NYS' Senate passed a bill, S345, on February 28, 2024, that would change the look-back period (a/k/a, statute of limitations) for employment discrimination in the State from 3 years to 6 years. 

Under Title VII, federally, employees only have 300 days to bring claims so moving the deadline for state claims from 3 years to 6 years would be huge.

How long is the right period that employees should be able to sue for employment discrimination? 

Do you think the Assembly should pass this bill or let it die like they did last time around?

On February 15, 2024, The New York State Court of Appeals issued their decision in the Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v. New York State Div. of Human Rights. 

We now know that the "threat of litigation" may support a retaliation claim under the New York State Human Rights law (Executive Law 296). So, if you notice a claim of discrimination and the perpetrator then threatens suing you for other reasons, you likely have a retaliation claim in NYS. 

That's why it is imperative that victims immediately notice perpetrators of their claims in a notice of preservation, notice to insurance, and demand letter. This is how you protect yourself. 

To read the decision, click here.

Attorney Andrew Lieb is conducting a Continuing Legal Education course on Thursday, March 14, 2024 through the Connecticut Bar Association. 

Proving and Calculating Front Pay and Back Pay in Employment Cases (EDU240314)

On February 16, 2024, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) proposed a new rule to mandate certain individuals involved in real estate closings and settlements to report and maintain records on non-financed transfers of residential real property to specific legal entities and trusts nationwide. This proposed rule is called the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations for Residential Real Estate Transfers. 

Reporting persons ("RP") include, but are not limited, to real estate agents, title insurance companies, settlement agents, and attorneys. There is a “cascading” approach, based on the function performed by the person in the real estate closing and settlement that determines which RP has the burden to report. Regardless, real estate professionals would also have the option to designate a reporting person from among those in the cascade by agreement.

RPs are required to report:

1. The names and addresses of reporting persons, transferee entities, transferee trusts, signing individuals, transferors, and any beneficial owners.
2. The citizenship details for all beneficial owners of transferee entities or transferee trusts.
3. The unique identifiers, such as IRS Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs), for individuals and entities involved in the transactions.
4. A description of the capacity in which the signing individual is authorized to act, such as legal representative or employee.
5. The details about the total consideration paid for the property, method of payment, accounts used, and the names of payors if different from the transferee entity or trust.
6. The address of the property and a legal description, such as section, lot, and block.

RPs must e-file the report with FinCEN within 30 calendar days after the transferee entity or transferee trust receives the ownership interest in the residential real property. RPs must maintain a copy of the report, any certifications regarding beneficial ownership, and any designation agreements for five years from the date of the report filing.

Note that transfers of real property to individuals, as opposed to an entity (LLC, Corp, LLP) are not covered by this proposed rule. 

If this rule is adopted the effective date will be one year from the date the final rule is issued. This time period is to allow real estate professionals to have sufficient time to review and prepare for the implementation of the reporting requirements. 

Written comments about this proposed rule are being accepted and must be submitted on or before April 16, 2024 by utilizing this link.

On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered its decision for Murray v. UBS Sec., LLC, No. 22-660 (U.S. Feb. 8, 2024). 

The Court held that "[a] whistleblower who invokes [Sarbanes-Oxley] must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that his employer acted with 'retaliatory intent.'”

As such, whistleblowers now have a much lower burden when they are retaliated against for reporting to supervisors or the government their reasonable belief of financial crimes, like wire fraud, securities fraud, violating the SEC, or federal law. 

New York has made a significant advancement in healthcare decision-making with the signing of Assembly Bill A8521, allowing for the remote witnessing of health care proxies. This amendment to the state technology law acknowledges the importance of accessibility and safety in legal processes, particularly in times when in-person witnessing is not feasible. Health care proxies, vital for appointing a trusted individual to make health care decisions on one's behalf if incapacitated, can now be witnessed remotely, ensuring individuals' health care wishes are respected even in challenging circumstances.

On January 26, 2024, Governor Hochul signed Bill No. S8036, which goes into effect immediately. This bill amends NYS's general business law, prohibiting the installation of certain security devices used to control access to common areas of a residential buildings without proper authorization and notice. 

This bill requires:  

1. The written permission of the owners, board of managers, board of directors, or authorized party of residential buildings for the installation of certain security devices. 
2. If written permission is given, then occupants of a residential building must be given 30 days notice prior to the installation of keyless security devices.
3. The written notice must be either delivered to each individual unit or be posted in a conspicuous location in each common area accessible to residents for 30 days.

Further, the bill provides that under no circumstances may the installation of keyless security devices obstruct or adversely impact the manner in which residents of the residential building access it. 

To learn more about Bill No. S8036 click here. How do you see the balance being struck between security regulations and residents' rights? We want to know—comment below!

An updated version of the Suffolk County Human Rights Law was just released. It has an amended section 528-10(A) as to credit discrimination - mortgage lending, which states as follows:

Unlawful discriminatory practices in relation to credit.

A. 

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any creditor or any officer, agent or employee thereof:

(1) 

In the case of applications for credit with respect to the purchase, acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, repair or maintenance of any housing accommodation, land or commercial space, to discriminate against such applicant because of the group identity of such applicant or applicants, or any member, stockholder, director, officer, or employee of such applicant or applicants, or of the prospective occupants or tenants of such housing accommodation, land or commercial space, or because of the lawful source of income of such individual or individuals, in the granting, withholding, extending, renewing, or in the fixing of the rates, terms or conditions of any such financial assistance or credit; or

[Amended 11-21-2023 by L.L. No. 35-2023]

(2) 

To use any form of application for credit or make any record or inquiry in connection with applications for financial assistance or credit which expresses, directly or indirectly, limitations, specifications, preferences, or discrimination because of the group identity or lawful source if income of the applicant or the applicants; or

[Amended 11-21-2023 by L.L. No. 35-2023]

(3) 

To discriminate in the granting, withholding, extending or renewing, or in the fixing of the rates, terms or conditions of any form of credit, on the basis of an applicant's or applicants' group identity or lawful source of income; or

[Amended 11-21-2023 by L.L. No. 35-2023]

(4) 

To refuse to consider sources of an applicant's income or to subject an applicant's income to discounting, in whole or in part, because of an applicant's group identity.