AI's rapid growth comes with significant risks, particularly the potential for unchecked discrimination. As a result, new laws may soon require mandatory audits and enhanced training to ensure compliance and fairness.
In this New York Law Journal article, attorneys Andrew Lieb and Claudia Cannam outline the essential steps for conducting a proper AI audit—helping businesses stay ahead of evolving regulations and mitigate legal risks.
On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera that employers only need to prove that employees are exempt under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not) to defeat a wage and hour claim. This decision replaces the tougher "clear and convincing" standard that had been applied by some courts prior to this decision.
The FLSA requires an employer to pay overtime to employees unless the employer can prove that the employees fall under an exemption, such as being an Executive, Administrative, Professional, Computer & Outside Sales Employees.
In the case before SCOTUS, the employees claimed that they were misclassified as outside salesmen and sued their employer for overtime pay, liquidated damages (double damages), and attorneys' fees.
The lower court sided with the employees, in using the tougher "clear and convincing" standard, but the employer appealed while arguing that it only had to prove that the exemption applied by a preponderance of the evidence. SCOTUS agreed with the employer and sent the case back to the lower court to reexamine the facts to determine the applicability of the exemption under the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Regardless, the message is clear: Employers now have a lower hurdle when defending a wage and hour case in proving that an exemption applies to a wage and hour claim under the FLSA.
Trump's Executive Order 14168 is set to cause a lot of discrimination lawsuits.
On the one hand, the EO is a playbook for reverse discrimination and hostile environment claims by women because the EO claims that women have been victimized by transgender individuals claiming inclusion in womanhood. The EO states that "men [] self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women's domestic abuse shelters to women's workplace showers. This is wrong." As such, biological women who are subjected to transgender individuals in single-sex spaces can now argue that the space provider created a hostile environment by such inclusion and any woman who was denied access or was otherwise sexually harassed by a transgender individual in such a space has a very good claim under federal law.
On the other hand, the EO expressly states that SCOTUS's decision on workplace discriminations' protection for "Sex," where it defined the protected class of "Sex" to also include protections for "Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" would be untenable for education discrimination. Specifically, the EO states that "The prior Administration argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which addressed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces under, for example, Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act. This position is legally untenable and has harmed women. The Attorney General shall therefore immediately issue guidance to agencies to correct the misapplication of the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) to sex-based distinctions in agency activities. In addition, the Attorney General shall issue guidance and assist agencies in protecting sex-based distinctions, which are explicitly permitted under Constitutional and statutory precedent." However, the distinction is meaningless between workplace and school environment; discrimination is discrimination wherever it occurs. That is to say, if Trump's administration believes "Sex" protections should not include protections for "Sexual Orientation" and "Gender Identity" at school, they should equally not include those protections at work. This distinction between Title VII and Title IX is just stupid.
Regardless, the EO is also going to cause lawsuits from intersex individuals because it is facially flawed in stating that "[i]t is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female." Turns out that is biologically false without even discussing a distinction between gender and sex. Specifically, some people are born with biological characteristics of both females and males and this EO specifically targets them while discriminating against their personhood.
Buckle-up - Trump is about to usher in the era of discrimination lawsuits.
Starting April 20, 2025, short-term rental hosts across NYS will be in for a rude awakening by way of A4130C. This law creates a statewide short-term rental registration requirement for owners, which is designed to facilitate the State in collecting occupancy taxes while tracking the hosts.
To be clear, NYS is now treating short-term rentals like hotel rooms under the Tax Law - this is certainly going to cut into profits for hosts &/or make renting an AirBnB / VRBO more expensive for guests.
For hosts, this means much more paperwork, stricter rules, and some hefty penalties for noncompliance. Specifically, the Department of State will give you 2 warnings & then, start levying the fines at hundreds of dollars per day, per violation.
New York is not alone in its quest to regulate short-term rentals. Cities like San Francisco, Boston, and Los Angeles have already implemented similar measures. However, New York’s approach stands out for its focus on statewide coordination, which could become a model for other states grappling with the complexities of regulating the short-term rental industry.
Contact the Author of this post
NYC has clarified that it is illegal to discriminate in housing against applicants / occupants with criminal histories by way of Local Law 24, also known as the Fair Chance in Housing Act 2025, effective January 1, 2025.
That said, it was already impliedly the law everywhere throughout the US as we previously explained here.
Regardless, the new NYC law explicitly prohibits property owners, managers, & brokers from:
Into the weeds, there is nuance in the NYC Local Law because it differentiates between “reviewable” and “non-reviewable” criminal history where sealed convictions, youthful offender adjudications, and certain federal or out-of-state offenses cannot be used to deny housing, but convictions for serious offenses (e.g., recent felony convictions) may be reviewed through a detailed and exposure riddled process, including providing notice and conducting an individualized assessment. The process requires:
Plus, a landlord must demonstrate a legitimate business interest tied to the decision if they'd like to deny on criminal history.
That all said, the main takeaway is that housing applicants / occupants with criminal histories are going to be filing housing discrimination complaints starting in 2025. If you are a property owner, manager, or real estate broker, expect to get served by the NYC Commission on Human Rights if you plan to make any housing decisions based on an applicant's / occupant's criminal history. Plus, there are big numbers that you can lose including the "victim's" attorneys' fees if they sue you with a private attorney. Take this very seriously & immediately stop screening based on criminal history today.
Effective June 19, 2025, the New York State Fashion Workers Act, A05631E, will protect New York's 180,000 fashion industry professionals--models, influencers, photographers, and stylists--from their management company's exploitation through unfair pay, sexual abuse, harassment, and discrimination.
Now, victims can bring a new lawsuit for experiencing unsafe working conditions, exploitative contracts, delayed payments, and abuse where they can collect liquidated damages (double to three times damages) and attorneys' fees.
The Act Requires:
These new lawsuits are designed to close a loophole that modeling agencies have utilized to escape licensing & regulation by considering themselves management companies, rather than talent agencies, under New York State General Business Law § 171(8), known as the "incidental booking exception."
