Attorney Andrew Lieb discussed Trump facing new charges on CBS New York. Prosecutors are likely aiming to persuade Donald Trump's aide, Walt Nauta, and property manager, Carlos De Oliveira, through potential deals. The looming threat of jail time may make them reconsider loyalty to their boss. 

Attorney Andrew Lieb joined LiveNOW from Fox to delve into the intricacies of the Ethan Crumbley case, where he stands as a school shooter facing a Miller Hearing. The crux of this hearing transcends the mere evaluation of the crime committed; rather, it necessitates a meticulous examination of crucial factors. These include the defendant's age at the time of the incident, the surrounding circumstances that culminated in this tragic event, and most importantly, the potential for rehabilitation.

Breaking the Silence on Race Discrimination

Check out this powerful story about our client, Julio Germain, who faced shocking racism and discrimination at the Suffolk County Department of Public Works.

Julio Germain, a 38-year-old DPW employee, endured years of racist and discriminatory behavior from his co-workers and supervisors.

Julio bravely reported the misconduct, but management ignored his complaints and even retaliated by denying him promotions.

With the help of our team, Julio filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, and they have confirmed that there's probable cause to believe Suffolk County DPW engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices.

As the law firm representing Julio, we firmly stand against any form of discrimination, and we won't rest until justice is served.

Please share this story and let's create awareness to put an end to racism and discrimination in the workplace. Together, we can make a difference!

In a recent interview with Fox 5 NY, Attorney Andrew Lieb discussed the potential implications of New Jersey's lawsuit against New York's proposed congestion pricing plan. If New York fails to take the environmental impact study seriously, the repercussions could be profound.

In Attorney Andrew Lieb's discussion about the legality of In-N-Out's mask policy with Scripps News, Lieb emphasizes its potential issues regarding discrimination. Although it's legal in the majority of states as a general matter, the way the policy is worded could inadvertently lead to discrimination by not providing exemptions for religious reasons. He suggests that employees might have a chance to oppose this policy through unionization, concerted activity, or lawsuits related to religious accommodations and disability accommodations. 

Before pursuing a medical exemption, Lieb advises employees to consult a discrimination lawyer to better understand what counts as a statutorily recognized disability that would qualify for such an exemption. He also addresses the problematic nature of the restaurant chain's requirement for only company-provided masks, which could fail to accommodate those who might need different kinds of masks due to their religion or medical condition. He specifically points out that "Many Muslim women might need to cover their face. So the way they articulate it is really problematic and potentially discriminatory."

In this interview with FOX liveNOW, Attorney Andrew Lieb unpacks the emerging legal crisis facing 16 Michigan residents who have been indicted for allegedly forging documents tied to the 2020 election as fake electors. While the First Amendment guarantees their right to advocate for Donald Trump's election victory, it does not permit fraudulent actions, such as posing as electors when they clearly were not.

Lieb also delves into the curious case of Trump's unique approach to legal challenges. The former president's strategy of pre-empting legal indictments via social media puzzles many from a legal standpoint, yet it effectively rallies his supporters in the political context.

Analysing Trump's current predicament, Lieb suggests that an indictment over his involvement in the January 6 events appears increasingly probable, given the current trajectory of the investigations.

Key Points:

• Serious charges loom over 16 Michigan residents for allegedly falsifying and filing elector documents.
• Trump's preemptive social media tactics might score political points but are legally confounding.
• A looming indictment for Trump appears likely considering the "target" letter and the progression of investigations so far.

In Lieb's words, "It's a legally bewildering scenario. You can just picture his attorneys at their wit's end, wondering why he's openly taunting prosecutors. From a legal perspective, this is an unorthodox, almost reckless approach."

If the Screen Actors Guild goes on strike, we're standing at the precipice of a seismic shift in the entertainment industry. The game is changing, and not just incrementally. We're talking about tectonic movement here. Actors are understandably concerned about residuals for streaming services, but there's an even bigger elephant in the room - the advent of artificial intelligence. You see, what we've got here is a scenario where an actor's name, likeness, even their idiosyncratic quirks can be replicated, regenerated through AI.  Imagine, for a moment, that you've dedicated your entire life to your craft - to bringing characters to life on screen. Then one day, you find yourself in a position where you're no longer needed. Why? Because a machine, an algorithm, can emulate you in such a way that you're effectively replaceable. This is the stark reality our actors are facing, and it's a prospect that doesn't sit comfortably. So, yes, we're on the brink of monumental change. How we navigate this new terrain will dictate the future of the industry. It's not just about the strike - it's about the very essence of what it means to be an actor in the 21st century.  To hear more on this, check out Attorney Andrew Lieb's full interview on FOX 5 NY.

NYS law is that the refusal to rent or lease based on "lawful source of income" constitutes actionable discrimination under Executive Law 296(5)(a)(1). 

Now, the Hon. Mark  G. Masler of the State Supreme Court, County of Tompkins, in James v. Commons West, LLC, et al., has found this anti-discrimination law to be unconstitutional because it compels landlords to have their business records and property inspected incident to being compelled to participate in Section 8, all in violation of the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the NYS Constitution. 

This case is surely going to be appealed - do you think mandatory participation in Section 8 constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure? 

In a recent interview with Scripps News, Attorney Andrew Lieb weighed in on a significant legal case ruling which states that race can no longer be a factor in university admissions. Lieb highlighted the shift in the precedent, stating, "we were never allowed to have race be a quota system... And what we've learned now is under the equal protection clause that's in the Constitution, that would be discriminatory, you can't do that you can't make race a factor." This new interpretation of the equal protection clause is poised to transform the admission procedures in both public and private institutions across the United States. 

Lieb also discussed the dissenting opinion of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who accused the majority of "let them eat cake" obliviousness. He pointed out the complexities of achieving a race-blind admission system, asking "how do you write an essay and make it race blind?" Furthermore, Lieb brought up the intriguing perspective by renowned author Malcolm Gladwell who posits that removing race as a factor might actually benefit the individuals who otherwise would not be admitted into certain institutions. 

The interview concluded with Lieb noting the societal pendulum swing on matters of race, suggesting that there may be a shift in attitudes towards admissions again in the future. He commented, "Grutter said maybe in 25 years, we'd be in a different climate. So I'll tell you today, maybe in 25 years, we'll be in yet another different climate." This notion acknowledges the fluidity and complexities of societal norms and their influence on the interpretation of the law.

Andrew Lieb, a Long Island attorney and legal analyst at Lieb at Law PC, recently spoke with CBS Radio regarding two important Supreme Court rulings. 

First, Lieb discussed the ruling on student debt forgiveness where the court disagreed with President Biden's plan for debt forgiveness. Lieb summarized the situation: "We're talking about this HEROES Act and the Biden administration has relied on this act...And the question becomes does the HEROES Act give the Biden administration the power they want?" The Supreme Court's decision effectively denies the administration's ability to forgive debt based on this Act.

In the second case, Lieb shed light on LGBT discrimination by explaining that it was a freedom of speech case rather than a discrimination case, despite the headlines stating otherwise. The case involved a Christian graphic artist refusing to make specific websites about same-sex couples rather than refusing to work for LGBT people overall. Lieb clarified that the ruling does not permit the denial of services based on sexual orientation. Rather, it emphasizes that "certain creative people speak through their creativity...while you have to serve anyone...all she said is that when she writes the cake, she's not going to make a product with her speech that goes against what she wants to do." This distinction emphasizes that the court's ruling protects creative expression and not discriminatory practices.

Attorney Andrew Lieb joins Scripps News to provide a comprehensive analysis on the legal implications of a recently surfaced audio tape involving former President Trump. The tape suggests potential violations of federal law, as it indicates the showing of a classified document to an individual without proper clearance. Lieb offers insights into the significance of the recording, potential defense strategies, and the challenges associated with securing convictions in high-profile cases. 

Key quotes from Attorney Andrew Lieb:

•  "The thing is, we read about in the indictment itself recordings and it wasn't as bad as even this recording from Bedminster. And I would bet everything I own that Jack Smith has a lot more than just this recording."
• "Trump not only pays to get the evidence taken against him, then he goes on truth social and gives us a play by play commentary when it comes out. It couldn't get better for a prosecutor than this."
• "The laws you just played the recording dealt, but what they're going to do is they're going to say, 'But you don't believe that we don't need to believe that he wouldn't do that.'"
• "The big hurdle is he's a very popular fella, and can you get enough jurors to want to convict them? But that's not saying does Jack Smith have the law and the facts Jack Smith has the law on the facts, though."
• "At the end of the day, it's really hard to get around a recording of yourself that you paid for admitting that something was still secret top secret, and you were showing it to someone else. That's a problem."
• "If I was Trump's lawyers today, I would be taking Valium after Valium and just say, 'Please turn off your social media man.' He's killing them."
• 
  

Two Approaches to Decision-Making: Lieb noted that the liberal justices likely based their decision on a broader consideration of immigration policy as a whole. Conversely, the conservative justices focused on history and tradition, drawing parallels to previous cases like Dobbs v. Jackson that overturned Roe v. Wade. This dichotomy highlighted how different groups of people can arrive at the same conclusion through distinct approaches.

Standing and State Involvement: Lieb explained that the ruling determined that Texas and Louisiana lacked standing on the issue at hand. This ruling does not indicate support for President Biden's policy or establish the executive branch's ultimate authority. Instead, it signifies that these particular states cannot present their arguments in this specific case.

Implications on a Personal Level: Lieb highlighted that not everyone can realistically be subject to deportation due to limited governmental resources and prioritization. The ruling allows the Biden administration greater flexibility in implementing its immigration policies.

Constitutional Considerations: Lieb underscored the importance of historical perspectives and past interpretations in cases brought before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. He emphasized that a deeper understanding of history is crucial when presenting a case to this particular Court.

Tightened Rules for State Challenges: The ruling against the states by SCOTUS has resulted in tightened rules concerning when states may challenge federal policies they disagree with. This development clarifies the parameters for state involvement in legal challenges to federal decisions.

The U.S. employment law landscape has been transformed with the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). This law, endorsed by President Joe Biden, extends protections to employees dealing with pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will now begin processing discrimination charges under this fresh statute, opening a new chapter in labor rights.

Legal Provisions:

The PWFA mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, except when these adjustments impose an undue hardship on the employer. The PWFA thus augments protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. As EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows stated, the PWFA aids workers in securing their entitlements under this new law.

EEOC's Role and Resources:

The EEOC has introduced educational materials to aid workers and employers in understanding the new law. These include a "Know Your Rights" video series, a revised poster, and a guide to the PWFA. The EEOC is also set to accept discrimination charges under PWFA.

The Bottom Line:

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act fills a gap in employment rights, fostering a more equitable and inclusive working environment. It is a substantial step towards legally addressing the unique challenges faced by pregnant workers, fostering a fair workspace for all.

If you are a victim, you can bring a discrimination case and recovery monetary damages for your lost pay and emotional distress. You have rights. 

 Attention SCOTUS, America needs you. 

On June 20, 2023, the 5th Cir undercut Title VII's promise to be free from employment discrimination in Bear Creek Bible Church v. EEOC, et at. 

The employer here, Bear Creek Bible Church, "is a nondenominational church" that "does not permit Braidwood to employ individuals who engage in behavior he considers sexually immoral or gender non-conforming, nor does he allow Braidwood to recognize homosexual marriage."

Bear Creek sued the EEOC asserting "that Title VII, as interpreted in the EEOC’s guidance and Bostock, prevents them from operating their places of employment in a way compatible with their Christian beliefs."

The 5th Cir held that "Title VII post-Bostock would substantially burden its ability to operate per its religious beliefs about homosexual and transgender conduct."

However, the 5th Cir called for SCOTUS by writing - "Although the Supreme Court may some day determine that preventing commercial businesses from discriminating on factors specific to sexual orientation or gender identity is such a compelling government interest that it overrides religious liberty in all cases, it has never so far held that."

Oh SCOTUS, what say you? 

Political Commentator and Legal Analyst Attorney Andrew Lieb recently shared his analysis and insights on the Hunter Biden case and former President Donald Trump's trial during an exclusive interview on LiveNOW from FOX. 

Hunter Biden Case:

• Investigation and Charges: The investigation into Hunter Biden's case spanned four to five years before specific charges were brought forward. Charges include felony gun charges and two misdemeanors related to unpaid taxes in 2017-2018. 
• Cooperation and Plea Deal: Lieb emphasizes the importance of cooperation with prosecutors to achieve a favorable plea deal when facing potential exposure. Cooperation before formal charges are brought can lead to more favorable outcomes.
• Potential Penalties: Lieb expresses doubt regarding the likelihood of jail time for Hunter Biden. The felony firearm charge is to be addressed through a pretrial diversion program focused on rehabilitation rather than punitive measures. Hunter Biden has already paid back taxes and penalties, reducing the possibility of incarceration by the Judge where the prosecutors are said not to be seeking jail time.

Former President Trump's Trial:

• Trial Date and Venue: Tentative trial date set for August 14, although delays due to motions and discovery are expected. The trial will take place in Fort Pierce, Florida, a location considered more favorable for Trump compared to Miami. Lieb explains the significance of trial venue and its potential impact on the proceedings.

Congressman George Santos' Case:

• Judge denies Santos' attempt to keep bond backers' identities sealed. The order mandates unsealing of identities on June 22 at 12 pm, allowing Santos or bond suretors the opportunity to modify the release to incarceration before the disclosure. Lieb questions if Santo's family-member suretors are actually even family members given Santos' track record for the truth. 

SCOTUS considers striking down affirmative action, we may find ourselves on a slippery slope. Are we edging towards ignoring student's backgrounds in college admissions, perhaps even disregarding admission letters altogether? Remember, nine states already don't factor in race for university admissions. Attorney Andrew Lieb's analysis with @CBSNewYork

On June 14th, 2023, marking the 77th birthday of Donald Trump, CBS Radio hosted an enlightening discussion with legal analyst and attorney Andrew Lieb. The interview revolved around the former president's current legal situation following his recent arraignment and pre-birthday celebration in Bedminster.

In this deep-dive conversation, Lieb shared intriguing insights into Trump's defense strategy, potential repercussions, and the challenging path ahead for his legal team.

Trump's Defense Strategy: The 'What About Isms':

Lieb noted that Trump's defense seemed to hinge heavily on 'what about isms.' This is a tactic where the accused attempts to deflect blame by bringing attention to similar offenses committed by others. In Trump's case, the targets of his 'what about isms' are often Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. 

However, Lieb was quick to point out the ineffectiveness of this strategy in a court of law. The legal focus is solely on the individual on trial—in this instance, Trump—not anyone else. Thus, accusations directed towards Clinton, Biden, or others would be deemed irrelevant.

Trump's Legal Defense: A Game of Suppression:

According to Lieb, the defense's primary task should be to ascertain whether any evidence has been obtained illegally. If that's the case, their efforts should be directed towards suppressing such evidence. This approach takes precedence over simply trying to prove innocence. It's all about making it difficult for the prosecutor to prove guilt, rather than making it easy for the defense to prove innocence.

The Double-Edged Sword of Public Statements:

Lieb had some advice for Trump: stop talking about the case, especially on the campaign trail. As a legal professional, he believes any public discourse about the case could potentially be used against Trump in court. However, he recognized the potential political benefits of such communication, as playing the victim might appeal to Trump's base of supporters.

The Outlook: A High Likelihood of Jail Time?

In a somewhat startling revelation, Lieb expressed a belief that, based on the current state of affairs, Trump is likely to face jail time. He made it clear that this prediction doesn't factor in any potential actions the defense team could take, such as suppressing evidence or getting charges dismissed.

Further, Lieb noted that this is just the beginning. Besides the present case, there's a possibility of Trump facing additional charges in Georgia, and at the federal level in NJ—especially related to the sharing of classified documents, and in DC.