Arbitration Agreements at Work: What You’re Signing Away and What You’re Not

When you start a new job, you’re handed a stack of paperwork. Offer letters, handbooks, direct deposit forms, and somewhere in the mix, often without much explanation, an arbitration agreement. Most people sign it without a second thought. But understanding what that agreement actually means can be genuinely important if something goes wrong down the road.

Continue reading

Can I Bring a Hostile Work Environment Claim on the Basis of Disability in New York? 

If you’ve been dealing with harassment at work because of a disability, you may be wondering whether what’s happening to you actually “counts” legally. The answer depends on where you work and which law applies — but New York workers have some of the strongest protections in the country.

Continue reading

Employment Discrimination-Know Your Rights

Sometimes it’s a pattern of being passed over, treated differently, or pushed out. Other times it’s more direct. Either way, if something about how you’re being treated at work feels wrong, it’s worth understanding what the law actually protects — because the answer might surprise you.

Continue reading

Park co-naming expected for 2024

Lawsuit says Open Streets program for green space projects violates the ADA

By Naeisha Rose/Queens Chronicle

The grassroots effort to formalize the reclamation of public space for an Open Streets program on a stretch of 26 blocks in Jackson Heights is taking shape.

Last Wednesday, 46 members of the City Council approved the renaming of the corridor along 34th Avenue from 69th Street to Junction Boulevard to Paseo Park, a nod to the predominantly Hispanic neighborhood, as paseo means stroll or promenade in Spanish.

Five councilmembers were absent, on medical leave or abstained from voting.

Leading the charge for the co-naming, which is expected to take place spring 2024 if Mayor Adams signs the bill, is Councilman Shekar Krishnan (D-Jackson Heights), the prime sponsor of Intro. 1278.

“… Paseo Park is the incredible story of a community coming together during a crisis to create new open space, filling it with families, music, and joy,” Krishnan, chair of the Committee on Parks and Recreation, said in a statement. “Our entire community is grateful for the tireless work of the 34th Avenue Open Streets Coalition and Alliance for Paseo Park …”

The Alliance for Paseo Park and 34th Avenue Open Streets Coalition are two groups that were formed in spring 2020, the height of the spread of the Covid-19 virus. Both organizations wanted to address the lack of green space in Jackson Heights as the neighborhood ranks last in the city for per capita park space, while also being in the eighth-most densely populated ZIP Code, 11372, in the United States.

Paseo Park would create up to 7.5 acres of green space, quadrupling the park space available in Jackson Heights. Since the city’s pandemic Open Streets program there three year ago, crashes in the area decreased 42 percent, the space was improved with new surfacing and planters and approximately 7,000 children from seven public schools, a private school and three universal pre-K institutions are able to travel through the park, according to Krishnan’s office.

While Paseo Park is being touted as the “gold standard” for the city’s Open Streets program, some detractors of it, as well as of similar projects throughout the city, do not consider it a jewel in their eyes.

A complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York by 11 people — a 12th person dropped out of the lawsuit — claims that the Open Streets initiative, which takes away roadway for public parks and pedestrian plazas, is in violation of the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, along with city and state Human Rights laws.

Matthew Berman, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said his clients are not challenging the entire citywide program, but specific Open Streets projects.

“… although changes to these particular streets may result in broader changes,” Berman said.

Berman added that the ADA and the Rehabilitation acts require equal access to streets and sidewalks for the disabled, especially for programs using federal funds.

“The upshot is that the city is required to provide reasonable accommodations to the disabled so that they have equal access and the city has failed to do that,” he said.

Open Streets programs are expensive and resource–intensive, and despite grants from the city, they also rely on the availability of federal and state funding, according to neighborhoodcommons.nyc.

The Chronicle reached out to Krishnan’s office about the lawsuit, but he was not available for comment.

UPDATE: This story was updated to say that the attorney’s name is Matthew Berman.

Read the article from Queens Chronicle here.

Residents with disabilities sue New York City over Open Streets program

By Linda Schmidt

Published April 27, 2023 7:38AM

BROOKLYN – Mill Jonakait, 77, is suing New York City. 

“The Open Streets is very troublesome,” Jonakait said. “I think they haven’t thought through what it means to people like me.”

Jonakait lives in Fort Greene, Brooklyn and walks with a limp. She was born without a femur in her right leg, making it 10 inches shorter than her left leg.  

Mill Jonakait was born without a femur in her right leg, making it 10 inches shorter than her left leg.

Expand

Jonakait and 11 other city residents with disabilities are suing the city, hoping to modify the Open Streets program.

What is the Open Streets program?

About 300 city blocks across the five boroughs are closed off to traffic so pedestrians and cyclists can use the open space. The program started during the pandemic, but it limits the amount of available parking. Jonakait is able to drive, but parking is an obstacle. 

“I usually walk with a walker around here because it’s difficult, and when I have to walk blocks, three, four, five blocks from my parked car to here. It’s a challenge to me,” Jonakait said.

About 300 city blocks across the five boroughs are closed off to traffic so pedestrians and cyclists can use the open space.

The federal lawsuit filed against the city says the Open Streets program violates the Americans With Disabilities Act.  

“It’s a real challenge and tragedy for people who are more disabled than I who can’t get their Access-A-Ride,” Jonakait said. “They can’t catch an Uber where they want to.”

“They have a right to participate in their daily life with dignity and independence.”— Attorney Matthew Berman

Attorney Matthew Berman represents the 12 plaintiffs in the case.

“They have a right to participate in their daily life with dignity and independence and not be converted into shut-ins by the fact that this program has locked down huge swaths of the city,” Berman said.

The New York City Department of Transportation oversees the program.

Spokesperson Scott Gastel issued a statement, saying, “Open Streets enhances safety, accessibility, and equity for a large number of New Yorkers using the roads including seniors and people with disabilities. The City will review the case.”

Read the full article and see the video segment on Fox 5 News New York.

‘Open’ or shut case: NYC hit with federal ADA lawsuit seeking to end Open Streets

By Ben Brachfeld

Photo By Christina Santucci/Queens Post

A dozen New Yorkers with disabilities have filed a federal lawsuit against the city, claiming that its Open Streets program violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, with the hope of scuttling the program.

The lawsuit, filed in Brooklyn Federal Court Monday, says everything about Open Streets is a ruse down to its name, deeming it “Orwellian Newspeak” and arguing it would more appropriately be called “Closed Streets.” The plaintiffs argue that by occasionally closing off some streets to car traffic, seniors and people with disabilities who can only travel by motor vehicle — particularly those living on Open Streets — are facing illegal discrimination.

“The program results in the de facto closure of New York City’s public avenues and streets to individuals with disabilities — whose only or primary access to the streets and to the buildings, businesses and services on the streets — is through the use of motor vehicles,” the 12 plaintiffs, who live in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens, allege in the suit, which names the city and various organizations managing Open Street locations as defendants.

Open Streets began at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, intended to provide open space on local streets for locked-down city residents. The program proved one of the more popular pandemic-era policies, and has returned each summer, with this year’s program set to encompass more than 300 city blocks across all five boroughs.

Volunteers with local civic groups manage the open streets, which are typically in operation for a set number of hours per day, mostly in summer months. The volunteers set up the barricades to block off car traffic, leaving the streets for the exclusive use of pedestrians and cyclists. 

Some Open Streets are entirely closed off to motor vehicles except for emergency services, while others allow access to locals seeking to park or drivers making deliveries. They often are the site of outdoor dining, public art displays, and community programming and performances. The city has declared it intends to redesign some popular Open Streets, like Vanderbilt Avenue in Brooklyn and 34th Avenue in Queens, to more permanently reflect a pedestrian focus, with the hope that barriers might not be needed.

Read more on AMNY.

Your Cheat Sheet to Understanding the ADA Amendment Act of 2008

The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted to protect workers across the U.S. from discrimination against disability.  Congress has recently amended the definition of disability within the ADA by instating the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendment Act of 2008.  The March 25, 2011 ruling made significant changes to the ADA, making it easier for individuals to prove they are disabled under the ADAAA’s guidelines.
The changes appear minimal, but will have a sizable impact on the number of citizens classified as disabled. The Amendment is one of the most significant changes in the fight for equality among disabled citizens. It finally provides the disabled an opportunity for protection against unjust discrimination, and implements the necessary change for equality.
We have compiled the most important things you should know about the new ADA Amendment Act.  The ADAAA does the following things:

  1. Provides an interpretation of the word “disability” that is applicable to many impairments that were previously unprotected. The definition of disability remains the same, “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.”  However, the ADAAA encourages that the terms in the definition should be interpreted broadly.
  2. Supplies guidelines for determining if the disability is “substantially limiting”. A substantially limiting disability is one that makes a person ”significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which a major life activity can be performed, in comparison to the average person or to most people.”  The ADAAA also encourages this term to be interpreted broadly, but further develops the law to include guidelines for future court cases.
    1. Broad construction- The narrow interpretation of the words “impairment” and “substantially limiting” was changed to provide a broader spectrum of the definitions.
    2. Comparison to general population– The disability can be substantially limiting if the person cannot perform a major life activity in comparison to the general population.
    3. Primary issue is compliance, not substantial limitation– Court cases should focus on if the employer was in compliance with the law, rather than focusing on if the disability was, in fact, substantially limiting.
    4. Individualized assessment– all impairments that are alleged to be substantially limiting must be determined on an individual basis.
    5. No requirement for scientific analysis- when the performance of a major life activity by the disabled person is compared to the general population, no scientific, medical or statistical analysis is needed.
    6. No consideration of mitigating measures– when determining if a disability is substantially limiting, mitigating measures (other than ordinary eye glasses or contact lenses) may not be considered.
    7. Episodic impairments or conditions in remission– episodic impairments are still regarded as disabilities when in remission as long as the disability would limit a major life activity when active.
    8. One substantial limitation is sufficient– one determination of a limitation of a major life function is enough to classify an impairment as a protected disability.

 
If you feel that you have been discriminated against because of your disability, contact an attorney to discuss your options.

Job Applications: What are your rights and how to handle a discriminatory question.

Preparing for a new job and the application process is often nerve-wracking and stressful.  Do you ever wonder what the employer will ask you, or what qualifications you should emphasize,  to show that you are capable of performing the tasks of the job?  Preparing to answer questions such as “What can you do for our team?” or “What’s your greatest weakness?” is crucial.  But imagine your potential employer asking you “How old are you?” or, “Are you planning on having kids soon?” The interview process has changed quickly from innocent to illegal.  Before going to your next job interview, brush up on your rights as an applicant.
There are many things an employer cannot ask you on your application.  These are certain questions that violate your civil rights, such as:

  • Age/Date of birth. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects applicants from disclosing their age during the hiring process to prevent age discrimination.  If the applicant is less than 18 years of age, asking for the date of birth is permissible because of children’s labor laws.  After being hired, the company may ask for birth certificates or licenses to verify date of birth for pension purposes, but they may not ask for these before hiring you.
  • Race, Religion, National Origin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires that covered employers consider people of all nationalities and color.  Each application should state that the company is an Equal Opportunity Employer, and at no point should you answer a question like “Where were you born”, “What is your ancestry”, or “What religious beliefs do you follow?”  There are I-9 forms that can be used to determine the status of citizenship of an applicant.  These questions do not belong on an application.
  • Physical traits, disabilities. Unless height and weight are directly related to job performance, these questions should not be on the application. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits general inquiries about disabilities, health problems, and medical conditions. The employer may ask if you are capable of fulfilling the requirements of the job, but they may not ask you if you have disabilities or health problems.

There are many other restrictions on the application and interview process, which should be explored by everyone looking for employment.  While most employers do not have discriminatory intentions and are attempting to find the right “fit for the job,” you may find yourself in a situation where you are asked a question that is unlawful.

What should you do when this problem arises?  First, consider the intent of the question and how it was phrased.  It is important that you understand the employer’s reason for asking the question and their method of assessment, rather than assuming they have discriminatory intentions.
There are many ways to creatively answer questions without disclosing unlawful information.  For example, if you are asked “How old are you?” the best answer is to refer the question back to the job you are applying for.  “I am of legal working age” is a fit answer.  If you are asked “What religion are you?” it is okay to answer with “My religious practices will not hinder my potential to successfully perform the tasks of this position.”  Keep in mind that your application becomes a permanent part of your file.  If you choose to be untruthful on your application, that only provides the employer a potentially valid reason to terminate you down the road.
There are times, however, that witty answers may not be enough for the prying interviewer.  If this is the case, you may follow these steps:

  1. Inform the employer that the question is illegal.  While most people wouldn’t dare correct an interviewer, it can be tactfully stated in a non-accusing way.
  2. Answer the question.  Now that you have informed them of the question being illegal, the employer would be in violation of your civil rights if the information is used against you.
  3. If you are offended, you can file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Office.

Be aware that taking this stance for your civil rights is courageous and may cost you the opportunity for employment.  However, if an employer is left in the dark ages and has no qualms about violating your rights, it might be best to seek employment elsewhere.