New Law - Adult Survivors Act & Sex Offenses

On June 28, 2024, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law A6138, which clarifies that individuals bringing untimely or inadequately filed lawsuits for sexual offenses revived by the Adult Survivors Act (ASA) under three other laws are not required to file a notice of claim or notice of intention to file a claim beforehand when such suits are brought against the Government. 

While the ASA provided that sexual offenses claims can be revived even if the statute of limitations period passed or a notice of claim went unfiled, the ASA did not directly amend the specific laws such revived suits are brought under to eliminate these procedural hurdles. 

The Bill clarifies that individuals bringing procedurally flawed claims revived by the ASA under the Court of Claims Act, General Municipal Law, and Education Law, specifically, are not required to file a notice of claim or intention to file a notice of claim prior.

This clarification went into effect immediately and applies to lawsuits either pending on or brought after June 28, 2024.

Age Discrimination Law Explained: Protecting Older Workers with Attorney Andrew Lieb on Scripps News

In this interview with Scripps News, Attorney Andrew Lieb discusses the protections for older workers from discrimination under Federal and New York State laws. 

Key points include:

• Individuals aged 40-69 are fully protected and cannot be forced out of their positions due to age.
• Executives over 65 can be required to retire if they meet certain payment standards.
• In New York, everyone 18 and older has these protections and more.
• Companies can mandate physical or mental tests for employees if they are relevant to the job's essential functions and uniformly applied.

For more information, contact Lieb at Law, P.C.

Clarifying Anti-Discrimination Protections in New York State

On June 6, 2024, the New York State Senate passed Bill S4467, to clarify the state’s anti-discrimination law, the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). 

Under the law, a plaintiff only needs to prove that unlawful motivation was a motivating factor and not "the sole motivating factor" or a "but-for cause" of the challenged treatment. 

This clarification allows mixed-motive claims to succeed by showing that discrimination was one motive driving a negative work-related decision. 

This Bill addresses an issue with age discrimination where it was unclear if New York mirrored the standard from federal law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which requires sole motivating factor. Clearly, the legislature knows that all victims of discrimination in New York need to be treated the same with the same standards. 

This clarification will go into effect immediately once passed by the New York State Assembly and signed by the Governor. 

If you’d like to read more, click here. 

To contact an Associate Attorney see below.

Addressing Ethnic and Age-Based Harassment: Understanding Your Legal Options

Discrimination in the workplace can take many forms, affecting employees' well-being and career progression. If you're facing or have observed discrimination based on a combination of ethnicity and age, it's important to recognize that such behavior not only undermines professional environments but also violates federal and state laws.

Example of Discrimination:

Consider Angela's experience—a Hispanic woman in her fifties working as a technician in a manufacturing plant. Despite her dedication and hard work, Angela was subjected to continuous ethnic and age-based harassment from her colleagues. This harassment created a toxic atmosphere, making it difficult for her to perform her duties effectively. Angela attempted to address the issue by reporting the harassment to her shift supervisor, who unfortunately failed to take the necessary steps to escalate the complaint to human resources. This neglect allowed the harassment to persist, severely affecting Angela’s work life and mental health.

Guidance from the EEOC:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) emphasizes that employers have a legal obligation to address harassment once they are aware of it, regardless of whether the complaint comes directly from the victim or a third party. The EEOC guidelines help to clarify that any indication of harassment should prompt an employer to investigate and take appropriate action. This includes situations where the harassment is not explicitly labeled as such but is evident through the conduct described, such as unwanted physical contact or derogatory comments.

Advice from Andrew Lieb, Managing Attorney at Lieb at Law, P.C.:

"Employers must take immediate and effective action to investigate any allegations of harassment. Simply having a policy is not enough; the policy must be enforced to protect employees and maintain a respectful workplace. Victims should not hesitate to seek legal redress when their concerns are dismissed or inadequately addressed by their employer because they have a right to be protected."

Taking Legal Action:

If you relate to Angela’s situation or witness similar discriminatory practices, it's crucial to know that you have legal options available. Reporting the issue within your organization is a critical first step. If the response is insufficient, contacting a legal professional can help you navigate the complexities of filing a formal complaint and pursuing further legal action.

For personalized legal guidance and to explore the full scope of your rights and options, reach out to Lieb at Law, P.C. Our dedicated team is committed to advocating for those affected by workplace discrimination and ensuring that they receive the justice and support they deserve.

*Attorney Advertising

Learn more about the author of this blog

Antisemitism Definition for Title VI Education Discrimination Passes House

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Notably absent from that list is religion. So, are jews protected from antisemitism in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary (colleges & universities) schools?

In 2021, former President Trump signed Executive Order 13899 on Combating Anti-semitism, which explains that "[i]n enforcing Title VI, and identifying evidence of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, all executive departments and agencies (agencies) charged with enforcing Title VI shall consider the following: (i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.  Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.'” 

An explanation of the impact of that Executive Order on education was then set forth in a Q&A by the Department of Education, here. 

Now, the US House of Representatives have passed a codified version of this EO and further defined antisemitism in the face of rising discrimination faced by jewish students in colleges and universities throughout the country. We await the Senate and then the President to see if this Bill, HR 6090, will become the law of the land. 

If this bill is passed, it expressly provides that the definition of antisemitism under Title VI "means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State." In fact, the bill states that antisemitism can constitute a hostile educational environment, under Title VI, as follows: "individuals who face discrimination based on actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics do not lose protection under such title for also being members of a group that share a common religion."

While HR 6090 should become the law, the real question is why Congress didn't just expand Title VI to include religion as a protected class to be free from discrimination? Fortunately, states like New York have done just that in Executive Law 296(4). So, if you are a victim of religious discrimination in education in New York, you have rights.

To learn more contact Lieb at Law