Total Articles: 6
New York City Employers Subject to Expanded Religious Accommodation Obligations
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law all protect employees from workplace discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices, and impose an obligation on New York employers to provide reasonable accommodations for the religious needs and practices of employees and prospective employees. Employers’ obligation to provide religious accommodations to their New York City employees, however, will be expanded by legislation passed unanimously by the New York City Council, called “The Workplace Religious Freedom Act.” (The effective date is dependent on whether Mayor Bloomberg signs the legislation or the City Council needs to enact the legislation over the Mayor’s veto.)
Supervisor Misconduct under the New York City Human Rights Law.
In a highly anticipated decision, New Yorks highest
court has held that the Faragher/Ellerth affi rmative
defense to alleged harassment by a supervisor does
not apply to claims brought under the New York City
Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). See Zakrzewska v.
The New School, 2010 N.Y. slip op. 3796 (2010).
Employers can still avoid liability for harassment by a
supervisor under Title VII and the New York State
Human Rights Law if they establish two facts:
(1) that the alleged victim did not suffer a tangible job
detriment; and (2) that he or she unreasonably failed
to report the harassment even though the employer
had a reasonable mechanism for reporting and
correcting unlawful harassment. While it is true that
in the past some courts permitted this defense in
NYCHRL cases, the Zakrzewska decision does away
with this defense in City law claims.
Faragher/Ellerth Affirmative Defense not Available for Claims under New York City Human Rights Law.
In another example of New York Courts expanding employee protections under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), in Zakrzweska v. The New School, 2010 NY Slip Op. 03709 (May 6, 2010), the New York Court of Appeals has held that the familiar Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense to Title VII claims is not available to employers seeking to defend against claims of sexual harassment or retaliation under the NYCHRL.
Summary Judgment More Difficult under New York City Human Rights Law (pdf).
Summary Judgment More Difficult under New York City Human Rights Law.
NYC Employers Beware: Appellate Div. Lowers Plaintiffs' Burden of Proof Under City Human Rights Law
Employers with employees in New York City should be aware of a troubling January 27, 2009 decision
by a New York State appellate court, Williams v. NYC Housing Authority, interpreting a 2005
amendment to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)styled the Civil Rights Restoration
Actas substantially lowering the laws evidentiary thresholds. The decision, giving effect to the
stated intention of the City Council, effectively makes employers in New York City liable for conduct that
falls well short of what is required for liability under the New York State Human Rights Law and the
various federal employment discrimination laws. Williams is a harassment case, but the courts
adoption of a lower standard for establishing harassment is also applicable to other theories of
discrimination.
New York City's Human Rights Law Recently Amended.
Mayor Bloomberg recently signed into law several amendments to New York Citys Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The amendments, collectively known as the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 (LCRRA), re-emphasize the City Councils intention that the NYCHRL not be interpreted to include the same limitations which have been placed upon similar or identical New York state or federal statutes. The LCRRA also makes several substantive changes to the NYCHRL.
