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

AI Just Won Big in Copyright Cases: What Happens Next?

A U.S. federal judge just handed artificial intelligence ("AI") one of its first big courtroom wins that will likely ripple through every major copyright case against AI companies.

In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court ruled that it is fair use to use legally purchased books to train an AI model. Judge Alsup called the use "quintessentially transformative," comparing teaching an AI how to write to a human reading a book to learn how to write. Since the AI wasn’t copying or republishing the books, just learning from them, he found it didn’t violate copyright laws. 

This is huge for the growth of AI models. However, a real terrible moment for authors, artists, and other creators who have been arguing that using their work, especially without permission, amounts to large-scale theft. 

This decision will shape the future, unless reversed on appeal. While Judge Alsup's ruling is not binding on other courts across the U.S., every founder, judge, and lawyer working on AI copyright issues needs to take notice.

To be clear, Judge Alsup's ruling doesn’t give AI companies a free pass. He has also allowed a separate claim to move forward about allegedly using pirated books for training. As a result, the how and where data comes from still matters.

Workday Lawsuit Proves Discrimination Risk: Audit Your AI Now

Well, here it is, a federal judge just let a discrimination lawsuit move forward against Workday, the tech giant behind hiring software used by over 10,000 companies. Who is the plaintiff? A Black man over 40 with anxiety and depression who says he was auto-rejected more than 100 times by companies using Workday's AI.

He alleges the algorithm itself is biased, filtering out applicants based on race, age, and disability. This isn't just speculation, and he argues that it is supported by studies, which have shown AI hiring tools regularly replicate the same discrimination humans are supposed to avoid.

In July 2024, we blogged about New York’s DFS warning insurers, if you’re using AI and third-party tools, you’re responsible for making sure they don’t discriminate. That means audits, transparency, and clear legal accountability, even if the tool wasn’t built in-house.

In the New York Law Journal, we outlined exactly what a proper AI audit looks like, because when the lawsuits come, and they are coming, ignorance isn’t a defense, but a proper audit and intervention are very good defenses.

Workday says it “opposes discrimination.” Great. But denying wrongdoing doesn’t stop a lawsuit from moving forward, or a reputation from unraveling. If you’re using AI in hiring or other decision-making, the Workday case is a giant red flag. Start auditing NOW.

If your software is doing the sorting, you better know how it’s doing it, and who it’s leaving out.

So here’s the question: Have you audited your AI tools yet? 

New Proposed Discrimination Complaint Filing and Investigation Procedure - The Text

On June 18, 2025, we wrote about "New Discrimination Complaint Filing and Investigation Procedure in NYS Proposed by Division of Human Rights."

At that time, we didn't have the proposed regulatory text - now we have it. It's 9 pages long so we won't give you it all, but here is the most interesting outtakes (underlines are additions and brackets are deletions):

• 465.2 Service of papers. Determinations, notice of hearing, complaints, respondents' answers, and division decisions, findings of fact and orders shall be served by personal service [or registered or certified mail, or ordinary], first class mail, email or other appropriate electronic means. [However, where a nonresident person or foreign corporation is charged with violating any provision of the law by virtue of the provisions of section 298-a thereof, the complaint and notice of hearing shall be served only by personal service or by registered mail, return receipt requested, directed to such person or corporation at the last known place of residence or business.] - this is interesting because lawsuits don't permit service by email, but now administrative proceedings permit it without advance order of the administrative law judge. 

• 465.3 Complaint. 
• (a) Who may file:
• (2) an organization claiming to have suffered an injury because of alleged unlawful discriminatory practice(s) or whose members, clients or those they represent have suffered an injury because of such practice(s); - this is interesting because it gives standing to organizations whose members or clients have suffered an injury (think non-profit community organizations). 
• [(4) Any complaint filed in accordance with paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subdivision may be filed on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated.] - this is interesting because it eliminates class actions.
• (b) Form. 
• [(e)] (d) Time of Filing. The complaint must be filed within [one year from the date of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice] three years from the date of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice (or within one year for alleged sexual harassment in employment occurring prior to August 12, 2020, or for any other alleged discrimination occurring prior to February 15, 2024). If the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice is of a continuing nature, the date of its occurrence shall be deemed to be any date subsequent to its inception, up to and including the date of its cessation. - this is interesting because it acknowledges the different times that the statute of limitations was expanded, first for sexual harassment and then, for every other protected class, but expressly does not provide retroactivity. 
• [(f)](e) Manner of filing. [The complaint may be filed by personal delivery, ordinary mail, registered mail or certified mail, addressed to any of the division's offices.]
• (1) Reporting discrimination. Prior to filing a complaint, a complainant must provide information and documentation to support the allegations of discrimination to the division. The information must be submitted on a form promulgated by the division.
• (i) Online. The division form may be submitted online through the division’s portal which can be accessed on the division website. The user will be prompted to fill out the web-based form.
• (ii) By Telephone. A division form may be submitted by telephone through the division’s call center. A representative will assist the caller by taking in necessary information and reducing the information to writing utilizing the division’s web-based form.
• (iii) In the discretion of the division, reports of discrimination received via other means may be accepted as submitted.
• (iv) The submission of a division form or other report of discrimination does not constitute the filing of a complaint of discrimination. 
• (2 ) The division will review the submitted form. The division may make corrections for formatting, jurisdictional or other requirements or request additional information or documentation.
• (3 ) After review and any corrections, the information contained in the approved form will become the complaint. The division will return the complaint to the complainant for verification and filing with the division. 
• (4 ) A complaint will be deemed filed once it has been verified, submitted and received by the division. - this is going to be an unmitigated disaster because the complaint is jurisdictional and must be filed within the time periods set forth above (generally 3 years), but now this requires the Division to act before the complaint can be filed and there are going to be many cases dismissed based on this gap on waiting for the Division to act; anyone who works with DHR knows that they are overwhelmed and this will take time, lots of time. 

As a reminder, comments are permissible on or before August 17, 2025 to Erin Sobkowski, Division of Human Rights, 350 Main St., 10th Fl., Suite 1000B, Buffalo, New York 14202, (716) 847-7679, email: Erin.Sobkowski@dhr.ny.gov

SCOTUS Eliminates Bad Faith / Gross Misjudgment Standard for Education Disability Discrimination Claims

In a unanimous decision, in AJT v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, SCOTUS clarified that Plaintiffs advancing discrimination claims under the ADA and 504 need not allege or prove that the school acted in bad faith or with a gross misjudgment when it denied a reasonable accommodation request in education. 

This case gets it right, but what's interesting is the sideshow of the dispute between the concurring opinions of Thomas and Sotomayor as to whether a failure-to-accommodate always requires proof of intent to discriminate regardless that the statute is silent on that issue. Until that issue is resolved, Plaintiff's counsel would be well served in alleging discriminatory animus in their pleadings and in the heart of their case.

New Discrimination Complaint Filing and Investigation Procedure in NYS Proposed by Division of Human Rights

The New York State Division of Human Rights, which oversees the administrative adjudication of discrimination claims throughout the State, has proposed new rules for Complaints and Investigations in the New York State Register on June 18, 2025. 

Under this Proposed Rule Making, the following changes are submitted for comment on or before August 17, 2025 to Erin Sobkowski, Division of Human Rights, 350 Main St., 10th Fl., Suite 1000B, Buffalo, New York 14202, (716) 847-7679, email: Erin.Sobkowski@dhr.ny.gov:

• Section 465.1, Definitions, has been amended to reflect the change in title to the Deputy Commissioner of Investigations.
• Section 465.2, Service of Papers, has been amended to provide for electronic service of papers. In addition, the provision regarding service on nonresident persons and foreign corporations has been removed because such service is now dictated by the Civil Practice Law and Rules. 
• Subdivision 465.3(a) is amended to clearly state that any person within the meaning of Executive Law Section 292(1) may file a complaint, or, on behalf of such person, an attorney, legal representative appointed by a court, or a custodial parent or legal guardian of a person under the age of 18. In addition, language has been added to clarify what type of organization may file a complaint, consistent with caselaw. The language has been updated to reflect the current title of the Executive Director of the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs. The provision permitting class actions has been deleted pursuant to a court decision disallowing the division from awarding relief to persons who did not file a complaint. 
• Subdivision 465.3(b), Form, is updated to reflect a statutory amendment made to the Human Rights Law pursuant to Chapter 304 of the Laws of 2021, permitting a complaint to be verified by declaration. In addition, this section requires complaints to be in a form promulgated by the Division. Such amendment is necessary to better ensure complaints filed with the Division meet sufficient standards to allow for effective investigation and adjudication and redirect Division time and resources from attempting to correct complaints that do not meet such standards. 
• Subdivision 465.3(c), Contents, is amended to clarify that complaints must include: a concise statement of the alleged discriminatory acts, sufficient to enable the division to investigate the claims; sufficient identification of the complainant(s) and the person(s) alleged to have committed unlawful discriminatory acts; factual allegations sufficient to support the claim. These changes are required to better ensure that complaints received by the Division contain sufficient information to allow for timely and effective investigation and to prevent unnecessary resources from being spent correcting complaints that do not meet legal standards for filing. 
• Former subdivision 465.3(d), Place of Filing, has been removed to conform with the modern technological reality that complaints may be filed virtually. 
• Former Subdivision 465.3(e), Time of Filing, is now Subdivision 465.3(d), and has been amended to reflect a statutory amendment, pursuant to Chapter 656 of the Laws of 2023, requiring a complaint be filed within three years of the alleged discriminatory conduct. 
• Former Subdivision 465.3(f), Manner of filing, is now Subdivision 465.3(e), has been amended to reflect current use of technology, including the use of an online portal for filing and the creation of a telephonic option for filing complaints with the assistance of the Division’s call center. 
• Section 465.5, Withdrawals, discontinuances and dismissals before a hearing, subdivisions 465.5(a) and (c) have been amended to clarify that a complainant may withdraw their complaint before a determination of probable cause has been issued and may discontinue their complaint with the consent of the commissioner after such a determination is made. A new sentence has been added to subdivision 465.5(c) to reflect the Division’s practice, in effect since October 12, 2021, that the commissioner will not consent to discontinue a complaint that has been settled privately without the Division. 
• Subdivision 465.5(d) has been amended to clarify that the commissioner may duly appoint any Division employee to act on behalf of a regional director or the director of housing investigations. 
• Subdivisions 465.5(f) and (g) are added to include other types of dismissals issued by the Division. 
• Section 465.6, Investigations, has been amended to clarify that the commissioner may duly appoint any Division employee to act on behalf of a regional director or the director of housing investigations. 
• Section 465.8, Probable cause review, has been deleted because it is obsolete due to electronic records storage and is otherwise unnecessary because it requires duplicative review of probable cause determinations.

However, the actual text of the proposed changes is not provided and must be requested from Edith Allen, Division of Human Rights, One Fordham Plaza, 4th Floor, Bronx, New York 10458, (718) 741-8398, email: Edith.Allen@dhr.ny.gov. We've made that request, so stay tuned.

FARE Act - Landlord's Brokerage Commission from the Landlord only, NOT the Tenant

NYC rentals changed on June 11, 2025 forever. 

Historically, landlords hired brokers to list their rentals with the plan to make the tenant pay the landlord's broker (a/k/a, listing agent), as an additional fee set forth in the lease. This created a problem where tenants then had to do math and add that cost to the cost of their rental to know how expensive leasing the property was going to be. Now, NYC has determined that math is not for tenants, but only for landlords moving forward. As such, landlords now need to build that cost into their lease charges (i.e., gross up) and pay their broker's commission directly without tenant involvement. 

That's all fine and good; albeit slightly pointless, but the rub is in the statutory language, which is going to result in lawsuits. 

Specifically, the FARE Act doesn't just prevent this practice in the future, but it prohibits a broker from collecting a fee that was previously earned and legally, vested, in the broker, but not yet paid. This means that a broker, who did the work, now can't be paid by a facial reading of the statute. Good thing that the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution renders this provision unenforceable because otherwise the government will have brokers be forced to have worked for free without landlords and tenants ever having to pay for those services.

Here's another rub in the statute; A landlord who has a listing agreement with a broker that says that the tenant pays because, now, the tenant legally can't pay. So, will that landlord let the broker out of the contract or will that landlord insist that the broker needs to work for free because the contract signed with the broker says the broker will work for free for the landlord. This seems like it is going to result in a lot of litigation to rescind these listing agreements under the Frustration of Purpose Doctrine. 

The final issue is the requirement that the landlord or their agent must now provide an itemized written disclosure of any fees that the tenant must pay to the landlord, or to any other person at the direction of the landlord, in connection with such rental. However, what about when the fees are at the direction of the co-op or condo, but such direction is set forth in the House Rules / Bylaws that are incorporated into the landlord's lease? Whose direction is that at?  

If you are a residential landlord or broker, you must be sure to read the FARE Act, at section 20-699 of the NYC Admin. Code or subchapter 15 of Section 1 of Chapter 4 of title 20, and what NYC is putting out there about the law so that you can know what you have to do before you face a private lawsuit, fines, and/or restitution of any fees previously collected.

Hey White Boy, SCOTUS Protects You - Reverse Discrimination Claims Simplified

There are no distinctions between bringing a reverse discrimination claim and a discrimination claim under the law anymore according to a unanimous SCOTUS Decision in Ames v. Ohio in an opinion by Justice Jackson. 

Previously, many courts required members of a majority group (white men) to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard when suing for employment discrimination under Title VII, called background circumstances. 

No more and anyone thinking that they didn't have a case because they were in the majority, should reconsider. Remember, you have 300 days to file a charge with EEOC from the discriminatory event if you are in a state like NY (other states are sometimes 180 days) + state law discrimination claims in NY can be made for 3 years regardless of EEOC filing. 

As Justice Jackson wrote, "[t]he question in this case is whether, to satisfy that prima facie burden, a plaintiff who is a member of a majority group must also show ‘background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.'... We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs."

Therefore, we are again reminded, as Justice Thomas wrote in his concurrence, that "Title VII bars employment discrimination against 'any individual' “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Interestly, Justice Thomas also reminds us that White Boys aren't the majority by stating that "[w]omen, for example, make up the majority in the United States as a whole." 

Anyway, there is now a clear path for reverse discrimination cases in the USA. Plus, we predicted this when teaching the CLE for Lawline, Reverse Discrimination: McDonnell Douglas in Trump's America.

Oh, and Justice Thomas predicts and argues why McDonnell Douglas is flawed beyond repair to prove disparate treatment discrimination through circumstantial evidence. 

This opinion is a must read for anyone that works in HR in Corporate America as well as all small business owners and managers. 

HUD Rescinded Fair Housing Regs, BUT There is a Lot More There Than it Seems

Often state / city government, like the Division of Human Rights or the Commission on Human Rights, will require a discrimination settlement to include affirmative actions to attract the victim's protected group into the perpetrator's business or housing or school. Seems discriminatory, no?

Well, HUD seems to think so too.

On June 3, 2025, HUD issued a proposed rule with a comment period until July 3, 2025, which is titled Rescission of Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Regulations.

The substance of this proposed rule is less interesting than it's stated justification. Specifically, the justification states:

The Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing regulations are not about preventing discrimination; rather, they require applicants to affirmatively attract minority persons and to do so through “minority publications or other minority outlets.” 24 CFR 200.620. Far from supporting the race-neutral and purely prohibitory requirements of the Act, the AFHM regulations require private parties to sort individuals by race and engage in outreach based on race. 

 

In fact, the proposed rule clearly takes issue with this approach in reminding the public that the Fair Housing Act is "aimed at discrimination against persons because of race, not informational disparities." 

Then, it goes further in citing SCOTUS' anti-affirmative action case, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, for the proposition that "[r]equiring applicants to reach out to different racial groups, in different mediums, perpetuates the “impermissible racial stereotype” that “members of the same racial group—regardless of their age, education, economic status, or the community in which they live—think alike.”

In the end, this sentence says it all, "HUD should encourage applicants to be color-blind, as it is always immoral to treat some racial groups differently than others."

We wonder if state / city government will take notice and change their discriminatory requirements.

Employee or Independent Contractor? The DOL Just Changed the Rules... Again

Are you running a business, hiring freelancers, or working as one yourself? You may want to pay attention because on May 1st, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) changed the rule, again, for who counts as an “independent contractor.” 

In a May 1st memo, the DOL stated it is no longer following its own 2024 rulebook when deciding how one is classified as an independent contractor versus an employee. The 2024 test required courts to look at two factors: 

1. How the business controls the employee’s work (how much the business directs the worker); and 
2. If the worker can make (or lose) money based on their own decisions (or, to put it another way: does the worker have opportunity for profit or loss?) 

Instead of following the 2024 rules, DOL investigators will revert to using the 2008 “economic reality” test. Instead of two, this test has seven factors, which include but are not limited to questions like: 

• Is the worker’s role central to the business? 
• Do they work there long-term? 
• Who controls how the work gets done? 
• Did the worker invest in their own tools or equipment? 
• Can they make a profit, or suffer a loss, based on how they work?
• Does the worker need entrepreneurial skill to succeed at the job?
• Is the worker's business their own, or an extension of their employer's?

So, what does this mean for you? 

It means no one factor decides the issue; just calling someone a “contractor” in a written agreement doesn’t and never cut it. But here’s the twist: the 2024 rule is still in effect for private litigation. So, if an employee sues a business, courts might still apply the newer framework. On the other hand, if the DOL comes calling instead of a private employee, courts will use the 2008 test.  

For now, businesses should tread carefully. Abiding by two separate standards can be difficult; one can imagine, for example, that one court could decide that a worker is an employee under the 2008 test, but another court determines the same worker is an independent contractor under the 2024 rule. The rules got fuzzier, and the risks grew larger. Misclassifying employees and contractors can have major consequences: unpaid wages, liquidated damages, lawsuits, and more.

So, what’s your take? Should “employee versus independent contractor” classification hinge on a set checklist? Or is a flexible, case-by-case approach the better path? 

NYS - Appraisals Can't be Based on Immigrant Status of those in Vicinity of Property

Having passed the Assembly and Senate, A6869 will likely be enacted and strengthen antidiscrimination laws as to real estate appraisers. 

The new law includes an expansion of the New York State Human Rights Law, at Executive Law 296(5)(h), which will read:

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.

Note that an appraisal can't be impacted by "citizenship or immigration status" of those in the vicinity of the property.

Wondering what Trump thinks about that.

Trump Attempts to Eliminate Disparate Impact Discrimination, BUT Does he Have that Power?

President Trump issued Executive Order 14281, which purports to eliminate disparate impact discrimination, but can a President do that?

Disparate impact discrimination refers to discrimination that is proven by the existence of a discriminatory outcome, but instead of being based on a discriminatory act undertaken with discriminatory intent, it is based on a neutral policy that is not required to be proven to be based on discriminatory intent.

3 Takeaways from the EO:

1. Elimination of Disparate Impact: The order's primary goal is to eliminate the use of "disparate-impact liability" in federal contexts. 
2. Revocation of Regulatory Approvals: The order revokes specific presidential approvals of Department of Justice Title VI (i.e., funding recipients prohibition on discrimination based on race, color, and national origin) regulations related to disparate impact.
3. Review and Revision of Existing Regulations and Cases: Federal agencies, including the EEOC and DOJ, are tasked with reviewing and revising existing regulations, pending investigations, and consent judgments that rely on disparate-impact theory.   

However, eliminating disparate impact is a topic for Congress, not the President. 

In fact, this EO is inconsistent with Statutory/Case Law and rises the potential for lawsuits. To be clear, Title VI, which is the main thrust of this EO, can be established by disparate impact analysis based on Supreme Court precedent from Lau v. Nichols. As to Employment Discrimination (i.e., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), disparate impact is also a valid legal theory for proving employment discrimination based on the Supreme Court in cases like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Similarly, the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act also recognize disparate impact. This order attempts to undermine these protections, potentially leading to increased employment, education, housing, and credit discrimination. Moreover, the Executive Order's argument that disparate-impact liability violates equal protection is flawed. Equal protection aims to prevent discriminatory outcomes, not give paths to discriminate. 

That is all not to say whether the Trump Administration is right or wrong on their policy initiative to revoke disparate impact analysis while focusing on a meritocracy. Instead, this is to say that this should not be undertaken by an ineffective Executive Order, but instead it needs to happen legislatively through Congress. By doing it this way, the Trump Administration is going to create confusion for business that results in more discriminatory lawsuits because decision-makers will trust the EO to do what it purports to do while it likely does not much of anything at all. 

Trump Clarification on Gender Dysphoria (Gender Identity) Creates Confusion

Last week, HHS issued a "clarification" to their final rule "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance," which creates more confusion than it solves and is expected to lead to litigation. 

The clarification is that the actual regulatory text of the final rule does not include gender dysphoria as a disability. Instead, it aligns with existing exclusions in federal law (29 U.S.C. 705(20)(F)), which exclude "gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments" from the definition of disability.

However, this can clarification can lead to litigation because it creates confusion with the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) by not explaining that states and locales can have more protections. In fact, the NYSHRL has broader protections in that it explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity. This protection is significantly broader than the federal stance clarified by HHS, which, based on the Rehabilitation Act and ADA exclusions, does not recognize gender dysphoria as a disability in its regulatory text (unless it results from physical impairments). This creates a direct conflict:

• Federal Level: Under federal regulations, as clarified, individuals experiencing gender dysphoria (not resulting from physical impairments) may not be considered disabled and thus may not be protected under federal disability non-discrimination laws in programs receiving federal funding.
• New York State Level: Under the NYSHRL, discrimination based on gender identity is explicitly prohibited, regardless of whether it's classified as a disability under federal law. This means individuals in New York experiencing discrimination related to their gender dysphoria could have legal recourse under state law, even if they don't under the clarified federal interpretation.

Confusion for Individuals and Entities: The discrepancy between federal and state law can lead to significant confusion for:

• Individuals: People with gender dysphoria in New York might be unsure of their rights and protections. They might incorrectly believe that the federal clarification limits their rights under state law.
• Entities Receiving Federal Funding in New York: Organizations and programs receiving federal funding in New York are obligated to comply with both federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The federal clarification might lead some to mistakenly believe they don't need to accommodate individuals with gender dysphoria under disability non-discrimination principles, even though the NYSHRL's broader definition of discrimination based on gender identity would still apply. This could lead to discriminatory practices and subsequent litigation under state law.
• Potential for Legal Challenges: The federal clarification could be used by defendants in New York state law discrimination cases to argue that gender dysphoria is not a disability and therefore not protected under disability-related provisions, even though the NYSHRL's protection is based on gender identity, not solely disability status. This could lead to legal challenges where courts in New York will need to clearly delineate the scope and applicability of the NYSHRL's protections for gender identity in light of the federal clarification.
• Enforcement Discrepancies: State agencies in New York responsible for enforcing the NYSHRL may continue to investigate and prosecute discrimination claims based on gender identity, even if the federal government takes a different approach based on its disability regulations. This difference in enforcement could lead to further confusion and potential legal clashes.

While the HHS clarification aims to resolve ambiguity at the federal level regarding the enforceability of preamble language, it simultaneously creates a potential conflict and source of confusion with the broader protections offered by the New York State Human Rights Law concerning gender identity. This divergence in legal interpretation and scope is likely to lead to litigation in New York as individuals and the state seek to uphold the protections afforded under state law.

Andrew Lieb offers CLE: Risk-Informed DEI: Balancing Legal Exposure and Organizational Culture

Attorney Andrew Lieb is teaching a CLE for the New York State Bar Association: Risk-Informed DEI: Balancing Legal Exposure and Organizational Culture

📅 Wednesday, April 16, 2025

🕧 12:30 p.m. – 1:45 p.m. ET

📍 Webinar

📚 1.5 MCLE Credits

This program covers how to navigate the intersection of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives with legal compliance in NYS while navigating the complex national landscape . We’ll break down the legal risks tied to DEI programs and how to design strategies that align with both culture and law.

If you’re working on employment policies, advising clients, or managing legal exposure around DEI, this session is built for you.

Register Here

NAR: Clear Cooperation Stays But With a New Loophole

The National Association of Realtors ("NAR") is shaking up how real estate brokers market properties. After months of debate, NAR announced it will keep its Clear Cooperation Policy ("CCP"), the rule that requires agents to put listings on the MLS within one business day of publicly marketing them. But there's now a twist: NAR is adding a new option called “delayed marketing exempt listings.”

Under the new policy, sellers can opt to delay marketing their property on third-party listing sites that pull data from MLS for a period set by the local MLS. However, the property will still be visible on MLS to MLS participants and subscribers, meaning brokers and agents can still access it. How is this new? Well, the public won’t see it right away on sites like Zillow. This gives sellers and their agents more control over when the listing hits the wider market.

For brokers, this opens up some interesting strategies. A delayed listing could give sellers more time to prepare their property or test the waters with select buyers before going fully public. On the flip side, this could limit public exposure, potentially reducing competition and impacting the final sale price.

Brokers, be aware of the compliance requirements. If a seller opts for delayed marketing, they’ll need to sign a disclosure stating they understand the tradeoff: they’re waiving the benefits of immediate public marketing. It’s also worth keeping an eye on how local MLSs handle the days-on-market ("DOM") rule. Some might count the delayed period toward DOM, which could make a listing look older faster.

At the end of the day, this new policy gives brokers and sellers more flexibility, but with some new risks. Will delayed listings benefit sellers by giving them more control? Or will they reduce transparency and limit buyers’ access to inventory? Let us know your thoughts in the comments. 

Corporate Beneficial Ownership Reporting Changes: Who’s In, Who’s Out, and What You Need to Know

If you’re running a business or involved in corporate compliance, you’ve likely been keeping an eye on the Corporate Transparency Act ("CTA") and its requirements for reporting beneficial ownership information ("BOI"). Well, here’s some news you might welcome: the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ("FinCEN") has made a change that affects when and how companies need to comply.

The big change is that domestic reporting companies and their beneficial owners are now exempt from filing initial, updated, or corrected BOI reports. This means that these companies no longer have to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. Domestic companies, whether corporations, LLCs, or other entities formed by filing with a state or tribal office, are no longer considered "reporting companies" under the Reporting Rule.

For foreign reporting companies, the new rule brings a couple of important exemptions:

• Foreign companies are not required to report the BOI of U.S. persons who are beneficial owners.
• Similarly, U.S. persons are not required to provide their BOI to foreign reporting companies.

In other words, foreign companies with only U.S. person beneficial owners are entirely exempt from BOI reporting. If a foreign company has individuals with substantial control who are non-U.S. persons, those non-U.S. persons must be reported, but U.S. persons with substantial control do not need to be included.

For foreign reporting companies, the filing deadline has been extended. They now have until 30 days after the publication of this rule, which was March 26, 2025, extending the deadline to April 25, 2025, or 30 days after their registration to do business in the U.S., whichever comes later, to submit their BOI reports.

Exemption Summary: 

• Domestic reporting companies and their beneficial owners: Exempt from all BOI reporting.
• Foreign reporting companies: Not required to report BOI of U.S. persons.
• Foreign companies with only U.S. person beneficial owners: Entirely exempt from BOI reporting.
• Foreign pooled investment vehicles: Exempt from reporting BOI of U.S. persons with substantial control.

FinCEN is also inviting comments from the public and plans to issue a final rule later this year. If you’d like to read the full rule or submit comments on the rule, click here. 

What do you think about this temporary exemption? Let us know in the comments!

NAR's Delayed Marketing Exempt Listings Rule & Office Exclusive Exempt Listing - Anticompetitive Practices?

Did MLS just engage in anticompetitive practices as to online listing platform companies, like Zillow, Realtor.com, Homes.com, Redfin, and Trulia, by permitting sellers to elect off of public marketing through an Internet Data Exchange (IDX) while simultaneously requiring sellers (without any election option) to have their listings shared between MLS participants and subscribers? 

Previously, and since 2020, the MLS Clear Cooperation Policy had required brokers to submit listings to MLS, within one (1) business day of publicly marketing the listing, and all listings were immediately available on the IDX. This policy is no more.

Now, and at least as of September 30, 2025, NAR has established the Delayed Marketing Exempt Listings Rule where all listings will be required to be available through the MLS to all participants and subscribers, but not by IDX if the seller signs a disclosure agreement (also, the seller disclosure prevents brokers from engaging in syndication).  

This IDX / MLS dichotomy results in giving the MLS (and its participants and subscribers) a clear advantage over other online platforms (and non-NAR / MLS real estate licensees) where the result likely will steer consumers towards working with real estate licensees affiliated with NAR, to the detriment of non-NAR / MLS real estate licensees, because that is who will have the most up-to-date information.

It is acknowledged that MLS does also permit consumers to elect to have an Office Exclusive Exempt Listing, which permits a seller to have their property only marketed with their brokerage for a set period of time. However, unlike the Delayed Exempt Listings Rules, any act of public marketing on the Office Exclusive Exempt Listing, such as putting up a sale sign on the property, ends the Office Exclusive Exempt Listing resulting in immediate sharing throughout the MLS with participants and subscribers, but not necessarily on the IDX. 

Is it time for Sitzer 2.0?