Attorney Andrew Lieb joins Scripps News to analyze the biggest legal threat facing former President Trump in the Georgia election interference indictment. Lieb discusses how the RICO charges allow prosecutors to present a cohesive narrative to the jury, showing the defendants had an overall purpose to overturn the election results. He also explains how the inclusion of the word "fraud" in the indictment demonstrates this went beyond just words or politics, involving real forged documents and impersonation, making it difficult for the defense to claim this was just a protest with First Amendment protections.

Service dogs play a pivotal role in the lives of many individuals with disabilities, acting as their lifeline in countless situations. Given their importance, it's crucial for people to know their rights when it comes to these trained companions, especially in places of public accommodation and housing. Understanding the legal landscape surrounding service dogs is vital. Those with disabilities deserve to live without fear of discrimination, and it's imperative for facilities and establishments to understand and respect their rights.

The Legal Background:

By way of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), service dogs are widely acknowledged as reasonable accommodations for those with statutorily recognized disabilities. This recognition extends across the nation, covering a range of establishments, both public and private.

Should anyone find themselves denied these rights, they can legally bring forth a lawsuit for failure-to-accommodate. The range of potential damages is extensive, from recovery for emotional distress and other compensatory damages (like expenses that arose due to the denial) to punitive damages based on the circumstances and the intent behind the denial. Significantly, victims might be awarded attorneys' fees, ensuring they can secure top-notch representation without bearing the financial burden.

For a successful claim, victims must substantiate five key elements:

1. Proof of a statutorily recognized disability.
2. Evidence that the discriminator knew (or reasonably should have known) about the disability.
3. The asserted accommodation (i.e., the service dog) should not pose undue hardship, making it reasonable.
4. The service animal must directly address the needs of the person with the disability, signifying its necessity.
5. There must have been a denial of the accommodation or a refusal to participate in the interactive process.

It's important to note that state laws can sometimes offer even more protection to victims. For instance, the New York State Human Rights Law expands on the federal definition of disabilities. Unlike federal law, it doesn't demand that an impairment substantially impacts a major life activity to be recognized. Given these intricacies, victims are advised to consult with a discrimination attorney before taking any action, apart from promptly documenting the 6 Ws of Discrimination: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and Witnesses. The process is far from simple.

Service Animal vs. Emotional Support Animal: The Distinction Matters:

It's pertinent to highlight the differentiation between a service animal and an emotional support animal. Under the ADA, this distinction becomes relevant in public places. Yet, under the FHA, both these categories are considered viable reasonable accommodations. Some states, like New York, recognize rights to emotional support animals at public places as well. 

The bone of contention here lies in the inherent definitions. As per the Code of Federal Regulations, a service animal is explicitly trained to execute tasks or perform work benefiting an individual with a disability. This can range from physical and sensory disabilities to psychiatric or intellectual ones. In contrast, emotional support animals don't undergo such specialized training. It's essential to recognize that proving a service animal's training and the necessity of its skills requires evidence.

Relying on a conversation with a representative at the ADA is fraught with risk. The interpretation of the law should be grounded in statutes, regulations, and case law, not someone's subjective opinion. Facilities would do well to engage with their legal counsel in such situations and embark on the 'interactive process' as necessitated by the ADA.

Attorney Andrew Lieb shared insights with the NY Post on workplace rights and union implications. While unions offer protections, they come with legal nuances. Addressing concerns internally, like through HR, is advised, yet unresolved issues may call for legal steps. Strikes, powerful yet consequential, need judicious thought. Lieb delves into factors like "strikes as a last resort" and the importance of a compliant workplace culture.  #WorkplaceRights #UnionConsiderations #LegalInsights #StrikeResponsibly #LiebatLaw #EmployeeAdvocacy #attorneyandrewlieb #employmentlawyer #Sagaftra

Attorney Andrew Lieb joined LiveNOW from FOX to analyze Donald Trump's Protection Order.

Today, Trump's legal team fought prosecutors over the scope of a protective order in the January 6 conspiracy case against the former president. A protective order limits what Trump can publicly disclose about evidence and discovery in the case. But Trump argues it restricts his free speech rights as a presidential candidate. The judge will ultimately decide the scope of the order and how strictly Trump must follow it. Violating a protective order can lead to sanctions, fines and even jail time. But handling a case involving a former president and political candidate presents unique challenges. Attorney Lieb believes the judge will show little tolerance if Trump violates it.

Attorney Andrew Lieb joined LiveNOW from FOX to both offer clarity and insight into the Supreme Court's decision to reinstate the regulation of ghost guns, and to analyze Rapper Tory Lanez' sentencing.  

Ghost Guns: The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to reinstate the regulation does not indicate a final stance on the regulation's substance. Rather, it's a preservation of the status quo pending appeal. Lieb's legal interpretation suggests that to address the ghost gun issue effectively, Congress might consider legislation to ensure that assembled guns and unassembled kits adhere to the same regulations, simplifying enforcement and closing potential legal loopholes.

The Lanez Conviction: The case of Tory Lanez's shooting of Megan Thee Stallion has legal circles and the public alike dissecting the intricacies of judicial sentencing. The ten-year sentence Lanez received, against the backdrop of the prosecution's 13-year recommendation and the potential 22+ year maximum. A criminal act was committed, and the judicial system delivered a sentence in response to it. 

Attorney Andrew Lieb joins Newsmax to debate with Heritage Foundation attorney about a lawsuit trying to let foster parents discriminate against children's sexual orientation by blaming free speech and religious rights. Lieb argues on behalf of the children from the perspective of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families in defending the decision to deny the couple's foster application. He cites Massachusetts regulations requiring foster parents to support and affirm the sexual orientation and gender identities of LGBTQ foster children. Lieb claims this policy is needed to ensure vulnerable foster children know that they will be loved no matter who they are because the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law.

Attorney Andrew Lieb joined MSNBC to dissect the latest charges brought forth against former President Donald Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The in-depth discussion examined the complexities of the alleged fake electoral scheme devised by Trump and his co-conspirators, intending to reverse the 2020 election outcome. Lieb explained the historical precedents of such operations and highlighted how this case deviates. He also evaluated the potential consequences for the "fake electors" and projected what investigators might hope to glean from their testimonies. Beyond this, Lieb delved into Trump's defense strategy, specifically focusing on the invoked First Amendment rights.

Attorney Andrew Lieb appears on MSNBC to dissect the third indictment lodged against former President Donald Trump. As GOP members widely employ a First Amendment defense, Lieb systematically dismantles these claims by highlighting conspiracy as an exemption to free speech protections, invoking Justice Scalia's ruling in US v. Williams. Lieb underscores that this case transcends mere incitement allegations. Rather, it contends that Trump and his co-conspirators endeavored to manipulate state votes, exerted pressure on former Vice President Pence, and exploit the Capitol violence for their ulterior motives.

Attorney Andrew Lieb joins CBS 2 NY to discuss Rudy Giuliani's as a Co-Conspirator in Trump Indictment. 

Attorney Andrew Lieb reviewed credibility of Devon Archer (Hunter Biden's ex-business partner) on LiveNOW from FOX while considering Archer's fraud conviction. We examined his claims about Joe Biden's role in Hunter's foreign dealings and the potential misuse of VP influence for personal gain. Yet, in allegations of criminality, the burden of proof is crucial. No direct evidence yet. Burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

Attorney Andrew Lieb joined CBS NY morning news today to discuss the latest court proceeding involving the Gilgo Beach suspect, Rex Heuermann. Today's hearing seemed to be procedural, but there could be surprises ahead, considering the ongoing investigation and potential for a superseding indictment with more charges. Unlikely that he will make bail, given the severity of the charges and concerns for his family's safety. The Gilgo Beach murder case has captivated our region, and we're hopeful for a fair trial leading to justice for the victims.

Attorney Andrew Lieb joined LiveNOW from FOX to analyze Trump facing new charges in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. Jack Smith's January 6 probe shows an imminent indictment, likely next week. The Mar-a-Lago case got even more damning with a new defendant and 450 years potentially in sentencing. Smith strategically timed the superseding indictment to trap Trump, and the evidence is voluminous, including texts and audio recordings. Getting underlings to turn on the boss is crucial. Prosecutorial expertise is evident in Smith's approach, making it hard for Trump to escape this case. More indictments might follow in DC. 

Attorney Andrew Lieb joined Newsmax to analyze Hunter Biden's plea deal unraveling in court. Chair Smith from the Ways and Means Committee sought to raise concerns about the investigations with an amicus brief. However, the judge deferred and demanded clarity on the plea deal's immunity scope. This is part of her duty under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11. We have questions but no answers yet, so the investigations must continue. It seems they aimed for a deal in principle without putting the details on paper, raising concerns from a legal standpoint. 

Attorney Andrew Lieb was featured in The New York Times, shedding light on a troubling discrimination case in a 55+ community. The homeowners association issued a rule permitting single owners to bring guests to the pool but restricting married couples to only bringing their spouses. Such unequal treatment may potentially fall under housing discrimination, protected by the New York State Human Rights Law. Read the article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/29/realestate/my-55-community-is-discriminating-against-me-what-power-do-i-have.html 

Attorney Andrew Lieb joined Newsmax to discuss border legal issues. Congress must devise a cohesive immigration policy to safeguard people from cartels, enable legal immigration, and maintain secure borders.

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

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

Breaking the Silence on Race Discrimination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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