Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: September 4, 2019
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comIt is now easier to prove discriminatory harassment in New York. On August 12, 2019, the state enacted sweeping amendments to the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), including a provision specifying that harassment need not be “severe or pervasive” in order to be legally actionable.
Under Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York has significantly strengthened its protections against workplace sexual harassment. In 2018, the state incorporated several new legal requirements into the budget, including provisions that prohibit certain mandatory arbitration clauses and nondisclosure agreements; require reimbursement of funds paid by state agencies, state entities and public entities for the payment of awards adjudicated in sexual harassment claims; expand the legal protection for non-employees; and establish a model policy and training program regarding the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace.
The latest legislation, Assembly Bill No. A8421, makes additional changes to the NYSHRL and expands many of the protections to all forms of harassment against protected classes. In addition, it lowers the bar for individuals pursuing harassment claims. Under the amended NYSHRL, a claimant need only prove that he or she has been subjected to “inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual’s membership in one or more of [the] protected categories,” regardless of whether such harassment would be considered severe or pervasive under existing court precedent applied to harassment claims.
“By ending the absurd legal standard that sexual harassment in the workplace needs to be ‘severe or pervasive’ and making it easier for workplace sexual harassment claims to be brought forward, we are sending a strong message that time is up on sexual harassment in the workplace and setting the standard of equity for women,” Gov. Cuomo said in a statement.
Employers may raise the affirmative defense that the “harassing conduct does not rise above the level of what a reasonable victim of discrimination with the same protected characteristic would consider petty slights or trivial inconveniences.” However, the Faragher-Ellerth defense is no longer available. The long-standing defense provides that when no tangible employment action is taken, the employer may avail itself of an affirmative defense, provided that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.
Below is a brief summary of several other key changes to the NYSHRL:
The new law will take effect in three phases. Effective immediately, employers must provide model sexual harassment policies and training materials in English and employee’s primary language. The elimination of the “severe and pervasive” standard takes effect in 60 days. Other provisions, such as extending the NYSHRL to all employers regardless of the number of employees, won’t take effect for 180 days.
Given the significance of the changes to New York law, employers should undertake a thorough review of their anti-harassment policies, procedures and training. Employment agreements, specifically those including mandatory arbitration and non-disclosure provisions, may also need to be amended to ensure compliance with the new requirements. For guidance, we recommend consulting with an experienced New York employment attorney.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Scott Heck, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!