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

FTC Drops Non-Compete Ban: What Employers and Employees Need to Know About Enforceability

On September 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission gave up on its federal non-compete ban. As a result, employees who are subject to non-competes can no longer expect a white night, in the form of the FTC, to free them from their handcuffs when seeking to jump jobs. Instead, non-competes will once again need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for enforceability by counsel prior to an employee considering their options and a new employer considering hiring while being subject to a tortious interference with a contract claim. Otherwise, questions like the non-compete's duration, scope of activities, and geographic restrictions will be before the courts. Judges will need to determine if an employee had specialized training or investment from the employer, whether the non-compete concerns a job function dealing with trade secrets and conditional information, and how goodwill was utilized in forming the customer relationship. Then, there is the issue of the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses (predetermined damages for breach) and whether the court will fully strike an overly broad non-compete or instead blue pencil it into a more modified non-compete. Either way, employers who cannot gamble as to what a judge will do and face deep-pocket competitors, who will happily battle out poaching a start employee, should consider garden leave where the employee remains on payroll for the period of the non-compete to avoid ever having to earn a living otherwise while preserving loyalty for as long as the employer seeks. 

Facing a Non-Compete Issue?
Whether you’re an employer seeking to enforce an agreement or an employee evaluating your options, Lieb at Law can help. Our attorneys are experienced in litigating restrictive covenants, negotiating employment agreements, and advising on strategies to protect your rights and business interests.

📞 646-217-8009

✉️ info@liebatlaw.com

Contact us today to schedule a consultation.

*attorney advertising

Remote Work and the ADA: Why Employers Should Think Twice Before Mandating Return to Office

Smith v. District of Columbia should embolden all disabled employees, whose disability necessities remote work to perform the essential function of their job, in their reasonable accommodation requests. 

Interestingly, this case stems from a court employee of the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. Here, plaintiff was in remission from breast cancer and operatively, was permitted to work remotely for over 2 years because COVID heightened her health risks where she received exemplary reviews, but was then instructed to return to the office under a hybrid rotational schedule, which caused her to resign based on a failure to accommodate her health-related needs. 

The issue before the Court was whether return to office was an essential function of the case-specific job, and thus, the refusal to return would pose an undue hardship, which would permit the employer to deny the accommodation request. To determine this issue, the Court advised that: 

• "The plaintiff bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that she has a disability but can perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation."
• “Essential functions are ‘the fundamental job duties of the employment position.’”  
• "In determining what duties are 'fundamental,' the ADA expressly provides that 'consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential.'" 
• “[I]f an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.” 
• "Also relevant are the “work experience of past incumbents in the job.” 
• "The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.”  
• "Whether the employer actually requires employees in the position to perform the functions that the employer asserts are essential” and “[i]f so, then the question of essentiality comes down to ‘whether removing the function would fundamentally alter that position.’

During the case, the "Defendant identified a list of no less than 18 public-facing job function," which were substantiated by "[t]he written job description... and a USA job posting." Additionally, plaintiff failed to identify any comparator "who worked only from home." In all, the evidence demonstrated a very good case for a hardship, except for plaintiff's prior remote work where she "received the highest overall performance ratings during this time," where her work was even described as "exemplary."

In all, the Court held that because "she was able to perform the job at the highest levels while working remotely for two years[, a] reasonable juror may conclude from that fact that the on-site elements of the job were marginal, rather than essential."

The lesson is simple - employers who give remote work and then take it away, by requiring return to office whereby they argue that in-office is an essential function of the job, are going to have a hard time getting failure-to-accommodate cases dismissed on summary judgment.  

If your employer denied your request for remote work or other accommodations related to your disability, you don’t have to face it alone. Contact Lieb at Law, P.C. today to discuss your rights and legal options.

From Texas to New York: Understanding Pregnancy Discrimination Protections at Work

The federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has been effective since June 27, 2023 and requires reasonable accommodations and prohibits the denial of job opportunities incident to pregnancy from both public and private employers based on the need for such an accomodation. To illustrate, the law provides pregnant employees the right to obtain reasonable accommodations to go to medical appointments and to limit their job function incident to restrictions on movement, except if such function is an essential job function. Under the law, victims can file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), within 180 or 300 days (based on whether the applicable state has a Fair Employment Practices Agency), and then, after receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, they can sue their employers, in court, for back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. 

However, after the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act passed, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas temporarily blocked its enforcement against the State of Texas, as an employer, based on arguments that it was passed unconstitutional by proxy voting in violation of the Constitution's Quorum Clause. Now, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals brought it back to life as against the State of Texas.

While this is great for pregnant Texas employees, pregnant employees throughout the United States should not just stop at leveraging this federal law when exercising their rights because this law is just a floor of rights under which other federal, state, and local laws may not fall.

For example, a pregnant worker in New York is also protected by the State's Human Rights Law, which has been protecting victims from pregnancy discrimination since 1974. In fact, the New York State Division of Human Rights has published a comprehensive Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Reasonable Accommodations of Pregnancy-Related Conditions for Employers in New York State. The guidance explains that in 2015, the Human Rights Law was amended to expressly address the rights of those with a "pregnancy-related condition," rather than just affording those rights to the extent that pregnancy caused a disability, which was separately protected under the Human Rights Law. Under either route under the Human Rights Law, a pregnant worker can bring a case in state court or before an administrative tribunal at the Division of Human Rights while seeking compensation for the emotional distress, lost wages, and attorneys' fees incident to their employer's failure to accommodate their reasonable needs or if such employee experiences an adverse employment action due to their pregnancy status.

Even further, as of 2025, New York because the first state in the nation to offer Paid Prenatal Leave for prenatal care or any medical care related to pregnancy in an amendment to Labor Law 196-b. Now, privately-employed pregnant workers are able to receive an additional 20 hours of paid sick leave for prenatal care in addition to their existing sick leave, which includes physical examinations, medical procedures, monitoring and testing, and discussions with a health care provider related to the pregnancy. Interestingly, under this Paid Prenatal Leave law, employers cannot even ask pregnancy employees to disclosure confidential information about their health as a condition of use, which when exercised is to be paid at normal hourly rates and enforced by the Department of Labor. 

Additionally, and regardless of the state that the victim is located, other federal laws also protect pregnant workers from discrimination, including Title VII, which was amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and which prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions with respect to adverse employment actions. This law requires employers to treat pregnancy workers the same as other temporarily disabled employees and to provide health benefits to pregnant workers to the extent otherwise provided to other workers. Additionally, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) separately protects pregnant workers' pregnancy related conditions that qualify as a disability from discrimination. Both Title VII and the ADA are enforceable to the same extent as the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, by filing a charge with EEOC and suing thereafter in federal court. 

Finally, pregnant workers should also pay attention to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), that provides unpaid job-protection for certain family and medical leave reasons, and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act), which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to give rights to nursing mothers at work, which is enforceable by private lawsuit, but with a 10 day notice for compliance provision. 

In all, pregnant workers enjoy a lot of job related protections and while the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act now being applicable to Texas state workers is important, employers and employees alike need to take a deep dive into understanding all of the applicable pregnancy employment rights before a misstep causes a very expensive lawsuit.

If you believe your employer has denied you pregnancy-related accommodations or treated you unfairly because of your pregnancy, you don’t have to navigate it alone. Lieb at Law, P.C. represents employees in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Colorado in pregnancy discrimination and accommodation cases. Contact us today to protect your rights and explore your legal options.

Match.com’s $14M Settlement: Why Connecticut Beats New York for Class Actions for Unfair Trade Practices

Match.com and its sister dating sites, like Hinge and Tinder, just agreed to pay $14 million after the FTC settled with them for using scammer accounts to lure people into paid subscriptions, hiding restrictive promo terms, and making cancellation so tricky you’d think you were breaking out of prison.

Even though Match.com settled with the FTC, that doesn't mean that consumers can't sue next in a class action lawsuit where consumers can recover even more money. If you’re thinking of bringing this class action, as the class representative, where you bring the lawsuit really matters in what results you can expect.

Connecticut vs. New York

In CT, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") lets consumers recover punitive damages with no cap. Plus, if you couple the lawsuit with another cause of action, like identity theft under CGS 52-571h, which provides for treble damages (triple your actual damages), the sky would be the limit as we recently saw when the CT Supreme Court ruled that a Plaintiff could recover both together (treble + punitive) in White v. FCW Law Offices. That means if the bad behavior is really bad, the award can climb into serious money. Plus, CUTPA provides for attorneys’ fees if you win.

While NY has a similar law, General Business Law § 349, that also allows treble damages, it caps them at just $1,000. Moreover, the statute does not provide for punitive damages where a separate cause of action that provides for punitive damages would be necessary to obtain them in NY and even then, NY courts keep them relatively low as compared to CT. In other words, in New York, even a slam-dunk case can hit a low ceiling.

When a company tricks consumers, with items like fake account messages, buried terms, and/or intentionally hard cancellations, which in turn hurts thousands of people, a class action in CT (in Fed Court based on the diversity that would likely exist) could mean a much bigger payout for consumers than the same case in NY.

Even more important is picking a firm that knows various state laws and can guide you to the right forum that gives you the best opportunity and knows how to work the law to your advantage. 

So next time you hear about a big consumer case or deceptive business practice, remember the where and the who matter just as much as the what. The right state can mean the difference between a small payout and a meaningful recovery, and the right law firm will know exactly where and how to file to get you the best result.

If you believe you’ve been misled by a company’s deceptive practices, don’t leave money on the table. Contact Lieb at Law today to evaluate your potential class action claim. 

*attorney advertising

Is Calling a Male Employee BALD Employment Discrimination?

Apparently, the UK thinks so, but what about in NYS?

In NYS, you'd have to prove that such a comment rose above a petty slight or trivial inconvenience so context would be everything. In such, we have questions:

1. Was it said as a joke or a slight?
2. Who said it - management or a co-worker?
3. When / Where was it said?
4. Was it only said once or repeatedly?
5. Did the victim ask for it not to be said and then, was it said again after?
6. Was it just said, or was the victim given clothing that called him "the bald guy"? 
7. Was it just a comment or an identity?
8. Were other bald men not called bald? 
9. What about bald women?
10. Did the victim have an underlying medical condition contributing to being bald - like cancer treatments? 

The list goes on, but the answer isn't simple. Regardless, NYS has a relatively low standard to prove hostile work environment discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. In contract, federal law, under Title VII, requires proof that the harassment was severe and pervasive, which would be much harder to prove. Either way, context is everything and eliciting the right evidence is what makes you win or lose this type of case. So, don't just ask an AI, sit down for a comprehensive consultation to learn whether you have a sexual harassment case. 

Use our Discrimination Case Checklist to see how your situation measures up, and then contact Lieb at Law to discuss your rights and options. Our team is here to help you determine if you have a case and fight for the justice you deserve.

*attorney advertising

Think You Were Racially Discriminated Against at Work? You’re Not Alone - And Here’s How to Prove It

According to Survey on Racism, Discrimination and Health: Experiences and Impacts Across Racial and Ethnic Groups, a 2023 national study, these are the percentages of people who reported that they have experienced discrimination within the past year:

• White People = 38% 
• Black People = 54% 
• Latino People = 50%
• Asian People = 42%

Yet, believing that you were discriminated and proving it are two totally different things. 

The key to proving discrimination is that you can demonstrate an adverse employment action with respect to available of a job, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment, that occured BECAUSE of your race. 

The fact that you are black and something bad happens to you at work is not discrimination. However, the fact that something bad happens to you at work BECAUSE you are black is discrimination. 

The best way to prove that the adverse action occurred BECAUSE of your race is by having:

1. A comparator of a different race, in the same position, with the same essential job functions, who did not have the same adverse employment action or compensation;
2. Experienced a hostile environment in terms of discriminatory speech that was documented or witnesses - saying something to you that was offensive and tied to your race, like the N-Word;
3. Received false reasons for the actions taken - you can prove they are pretextual; or
4. Actions taken that expressly violate a company policy or procedure. 

If you believe you may have been a victim of workplace discrimination, the first step is understanding whether your experience meets the legal test. Use our Discrimination Case Checklist to see how your situation measures up, and then contact Lieb at Law to discuss your rights and options. Our team is here to help you determine if you have a case and fight for the justice you deserve.

*Attorney Advertising

Are Company DEI Programs Going to Get Them Sued for Reverse Discrimination?

This past month, the Department of Justice issued guidance on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) for Funding Recipients, but every employer and employee (regardless of government funding) should take notice of this guidance because it explains a lot of acts that give rise to a reverse discrimination lawsuit and many employees now seem to have a good case. 

Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics like race, sex, and religion, and if you object to a policy you believe is discriminatory, you are legally protected from retaliation. The DOJ’s new guidance clarifies that all discrimination, including “reverse discrimination” is illegal, even when done with good intentions under a DEI label. 

This means that policies giving preferential treatment based on race or sex in hiring, promotions, or contracting are likely unlawful. Watch out for “diverse slate” mandates or quotas in hiring, as these are specifically called out by the DOJ as problematic. 

The government is also scrutinizing seemingly neutral terms like “cultural competence” when they are just used as a substitute for race. Notably, DEI training that segregates employees by race or promotes stereotypes can create a hostile environment and violate federal law. The main takeaway is clear: workplace policies must ensure equal opportunity for everyone, without exception, and calling a discriminatory policy DEI does not protect it from constituting actionable discrimination.

Was "hottest in the room" Tulsi Gabbard a victim of sexual harassment by the Federal Government?

On July 22, 2025, and while speaking to Republican lawmakers at the White House, Trump said about Tulsi Gabbard, “She’s like, hotter than everybody. She’s the hottest one in the room right now.” and “Speaker, she’s hotter than you right now, speaker. She’s the hottest person in the room right now, speaker,” Is that sexual harassment under Title VII? 

To constitute sexual harassment under federal law, under the hostile work environment theory, the sexual harassment must be severe and pervasive. That standard is lowered in states though, like New York under its New York State Human Rights Law where the standard is inferior terms and conditions that rise above petty slights and trivial inconveniences. However, under any analysis, it's all about the context and the culmination of other acts that instruct as to whether a victim has suffered from a hostile work environment based on sex. 

Here, Tulis has no case and it is impossible to find sexual harassment because Trump made the context of his statement expressly known where he wasn't using the term "hot" with respect to looks, but instead, with respect to his perception that she is killing it at her job. We know this because his next statement was “[Gabbard] found out that Barack Hussein Obama led a group of people and they cheated in the elections and they cheated without question.” 

The takeaway is you can't have a got yah moment without context. It's not about what was said standing alone. It's about what was sent, when it was said, why it was said, where it was said, who said it to whom, and which witnesses can corroborate the purported victim's tail of events because sexual harassment needs to be both subjectively and objectively harassment to constitute actionable discrimination. 

Can a CEO Have an Affair with HR Without It Constituting Sexual Harassment at Work?

We are asking for Andy Byron and the entire Astronomer team  after the Coldplay Kiss Cam fiasco.

The truth is that a consensual sexual relationship between a supervisor and an employee does not, in itself, constitute actionable sexual harassment. The reason is simple: Actionable sexual harassment under Title VII requires that the sexual acts at issue be unwelcome by the other participant - Here, Kristin Cabot sure seemed to welcome the sexual acts and she was the HR Head, so she would be hard pressed to act like she did not know her rights to say no. 

However, Andy and Astronomer, we aren't done there - here is where you have problems. The real problems for Astronomer stem from how this relationship between Byron and Cabot, and any related conduct, affects other employees who are not directly involved in the consensual relationship as follows:

1. Adverse employment action for female employees who did NOT submit to sexual advances can support a Title VII claim of employment discrimination. Here are some case quotes to consider:
1. "[R]efusing to accede to sexual advances is an activity protected under Title VII." Rashid v Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 96 CIV. 1833 (AGS), 1998 WL 689931, at *2 (SDNY Oct. 2, 1998)
2. "Sexual harassment in the context of employment can form the basis for a Title VII claim. In the typical case, the female plaintiff claims that her male supervisor requested sexual favors from her and conditioned some job benefit, for example a promotion, on her assent. Such a claim is cognizable under Title VII." Toscano v Nimmo, 570 F. Supp. 1197, 1199 (1983)
3. "[S]he suffered what amounted to a 'reassignment with significantly different responsibilities' under Ellerth. She testified at trial that after she refused Flick's sexual advances, he substantially reduced her job responsibilities." Roberts v County of Cook, 01 C 9373, 2004 WL 1088230, at *2 (ND Ill May 12, 2004)
2. Hostile environment of sexual harassment for non-direct victims can support a Title VII claim of employment discrimination. Here are some case quotes to consider:
1. "Evidence of the general work atmosphere, involving employees other than the plaintiff, is relevant to the issue of whether there existed an atmosphere of hostile work environment which violated Title VII. This is so because “[e]ven a woman who was never herself the object of harassment might have a Title VII claim if she were forced to work in an atmosphere in which such harassment was pervasive.”" Broderick v Ruder, 685 F. Supp. 1269, 1277 (D.D.C. 1988)
2. "Past California decisions have established that the prohibition against sexual harassment includes protection from a broad range of conduct, ranging from expressly or impliedly conditioning employment benefits on submission to or tolerance of unwelcome sexual advances, to the creation of a work environment that is hostile or abusive on the basis of sex. Such a hostile environment may be created even if the plaintiff never is subjected to sexual advances." Miller v Dept of Corr., 36 Cal. 4th 446, 461 (2005)
3.  “[A]n employee may establish an actionable claim of sexual harassment under the FEHA by demonstrating that widespread sexual favoritism was severe or pervasive enough to alter his or her working conditions and create a hostile work environment." - Miller v Dept of Corr., 36 Cal. 4th 446, 461 (2005) (note that NYS Courts only require inferior rising above petty slights and trivial inconveniences rather than severe or pervasive)
3. Preferential treatment for female employees who submitted to sexual advances (like Kristin Cabot) can support a Title VII claim of employment discrimination by creating a hostile environment. Here are some case quotes to consider:
1. "[A] plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of sex discrimination by offering proof that a woman who was promoted to a job in the plaintiff's stead was having a sexual relationship with a person partially responsible for the hiring decision." Drinkwater v Union Carbide Corp., 904 F2d 853, 860 (3d Cir 1990)
2. "Additionally, Title VII is also violated when an employer affords preferential treatment to female employees who submit to sexual advances or other conduct of a sexual nature and such conduct is a matter of common knowledge." Broderick v Ruder, 685 F. Supp. 1269, 1277 (D.D.C. 1988)
3. "In those cases in which Title VII was extended to allow recovery based upon a supervisor's voluntary sexual relationship with a subordinate, the claims usually were premised upon the paramour receiving some form of preferential treatment over the claimant. (in this case, no Title VII because plaintiff alleged she was fired because she knew of the affair, a motivation that did not rely on her gender)" Ellert v Univ. of Texas, 52 F.3d 543, 546 (1995)
4. "[W]here a supervisor's preference for his or her paramour is transformed from simple favoritism to the concrete bestowal of tangible, economically valuable employment benefits denied other employees, such conduct can constitute prohibited discrimination." Perron v Sec'y Dep't of Health and Human Services, 2008 WL 5101577 at *5 (2008)
5. "Plaintiff opposes summary judgment in this regard on grounds that she in fact suffered three such adverse actions: 1) her failure to receive an annual special award; 2) her supervisor's selection of his paramour, Pamela Kite, for the desirable Katrina Detail; and 3) James Greer's failure to nominate her for a QSI. Plaintiff further points to circumstances surrounding all three of these actions as evincing Greer's discriminatory intent." Forrest v Brinker Int’l Payroll Co., LP, 511 F.3d 225, 229 (1st Cir. 2007)
6. "… plaintiff, without any doubt, was forced to work in an environment in which the WRO managers by their conduct harassed her and other WRO female employees, by bestowing preferential treatment upon those who submitted to their sexual advances. This preferential treatment undermined plaintiff's motivation and work performance and deprived plaintiff, and other WRO female employees, of promotions and job opportunities. The record is clear that plaintiff and other women working at the WRO found the sexual conduct and its accompanying manifestations which WRO managers engaged in over a protracted period of time to be offensive. The record also establishes that plaintiff and other women were for obvious reasons reluctant to voice their displeasure and, when they did, they were treated with a hostile response by WRO's management team." Broderick v Ruder, 685 F. Supp. 1269, 1277 (D.D.C. 1988)

Therefore, the "principle that emerges from the above cases is that absent claims of coercion or widespread sexual favoritism, where an employee engages in consensual sexual conduct with a supervisor and an employment decision is based on this conduct, Title VII is not implicated because any benefits of the relationship are due to the sexual conduct, rather than the gender, of the employee." Tenge v Phillips Modern Ag Co., 446 F3d 903, 909 (8th Cir 2006)

But here’s where the Coldplay Kiss Cam scandal takes a sharper turn. Andy’s wife, Megan Kerrigan, could pursue a divorce and depending on the terms of their prenup or postnup (if one exists), she might need to lean into the workplace discrimination angle to strengthen her financial claims. In doing so, she risks simultaneously substantiating a hostile work environment claim for other Astronomer employees, potentially encouraging those who’ve stayed silent to come forward. As Astronomer’s owner, Megan is caught in a bind - staying quiet protects the company by limiting further exposure to discrimination and retaliation claims, but the scorned spouse in her might not be willing to keep the peace.

If you have been involved in this situation at work and you want to know if you have a discrimination claim, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Did this sexual relationship between a supervisor and a co-worker create a workplace atmosphere where sexual harassment was either pervasive or, in New York, rose above petty slights and trivial inconveniences?
2. Was there a general workplace atmosphere where multiple employees experienced a hostile environment and was the situation widely discussed among staff? The more employees consistently affected, the stronger the potential case.
3. Was there favoritism shown toward employees who submitted to sexual advances from leadership or management and was that favoritism common knowledge? Did it result in lost promotions, missed job opportunities, or a decline in overall morale? 
4. Most importantly, ask yourself this - Were you ever propositioned by a supervisor and if you refused, were you denied any work benefits, opportunities, or advancement as a result?

If you're navigating a workplace relationship scandal or believe favoritism or harassment is impacting your career, contact Lieb at Law. Our employment law team is ready to evaluate whether your rights under Title VII or the NYS Human Rights Law have been violated. 

Visit https://www.liebatlaw.com or call us today to schedule a confidential consultation.

*Attorney Advertising

New Bill Would Require Written Buyer Broker Agreements in NY

A new bill introduced by Assemblymember Cruz, Bill A08910, proposes significant changes to New York’s real estate brokerage law. If enacted, the bill would add Section 442-m to the Real Property Law and modify Section 443, the existing agency disclosure statute, to require written Buyer Broker Agreements (BBAs) that include clear and conspicuous disclosures about compensation.

Key Requirements Under the Bill

Under the Bill, a Buyer's Broker Agreement (BBA) must contain the following:

(a) Clearly and conspicuously contain the following disclosure: "Compensation is not set by law and is fully negotiable."

(b) The name, address and contact information for all parties to the agreement;

(c) The length of the agreement including the length of any condition under which the real estate broker may still have a claim for compensation after the agreement expires;

(d) The type of agency relationship between the buyer and the real estate broker; and

(e) The terms of compensation, including:

(i) The amount the buyer agrees to compensate the real estate broker;

(ii) How the amount of compensation will be determined;

(iii) When compensation is earned by the real estate broker;

(iv) When compensation is due to the real estate broker;

(v) The consent of the buyer if the real estate broker will share any compensation with another broker;

(vi) The consent of the buyer if the broker will be requesting any compensation from another party; and

(vii) The consent of the buyer if the broker will be compensated by more than one party.

Potential Legal Conflict: Statute of Frauds

Although transparency is a worthy goal, this bill raises legal questions. Notably, it may conflict with the Statute of Frauds under GOL § 5-701(a)(10), which exempts licensed real estate brokers and salespersons from the written contract requirement. Additionally, duplicating agency disclosures, first in the statutory disclosure form and again in the BBA - could be viewed as superfluous and if they conflict, real issues could emerge.

Why Brokers Should Pay Attention

While this bill hasn't advanced in the legislature and is not law yet, it's a clear signal of where things may be headed in response to commission related scrutiny across the industry. Smart brokers can use this bill as a template to proactively strengthen their buyer's brokerage agreements, improve transparency, and minimize legal risk.

📞 Need Help Drafting or Reviewing Your Buyer Broker Agreement?

The proposed legislation may not be law yet - but smart brokers get ahead of compliance.
Contact Lieb at Law, P.C. to review your current agreements or create custom templates that protect your commissions and meet evolving legal standards.

👉 Learn More.

*Attorney Advertising

Florida's CHOICE Act - Non-Competes and Garden Leave - Employers Celebrate

Effective July 1, 2025, Florida's CHOICE Act causes a four-year non-compete agreement to be presumptively enforceable.

Does that mean that all employers are changing their choice of law provisions to take advantage of Florida's non-compete rights?

Nope - the CHOICE Act requires an employer to have a principal place of business in a Florida County for the law's effectiveness. In fact, the law ties qualification to the CHOICE Act to an employee having an annual salary greater than twice the average wage of the Florida county where the employer's principal place of business is located. So, no dice.

However, is this a trend? Regardless, employees - you don't have to sign such non-competes and the law makes that clear by giving you a 7-day review period before its binding with notice of your right to have an attorney, in writing. 

The AI Audit That Wasn’t: How Grok Became a Legal Liability

Elon Musk’s AI company Grok, was caught surfacing antisemitic and racist responses on X (formerly Twitter).

When AI systems are deployed without content filters, human review, or ethical auditing, they can do more than make mistakes in their output. They can create liability under anti-discrimination laws.

Why AI Needs Oversight

Generative AI tools trained on the open web can replicate bias and hate unless carefully monitored. That is why Andrew Lieb, Managing Attorney at Lieb at Law, published the 10-Step Bias Elimination Audit in the New York Law Journal. It provides a compliance roadmap for companies deploying AI tools.

• Audit datasets for bias and disparate impact
• Implement real-time monitoring of outputs
• Involve multidisciplinary teams in reviews
• Document all mitigation efforts for accountability

AI and Legal Risk

AI discrimination is not theoretical. It is actionable under federal and state laws, including Title VII, the ADA, the Fair Housing Act, and New York Executive Law. There are even local laws such as the New York City Human Rights Law that create claims. If an algorithm makes a discriminatory decision, the company using it can be sued for discrimination where they can owe back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees / expert fees while also being ordered to change their practices, train on anti-discrimination, and more.

At Lieb at Law, we provide both defense and prevention. Our team litigates AI-related claims and performs compliance audits to help businesses avoid them.

Explore Our AI Compliance and Litigation Services

Lieb at Law helps companies navigate the legal risks of artificial intelligence and machine learning. We defend discrimination claims, perform algorithmic audits, and deliver CLE training on AI legal exposure.

Learn More

Attorney Advertising: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Amazon Flex Drivers: You Might Be Owed More Than You Think

Amazon’s “Flex” program promises freedom - work when you want, earn on your terms. But if you’ve ever driven for Flex, you probably know that the reality doesn’t match the marketing.

According to recent reports, Flex drivers are locked out of the app after working certain hours, penalized for late deliveries even when delays aren't their fault, and subjected to rigid performance metrics. The system tells you when and how to work. That’s not independence. This is control and control is the name of the game when it comes to the distinction between employment status and independent contractor status - think misclassification.

So, that kind of control that Amazon apparently has comes with legal consequences.

Here’s What That Means Legally

If Amazon is telling you when to work, how to perform, and punishing you for noncompliance, they may have misclassified you as an independent contractor when you should be treated as an employee, which gives you access to recover damages in the form of: 

• Unpaid wages and overtime plus liquidated damages and attorneys' fees

• Reimbursement for expenses (like gas and vehicle wear-and-tear)

• Other employee protections under wage and labor laws (employer contributions to health insurance, retirement, workers' compensation premiums, paid time off, etc.) 

Over 15,000 Flex drivers have already filed arbitration claims and reporting indicates that Amazon has lost most of them.

Why You Are Forced into Arbitration
Companies like Amazon often make workers agree to arbitration so they can't sue in open court or join class actions. It’s designed to keep things quiet and discourage claims. But it’s backfiring because thousands of drivers are taking action, one case at a time. And they’re winning.

Know Your Rights - Especially in New York
In New York, the State's Labor Law offers enhanced protections over the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act for misclassifications, including a 6 year statute of limitations rather than a 2 year. Moreover, if you can't prove a misclassification, New York gives freelancers (independent contractors) their own set of labor protections in the Freelance Isn’t Free Act (FIFA). Under FIFA, you have the right to a written contract with specific protective terms, timely payment, and protection from retaliation. If Amazon (or any company) fails to pay you properly or takes advantage of your contractor status, you can pursue legal action, depending on the facts.

Bottom Line
If you’ve worked for Amazon Flex or any gig platform and felt more like an employee than a business owner, you may have a case. The law protects workers from companies that try to cut corners by calling employees “independent contractors.”
You have rights. And at Lieb at Law, we’re here to help you enforce them.

How to Renew Your NY Real Estate License (Without Losing It)

Whether you're a seasoned broker or a first-time salesperson, renewing your New York real estate license is not optional — it's legally required. And if you’re not careful, one small mistake in the renewal process could leave you unlicensed, out of compliance with Article 12-A, and unable to collect commissions.

At Lieb School, we train thousands of real estate professionals every year to meet their continuing education (CE) requirements on time and with ease. As the legal educators behind Lieb at Law, P.C., we’re also keeping a close eye on compliance risks that can cost you your livelihood.

Here’s what the NY Department of State (DOS) wants every licensee to know for a smooth, penalty-free renewal.

✅ TIP: The #1 Mistake to Avoid

Quoted directly from the DOS:
“They need to renew online and make sure they answer ‘YES’ to the continuing education question. If they mistakenly answer ‘NO’, we will not renew their license until we see their original course completion certificates.”

So let’s be clear:
Always answer “YES” to the continuing education question — if you’ve completed your 22.5 hours. Otherwise, your license will be delayed or denied.

📝 How to Renew Your NY Real Estate License

Renewal is done 100% online via eAccessNY. Follow these steps:

1. Log in: Visit eAccessNY and log into your account.
2. Access Your License: From the main menu, click “List of Licenses” and select the license you wish to renew.
3. Click “Renew License”: If your broker or office affiliation has changed, your broker must update your sponsorship BEFORE you renew.
4. Answer the CE Question: Affirm that you completed your required CE — or risk rejection.
5. Submit Payment: Enter your credit card details and click Submit (once!). You’ll get a confirmation page — print or save it.

📩 What Happens Next?

A confirmation page means your application has been submitted, but not yet approved. You must check your license status in your eAccessNY portal under “Application Status Display.”

If it says “In Progress”, DOS is still reviewing your application. If anything is missing, they will notify you.

🚫 What If I Clicked "NO" by Mistake?

You’ll receive a rejection notice. To move forward, you must email original certificates of your CE course completions to the Bureau of Educational Standards, even if it was a mistake.

Avoid this mess by:

• Completing your CE well in advance
• Answering “YES” when asked about CE
• Saving your original certificates for at least two years (you may be audited)

📅 When Should I Renew?

You can renew 90 days (3 months) before your license expires. The expiration date is printed directly on your license, and reminders are sent via email and postcard.

⏳ Don’t wait: If your license expires and stays expired for 2 years, you’ll need to:

• Retake the state exam
• Reapply from scratch
• Pay all new fees

🎓 Learn With Lieb School

Need CE hours? Our fully online, on-demand CE packages are designed to satisfy ALL NY requirements — including:

• Fair Housing / Discrimination (3 hrs)
• Implicit Bias (2 hrs)
• Cultural Competency (2 hrs)
• Agency Law (1–2 hrs)
• Ethics (2.5 hrs)
• Legal Updates (1 hr)
• Electives from expert attorney instructors

📘 View CE Packages for NY Salesperson or Broker License Renewal »

⚖️ Questions About Legal Compliance?

If you're audited, face disciplinary action, or get into legal trouble due to a licensing issue, contact Lieb at Law, P.C. Our attorneys represent brokers and salespersons in DOS investigations, commission disputes, and real estate litigation throughout New York.

🔍 Learn About Our Real Estate Brokerage Law Services »

🏛 About Lieb School & Lieb at Law, P.C.

Lieb School is a New York Department of State-approved real estate school delivering practical legal education for license renewal. All instructors are licensed attorneys from Lieb at Law, P.C., a boutique law firm focused on real estate, employment, and discrimination litigation.

*attorney advertising