanding.” It’s sexual assault and workplace discrimination. 

Yet, that's not even the point - the point is you can't give an inch when you get the ick. Even if the statements weren't severe and pervasive enough or even if they were just petty slights or trivial inconveniences, too many people focus on whose right? Instead, you need to focus on #STOPTHEICK before you even get to whether there is a hostile environment case because an unchecked hostile environment often turns into sexual assault. 

Just so you know, you are protected under both federal law and state laws across the tri-state area that make this conduct illegal:

• ⚖️ Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Federal): Applies to nearly all U.S. workplaces.
• ⚖️ New York State & New York City Human Rights Laws: Prohibit any unwelcome sexual conduct, even one incident.
• ⚖️ New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD): Protects employees from harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environments.
• ⚖️ Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA): Bans sexual harassment and protects anyone who reports it.

These laws make sexual harassment and assault illegal in every workplace. They protect employees from unwanted sexual contact, comments, advances, and any retaliation for reporting misconduct.

You don’t have to scream or fight back for it to count. Freezing is a trauma response, not consent.

Retaliation is illegal. You cannot legally be fired, demoted, or punished for speaking up.

You have legal options:

• 📄 File a complaint with HR, the EEOC, or your state or city human-rights agency.
• 🧑‍⚖️ Bring a lawsuit against an employer or coworker who violated your rights.
• 💼 Negotiate severance or settlement through an employment attorney.
• 🔐 Keep everything confidential, you decide how and when to share your story.

If this happened to you, you are protected under federal law and your state’s law and you are not alone.

Why We Say #STOPTHEICK

“Jokes,” “compliments,” and “dress-code talks” like this aren’t harmless they’re warning signs of cultures that excuse abuse. More so, that boss was testing you to see what he could get away with and thought it was okay to put his hand down your pants. Every ignored ick is an open door for someone to cross another and further line.

Calling it out isn’t overreacting. It’s prevention. It’s how we keep workplaces safe, equal, and human.

If You’ve Experienced This

You are not alone. You are not to blame. And you have rights.

Get confidential help at www.stoptheick.com or contact Lieb at Law, P.C. at (646) 216-8009.

Know Your Rights Call for Help

#StopTheIck #WorkplaceHarassment #SexualHarassmentAwareness #YouAreNotAlone #EndWorkplaceAbuse

This post is part of our #StopTheIck series. We highlight real stories shared online about workplace harassment, discrimination, and abuse and break down the rights and protections that exist under the law. Have a link you want us to cover? Submit it here.

*attorney advertising

Sexual Favors as a Condition of Tenancy Violate Fair Housing Act and New York State Human Rights Law

Instagram has a post that reads - "Sex for Rent Agreements Becoming Increasingly Popular in Canada" and its got a lot of likes and traction. 

Not sure what's happening north of the border, but in the US, that "agreement" clearly violates the Fair Housing Act and state laws, like the New York State Human Rights Law. Simply, a landlord, who is in a position of power cannot condition a tenancy, rental payments, or services (like maintenance) relevant thereto on receiving sexual favors or sexually charged pictures, or, even sexual talk. To be certain, a tenant can go so far as having sex or providing sexual favors to their landlord and still sue their landlord for discrimination by arguing that the tenant's act of participating in sexual acts doesn't change those acts into being welcomed (a key word in discrimination law); that power differential just won't go away when quid pro quo discrimination happens (i.e., trading a sexual favor for a positive term of the tenancy). If you are not yet convinced, check out landlord Edwin Allen who was reported to be ordered by a jury to pay his tenant $10,000,000* for increasing her rent and threatening to evict her to pressure her for sex. This is actionable discrimination. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice even has its own Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative - Be warned. 

* That doesn't make all cases worth this amount or anything at all, but it certainly paints a risk assessment. 

If you’ve experienced or been accused of sexual harassment in housing, contact Lieb at Law, P.C. Our discrimination attorneys handle cases across New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
👉 Speak with a Housing Discrimination Attorney

*attorney advertising

FMLA Just Got Messy: DOL Redefines “Normal Workweek” for Shift Workers

Employees with irregular or extended schedules (like correctional officers, nurses, EMTs, and other shift-based workers) have a new way to calculate Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitlements per a DOL Opinion Letter, FMLA2025-02-A (Sept. 30, 2025). In summary, under the Opinion Letter, FMLA hours are based on the actual “normal workweek,” not a standardized 40-hour figure, where mandatory overtime now counts, but voluntary overtime does not. As a result, an employee’s 12 weeks of FMLA leave must reflect that employee’s schedule, not a default 40-hour standard. For example, a correctional officer working 84 hours every two weeks (12-hour shifts, mandatory overtime included) is entitled to 504 hours of FMLA leave, not 480. Employers must also deduct leave on that same basis: hours actually missed from the normally scheduled workweek. To put it simply, if an employee skips required overtime because of FMLA leave, those hours count against their entitlement. But if they skip voluntary overtime, it doesn’t.

Simply, under the Opinion Letter, DOL drew a fuzzy (and litigable) line between “mandatory” and “voluntary.” These types of fuzzy lines result in litigation where an employee will claim that they were ‘pressured’ to pick up shifts or 'strongly suggested’ to take extra hours. Rather than clarifying the rules, the DOL has created a new battleground for disputes over scheduling language and payroll records. Employers are now left to prove, retroactively, that a shift was truly voluntary. Employers with shift differentials, rotating schedules, or recurring overtime must audit how they calculate FMLA entitlement and usage. HR systems that default to a 40-hour week are officially outdated. The DOL has made it clear that if your FMLA math doesn’t match your reality, you’re violating federal law.

The bottom line is that employers, especially in public safety and healthcare, need to redefine their policies before the lawsuits hit. Audit your “mandatory” overtime definitions, verify your FMLA tracking system, and get your documentation airtight. Because after this Opinion Letter, one miscounted hour could mean an FMLA interference claim.

Don’t wait for an FMLA lawsuit to expose your timekeeping gaps.

📞 Contact Lieb at Law, P.C. to audit your overtime policies, HR systems, and FMLA compliance before enforcement begins. Call Lieb at Law, P.C. 646-216-8009. 

*attorney advertising

90 Day Notice Required As Condition Precedent to Condo / Homeowners' Association Enforcement of Lien Action

Homeowners' association and condominium boards must now provide, at least, a 90 day notice prior to commencing an action to enforce a lien for unpaid common charges, assessments, fines or fees pursuant to s7413. This notice must be provided to both the property address and any other address of record in at least fourteen point type and it must include the specific amount due. 

If you're a board member or managing agent, make sure your lien enforcement process complies with the new 90-day notice rule.
📞 Contact Lieb at Law, P.C. to review your HOA or condo’s collection procedures and avoid costly legal missteps. 

*attorney advertising

PropTech Beware: NYS Amends Donnelly Act to Ban Algorithmic Rent Pricing

The NYS Donnelly Act (Anti-Monopolies) has been expanded by S7882, which is effective on December 15, 2025, and now algorithms utilized for price fixing residential rental properties are distinctly prohibited under NYS's anti-monopoly legislation, by the state establishing a lower reckless disregard standard to prove culpability that does not otherwise exist in Article 22 of the General Business Law. As a result, PropTech companies need to shift their resources, in NYS, to focus on pre-development legal viability reports rather than post-development litigation defense. In targeting PropTech, rather than universally applying a reckless disregard standard to the Donnelly Act, which otherwise prohibits two or more entities from intentionally entering an agreement to price fix, NYS is legislating against startups. The legislation prohibits residential landlords from utilizing algorithms to coordinate their pricing. However, the Donnelly Act (NYS), and also the Sherman Act (Federally), already prohibit concerted action by two or more independent entities through agreement. So, why is NYS targeting a specific industry with a lower standard rather than price fixing, in general? The question begs why is "operating or licensing a software, data analytics service, or algorithmic device" or the industry of "residential rental property owners or managers" special in NYS. Does protecting residential rentals serve a greater public good than promoting PropTech development in the eyes of our government? Either way, startups and other tech firms needs to pay attention to this law change and, unfortunately, they are traditionally the type of industry that asks for forgiveness rather than permission. Only now, the need for a legal viability report in PropTech is even more important because otherwise the lawsuits will be coming based on this lower standard of proof necessary to recover treble damages, attorneys'' fees and costs. These lawsuits are going to be filed based on private rights of action, action by the AG, and there are even criminal penalties spelled out in the Act. So, PropTech, be warned. 

Consult Lieb at Law for a PropTech Legal Viability Review. Our attorneys can evaluate whether your algorithms, data-sharing models, or partnerships expose you to treble damages or criminal liability under the new Donnelly Act standard.

*attorney advertising

New York Expands Human Rights Law to Ban Discrimination in Real Estate Appraisals

On October 16, 2025, A6689 was signed into law and now New Yorkers are protected from discrimination in real estate appraisal services by the New York State Human Rights Law. 

This bill expands the New York State Human Rights Law, at Executive Law 296, by enacting new paragraph (h), which now provides:

IT SHALL BE AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE FOR ANY PERSON TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUAL IN MAKING REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL SERVICES AVAILABLE OR TO BASE A REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL, ESTIMATE, OR OPINION OF VALUE ON THE RACE, CREED, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, CITIZENSHIP OR IMMIGRATION STATUS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, MILITARY STATUS, SEX, AGE, DISABILITY, MARITAL STATUS, STATUS AS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME, OR FAMILIAL STATUS OF EITHER THE PROSPECTIVE OWNERS OR OCCUPANTS OF THE REAL PROPERTY, THE PRESENT OWNERS OR OCCUPANTS OF THE REAL PROPERTY, OR THE PRESENT OWNERS OR OCCUPANTS OF THE REAL PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY. NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL PROHIBIT A REAL ESTATE APPRAISER FROM TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION FACTORS OTHER THAN RACE, CREED, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, CITIZENSHIP OR IMMIGRATION STATUS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY OR EXPRESSION, MILITARY STATUS, SEX, AGE, DISABILITY, MARITAL STATUS, STATUS AS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, LAWFUL SOURCE OF INCOME, OR FAMILIAL STATUS.

The bill also provides license law procedures to enforce discriminatory violations by appraisers, including a fine, suspension, or revocation of licensing statute. It finally creates funding for an anti-discrimination in housing fund to be administered by the AG to test fair housing compliance. 

If you believe you’ve been a victim of appraisal discrimination or need guidance on compliance with the New York State Human Rights Law, contact Lieb at Law, P.C. at 646.216.8009 to speak with an attorney experienced in real estate discrimination litigation.

*attorney advertising

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