Is Calling a Male Employee BALD Employment Discrimination?

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

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

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

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

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

*attorney advertising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Attorney Advertising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Attorney Advertising

New Bill Would Require Written Buyer Broker Agreements in NY

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

Key Requirements Under the Bill

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

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

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

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

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

(e) The terms of compensation, including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential Legal Conflict: Statute of Frauds

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

Why Brokers Should Pay Attention

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

📞 Need Help Drafting or Reviewing Your Buyer Broker Agreement?

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

👉 Learn More.

*Attorney Advertising