This question is on the ballot on November 2nd.

The answer seems simple, but with early voting starting in New York this Saturday, October 23rd, have you considered the implications of Proposal 2 of the statewide ballot, to make New Yorkers have a constitutional right to "clean air and water, and a healthful environment?"

In 1996, the highest court in New York, the Court of Appeals, explained that a constitutional right may provide for an "action for damages for violation... against a government or individual defendants." However, the Court did not say that all constitutional violations give way to a damages action, in that case, Brown v. State. So, it remains unclear if courts will permit private citizens to be awarded damages from polluters if Proposal 2 is passed in the statewide ballot. That being said, Senator Robert Jackson, who sponsored Proposal 2, believes that the amendment will give New Yorkers "the right to take legal action for a clean environment," per BallotPedia. 

Do you think that private citizens should be awarded damages for suing companies that damage our clean air, water and a healthful environment? Shouldn't the money go back to the State to fix the damage rather than into a private individual's pocket? 

Where is the line? 

Should truck drivers be sued if they don't switch to electric vehicles? 

How about private jet passengers? 

Shouldn't this be thought-out before we open the private lawsuit free-for-all? 

Attorney Andrew Lieb interviewed on PIX11 NY 10pm news on New Jersey vaccine mandate for school staff and state workers.

Starting on October 12, 2021, discrimination cases before the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) are no longer permitted to conclude with a private settlement. 

Instead, if settlement is achieved, DHR is now requiring "complainant’s attorney [] to state in writing why they are seeking a discontinuance and, if the reason is private settlement, the discontinuance will not be granted." Rather, "the matter [will be resolved] through an Order after stipulation that indicates the terms of the settlement or to proceed through the agency’s public hearing process." 

The purpose of this new rule, according to DHR, is "to ensure that the terms of any settlement comply with our basic standards and do not violate public policy."

Further, given that three-quarters of discrimination cases result in settlement, DHR will be able to collect better data of what is happening in resolving these disputes by monitoring settlements. Hopefully, DHR will actively compile this data and inform the public of their findings so that litigants can make smart, informed decisions, when settling cases into the future. 

On October 8, 2021, Governor Hochul signed S6492 into law and now the five eastern towns (East Hampton, Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southampton and Southold) are authorized to establish community housing funds to be funded by a supplemental real estate transfer tax.

Before any additional taxes are going to be levied, each town's board will need to enact a local law to that effect. 

Do you think that taxes should be raised on real estate sales to create affordable housing?

Before you answer that question, do you agree that the East End is unaffordable for much of its labor force?

The public purpose of this bill is "to establish a dedicated fund to provide needed housing opportunities" for "moderate income and working class local residents."

So, do you think your town should enact a local law, raise transfer taxes, and increase its supply of affordable housing? 

Attorney Andrew Lieb was featured as a guest on Black News Channel discussing the video showing a police officer dragging a paralyzed man out of his car.

Everywhere you look, the media is saying TX isn't permitting employer vaccine mandates, but that is NOT what is happening. To be clear, vaccine mandates are still permissible in TX. 

You can read Governor Abbott's Executive Order GA-40 here. 

As you can clearly see, all the Order prohibits are vaccine mandates that do not provide a mechanism for those who object to the "vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19." 

This is almost entirely consistent with existing law and how, just about, every court case is shaking out with respect to vaccine mandates, with a few minor wrinkles that can't be ignored. The two wrinkles in the Order are:

1. Not utilizing the term "sincerely held" prior to "religious beliefs," which thereby seems to expand the standard in protecting religion, which doesn't appear legally problematic; and, 
2. Misstating the disability / handicap prong. 
• Under existing disability / handicap law, an accommodation is never available just because the existence of a disability / handicap renders the policy (i.e., vaccination) unnecessary, which appears to be the intention of the wording where it states, "including prior recovery from COVID-19." 
• Instead, under existing law, an accommodation is only available where a disability or handicap requires an accommodation for equality to exist. Stated otherwise, one needs a qualifying disability to receive an accommodation in the first instance, without it, there is nothing to accommodate. 
• To be clear, under existing law, having had recovered from COVID-19 is NOT a disability that is recognized. We wonder how this aspect of the Order will shake out and more so, how the Supremacy Clause will shake out if / when the Federal Government responds.  

Do you see the distinction? Does the distinction matter?

Lieb at Law, P.C., is seeking a complex litigation attorney to support the firm's widely expanding litigation practice. This role will work across plaintiff and defense litigation. Minimum of 1 year experience required. This position will work in the fields of employment, discrimination, commercial, and real estate litigation.

Desired qualifications:

• Drafting and analyzing pleadings, discovery, and motions;

• Resourcefulness in legal research;
• Must excel in a paperless office;
• Ability to leverage substance rather than emotion.

The firm’s practice areas include:

• Litigation: Employment Litigation, Discrimination Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Real Estate Litigation, Real Estate Brokerage Litigation, Title Litigation, Plaintiff Personal Injury, Landlord/Tenant, Estate Litigation and more.
• Employment Litigation, Compliance and Trainings: Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation, Wage and Hour, Restrictive Covenants, Family Medical Leave Act, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Appeals; Employee Handbooks and Policies, Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Training, Wage and Hour Audits & more.
• Legal Compliance for Regulated Industries: Outside Compliance Counsel for regulated professions, Policy Drafting, Policy Implementation, Auditing, Corporate Compliance Trainings.
• Transactions:Commercial and Residential Real Estate Purchase and Lease Transactions, Business Transactions and Negotiations.

Qualifications:

Excellent critical thinking, writing, organization and research (Westlaw) skills. Must be technologically savvy.

10 reasons to work at Lieb at Law:

1. Growth – we are expanding and have tremendous opportunities for you to grow your career

2. Prestige – our attorneys are quoted in newspapers and interviewed on TV / radio; we provide opportunities to teach continuing education to brokers and attorneys

3. Fun – we have a ping-pong table, a BBQ committee, and staff that truly like each other

4. DEI – we don’t just have it internally, but focus our practice on employment and housing discrimination trainings and litigation so that we can help other business bring equity and inclusion into their realms as well

5. Technology – we leverage cloud-based / cutting-edge case management, task management, document generation, and more

6. Media – we have a PR team on retainer, host a weekly podcast, have our own studio, and we want you to be a part of that too

7. Business Differentiator – we own and operate a NYS licensed real estate school with over 10,000 students and countless courses on all fields of real estate law

8. Support – we own a licensed school so clearly, we know how to teach you; not only can we teach you, but we make learning easy because we operate with open doors in a collaborative environment and your success is our goal

9. Life Balance – work hours and billing requirements are reasonable and flexible so that you can have a life outside of the office

10. Respect – you are important, and we will treat you as an equal, not a subordinate

About Lieb at Law, P.C.:

Lieb at Law, P.C. offers legal services with a focus on litigation, discrimination, employment, and real estate. Additional practice areas include real estate brokerage, title disputes, contractual / commercial litigation, landlord / tenant, estate litigation, mortgage foreclosure, surrogate’s court litigation, plaintiff's personal injury / premises liability, land use / zoning, business and real estate transactions. Attorneys at Lieb at Law, P.C. are admitted to practice law in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Colorado while also practicing in the Federal Courts.

The firm is a substance-first law firm where self-confidence, grit, and skill is celebrated and rewarded.

Staff have access to a cloud-based legal research platform so that the latest cases are available everywhere, including at home and in the courtroom. We have a secure, cloud-based case management system that catalogs every thought and action on each matter so that case facts are readily accessible at the stroke of a computer key. Finally, enterprise file sharing, storage, and collaboration software is leveraged to enable the efficient collaboration between attorneys where case strategy and document preparation is fresh and innovative.

We are media legal analysts who appear on TV / radio nationwide. We teach the law that we practice, in continuing education and corporate trainings, so we force ourselves to always stay on the cutting edge of new statutes, regulations, and cases. Lieb at Law is a modern law firm that is at the vanguard of the profession.

Common surfaces are cleaned frequently, masks required for anyone in the office that is unvaccinated. All staff is vaccinated.

TO APPLY EMAIL COVER LETTER AND RESUME TO CAREERS@LIEBATLAW.COM

 Workplace Accommodations and 

Vaccine Mandates

October 20, 2021

12:30 p.m. - 1:20 p.m.

Zoom Webinar

As mandatory COVID-19 vaccines become more prevalent, many employers are asking what they can do if workers refuse. Some employers are firing workers who won't take the vaccine and others are requiring unvaccinated employees to submit to weekly testing. Under federal, state and local law, employers must provide reasonable accommodations and many employees are asking if they can legally receive exemptions from vaccine mandates.  In this course you will learn:

• To articulate the elements of a failure-to-accommodate lawsuit

• To understand the extent that a sincerely held religious belief can be challenged internally by an employer, within the interactive process / cooperative dialogue, and before an administrative / judicial tribunal 
• To define an undue hardship, under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and NYS Human Rights Law

Faculty:

Andrew Lieb, Esq., Lieb at Law, P.C.

Register online:  https://scba.org/?pg=events&evAction=showDetail&eid=229742&evSubAction=listMonth&calmonth=202110

Back in 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act capped SALT deductions at $10,000. 

To remind you, SALT deductions permit "taxpayers to deduct from their taxable income all the money they paid in state and local income and property taxes." As a result, it saves residents in high tax states from having to pay a lot of money to the federal government because they already paid a lot of tax to their state. States like New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland have really high state and local taxes and therefore, residents of these states were hurt the most when Congress capped SALT deduction at $10,000. 

To fight for their citizens and for their sovereignty, these four states sued the federal government "asserting that Congress's new cap on the SALT deduction either is unconstitutional on its face of unconstitutionally coerces them to abandon their preferred fiscal policies." 

Stated otherwise, the states argued "that the SALT deduction cap violates both Article I, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment [and the Sixteenth Amendment] because it coerces them to lower taxes or cut spending."

The states lost in New York v. Yellen and the $10,000 cap remains. 

According to the Second Circuit, the states failed to demonstrate "how the 2017 cap on the deduction unconstitutionally undermines their state sovereign authority over fiscal matters or their ability to raise revenue." 

Yet, it seems pretty intuitive, no?

Do you think this should go to the Supreme Court? 

If not, will a Democratic Congress, led by a Senator from New York, act to reinstitute the full SALT Tax Deduction, which has been the law of the land since 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified and Congress first became empowered to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived without apportionment among the several states"? 

There are 3 major topics that you should be on the watch for as the Supreme Court's term starts on the first Monday of October, and they all center around the conservative's 6-3 majority on the bench. With their majority, will the conservatives limit abortion, expand gun rights, and protect religion? 

Here is what you should know: 

Abortion: Every pundit out there is telling you that Roe v. Wade is in danger during this term because Mississippi's 15-week abortion law will be heard in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which will be argued on December 1st. 

You should know that Roe sets the state's right to restrict abortion at the point of viability, except if abortion is necessary, in appropriate medical judgement. However, hasn't the point of viability shrunk over the years from when Roe was decided in 1973. On the other hand, as Carliss Chatman wrote, in the Washington and Lee Law Review, "If a Fetus Is a Person, It Should Get Child Support, Due Process, and Citizenship," no? It seems that you need to go all in with whichever belief you have as anything short seems like you will be full of pure political conjecture - when do you think that a fetus is first a person?  

Guns: New York State (NYS) went after the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Bankruptcy Court earlier this year, and, now, it's the NRA's turn to come after NYS. The NRA is before the Supreme Court by backing the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett. The case asserts that NYS' concealed carry license law, which requires "proper cause" to carry a firearm, is unconstitutional. The case will be argued on November 3rd. 

You should know that "proper cause" means that an individual must demonstrate a special need for self-protection as distinguishable from that of the general community in order to carry in the State. Do you think that this makes sense as a standard or should concealed carry just be blanketly permissible, as the Plaintiff's argue is their right under the Second Amendment? On the other hand, don't unsafe public spaces offend the First Amendment's protections of assembly, association, and speech? It seems like we have an Amendment standoff and wouldn't restrictions on guns in public spaces be appropriate to make public spaces safe for democratic participation, as argued by the New York Civil Liberties Union in the case? What say you on this tough one? 

Religion: Flags and religion have been the biggest thing for the Republican Party since the 2020 elections and they are coming together in Shurtleff v. Boston where Boston flew a LGBT rights flag, but not one with the cross at city hall. Now, the Christians want their cross over the City, but what about the separation of Church and State in the First Amendment? 

You should know that freedom of religion is protected in the First Amendment, but that LGBT rights are not. However, is religion free if the state picks one over another? On that note, do you remember the separation of Gay and State being in the Constitution, because I don't? 

What Really Matters: The public is often looking for something that doesn't exist. As Justice Alito explained in response to tremendous outrage by abortion groups at the Supreme Court refusing to stop the Texas abortion law, those allegations are "false and inflammatory... "[w]e did no such thing and we said that expressly in our order." Instead, the Court ruled on procedure and that was lost on everyone who just reads salacious headlines with the word abortion in the title. If you actually read the decision, it's not about abortion at all, but, actually about something much more decisive and terrifying. 

You should know that Chief Justice Roberts explained that the real question in the case was "whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws" by "essentially delegat[ing] enforcement to...the populace at large." Stated otherwise, the law let private citizens sue whoever they found to have violated the law. Taking that to its logical conclusion, should we deputize neighbors to sue each other for violating our laws? Should we be able to get $5,000 if we go after a neighbor for speeding on the highway? What about $7,500 for littering? Maybe, $25,000 for dealing drugs? Is that the future that we want? You decide.

As you may recall, all federal contractors now have vaccination requirements because of Executive Order 14042, as discussed in our blog here.

The Order requires that all contracts between federal contractor and subcontractor contain a clause ensuring compliance. However, the specifics of that clause were unknown until September 24, 2021, when the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (SFWTF) published guidance, which requires:

• Vaccinations of covered contractor employees, except in limited circumstances where an employee is legally entitled to an accomodation; 
• Compliance by individuals, including covered contractor employees and visitors, with the  guidance related to masking and physical distancing while in covered contractor workplaces; and 
• Designation by covered contractors of a person(s) to coordinate COVID-19 workplace safety efforts. 

In their best written papers to date, NYC school employees argued to the Supreme Court that they need a stay of the October 1, 2021 deadline to get vaccinated. 

They argue that the vaccination order prevents them from lawfully pursuing their occupation, which is a fundamental Due Process right. They claim that their alternative options of private school teaching, adult or continuing education teaching, or private tutoring are not pursuing their occupations completely. Nonetheless, they fail to address whether taking "their certifications and seek[ing] employment in any other public school system... in the State," would be pursuing their occupations completely, as NYC had argued before the Second Circuit. 

Regardless, the issue of whether the employees can still pursue their profession is where the case is likely to be decided. In their opposition before the Second Circuit, the City had argued and emphasized that Due Process protection is only afforded if "a plaintiff is completely prohibited from engaging in his or her chosen profession." However, the school employees now argue that "a violation of one’s fundamental right to pursue an occupation exists and gives rise to a due process claim where there is less than a complete inability to practice one’s profession." Which one is it? Who is right? 

What do you think the law should be? 

The other argument advanced by the school employees is that the vaccination order should have given them an option to opt out of vaccination for weekly testing because school staff should be treated equally to firefighters and police officers who have that option. While this seems like a good argument in an initial read of the papers, the school employees' argument that firefighters and police officers present a greater risk to spread COVID because they have contact with the public as opposed to school children who have less severe COVID fails the smell test when it's considered that adults can be vaccinated and those under 12 years of age cannot. However, we will see. 

A proposed rule at 12 NYCRR 141 will increase basic hourly minimum wage for non-farm workers outside of New York City, Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties, from $12.50 to $13.20. 

This proposed rule is in compliance with the minimum wage requirements at Labor Law 652(6). 

Although 70 cents may not be considered impactful by many, those struggling to afford monthly expenses, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, will certainly benefit from such an increase. 

To voice your support or opposition to this proposed rule, comments should be sent to Michael Paglialonga, NYS Dept.of Labor at regulations@labor.ny.gov by November 29, 2021. 

NYS Senator Alexis Weik Sponsored a bill that provides eligibility for unemployment insurance for "unemployment due to such employee's choice not to receive a coronavirus vaccine."

While this bill is nowhere near being enacted, do you agree with the Senator?

Is this bill perpetrating the spread of a deadly virus by empowering people to make stupid decisions that will lead to deaths or is it the right move to support liberty - my body my choice?

You decide - tell your NYS representatives if you support this bill or strongly oppose it!

 According to the Second Circuit:

This Court entered a temporary injunction in the above-captioned case on Friday, September 24, 2021 for administrative purposes pending decision by a three-judge panel. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the September 24 injunction is DISSOLVED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an injunction pending appeal is DENIED.

That said, not getting vaccinated does not equal automatic termination. 

As the City explained in their opposition to the injunction, "even employees who object to vaccination... can elect to stay home and retain their positions while being placed on unpaid leave with healthcare until early September 2022... And even if plaintiffs decline the extended leave option, the earliest any steps would be taken to terminate their employment would occur in December 2021." 

So, "employees who fail to submit proof of having received one dose of vaccination by September 27, 2021, are to be placed on unpaid leave with health insurance the following day. [internal citation] But an employee who submits proof of vaccination before November 30, 2021, will be able to return to work within a week. [internal citation] And an employee who submits proof of vaccination thereafter, but before September 5, 2022, will be able to return to work within two weeks." 

As to accommodations, the City is granting accommodations "for a religious or medical" needs. However, an underlying arbitration on the matter set "an alternative to any statutory reasonable accommodation process... for the 2021-2022 school year" where the deadline for "any requests to be considered as part of this process... [was] no later than Monday, September 20, 2021, by 5:00 p.m." Therefore, any school employee who has not yet applied for an accommodation, CANNOT get one. 

The City's opposition summed this entire situation up nicely where it stated, "Put bluntly, plaintiffs do not have a substantive due process right to teach children without being vaccinated against a dangerous infectious disease."