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.

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

By Brendan Klein

Employees with disabilities are protected under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Additionally in New York State,  employees also have protections under the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and New York City employers are duly responsible to abide by New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”).  All three laws prohibit discrimination against employees with disabilities in the terms, as conditions, or privileges of their employment. However, the key question in many employment discrimination cases is what, exactly, fits within a legal definition of discrimination.

You may have heard the phrase “hostile work environment” used in connection with allegations of discrimination and harassment in employment. In Meritor v. Vinson (1986), the Supreme Court recognized that an employee could be harassed so severely or persistently on the basis of Title VII protected characteristic (race, color, religion, sex, national origin) that it would alter the terms, conditions, or privileges of her employment, creating the basis for a discrimination claim. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has never recognized such a claim on the basis of disability under the ADA.

Fortunately, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals – which includes districts within New York, Connecticut and Vermont – did recognize such a claim for the first time in Fox v. Costco Wholesale (2019). The Court had previously assumed that such claims were valid, but in that case it joined the handful of other circuits which have explicitly held that hostile work environment claims can be brought under the ADA. Like the other Circuits, the Court acknowledged that Title VII and the ADA have substantial similarities in language and purpose, and so found that, like employees protected by Title VII, employees with disabilities should be able to assert hostile work environment claims under the ADA.

Small, sporadic incidents of harassment on the basis of disability do not establish a hostile work environment. As in Title VII cases, a plaintiff must demonstrate either that a single incident was extraordinarily severe, or that a series of incidents were sufficiently continuous and concerted to have altered the conditions of her working environment. In Fox, the Court took pains to note that “teasing in the workplace is not uncommon”, and is usually not actionable. Mimicking a stutter, calling overweight people names, or laughing about someone’s acne, baldness, or height may be cruel, but do not themselves create a hostile work environment. For example, in Hawkins-El v. New York City Transit Authority (2021), an employee with hearing loss brought a hostile work environment claim after his supervisor “yelled and cursed at him” about his hearing difficulties. The court found that this isolated incident was not severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment. In Murphy v. BeavEx, Inc. (2008), an employee with multiple sclerosis complained that his coworkers had created a hostile work environment by stealing his cane and drawing offensive cartoons of him, among other things. The court found that these incidents were insufficiently “severe and pervasive” to amount to a change in the terms and conditions of Murphy’s employment. 

Unlike the ADA, the NYSHRL explicitly protects employees from harassment on the basis of disability when such harassment subjects an individual to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. However, the Second Circuit analyzes hostile work environment claims under state and federal law using identical standards, so it is not easier for a plaintiff to prevail on such a claim on the basis of disability under the NYSHRL than the ADA.

On the other hand, a hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL is assessed separately and independently from claims under the ADA and NYSHRL. The Second Circuit construes such claims “broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs” and does not require that the alleged conduct be “severe or pervasive”. The plaintiff only needs to show that she was treated “less well” than others because of his or her disability. Thus, with a single set of facts, a plaintiff could lose a hostile work environment claim under the ADA or NYSHRL, but succeed under NYCHRL. For example, in Kugel v. Queens Nassau Nursing Home Inc. (2021) a plaintiff alleged that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of her disability, because the defendants had been obstinate and insensitive to her repeated requests for accommodation. Her communications with the defendants were “sporadic” (not sufficiently pervasive), and her claim was dismissed under the NYSHRL. However, the defendant’s emails contained indifference and disdain for the plaintiff’s health concerns. The Court found that the plaintiff was indeed treated less well than other employees due to her disability, and so refused to dismiss her claim under the NYCHRL.

In conclusion, these broad protections against disability discrimination are firmly established under federal and New York state law. If you perceive differential treatment or suspect discrimination on the basis of your disability, it’s important to consult with a New York-registered employment law attorney. 

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.

Employment Discrimination-Know Your Rights

Discrimination in the workplace may be difficult to define but when it occurs, you should be aware and ready to take action. Under no circumstance is employment discrimination okay. It is important to know what qualifies as unfair and what factors you should consider before filing a lawsuit against an employer. Understanding employment discrimination in the workplace is vital when it comes to knowing what you must do if it ever happens to you.
So What Exactly is Employment Discrimination?
Employment discrimination occurs when a job seeker or an employee is treated unfavorably or unfairly because of his/her race, skin color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, genetic information etc. Workplace discrimination also extends beyond hiring and firing, for example, suggesting preferred candidates in a job ad, denying certain employees benefits or compensation, and discrimination while issuing promotions and lay-offs. There are many more different forms of employment discrimination and laws to protect employees. Listed below are some of the most common cases:
Racial Discrimination – Racial Discrimination takes place when a potential employee, employee or a group of employees are treated differently or unfairly based on their race or because of characteristics associated with race including facial features, hair, or color of their skin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination based on race as well as color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
Age Discrimination – Age Discrimination comes about when an employee is treated in an unfair manner because of their age, for example, being treated poorly because you are ‘too old’. The Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees who are 40 years old and older. In addition, under the NYHRL, Section 3-a, it states that it is unlawful for any employer to refuse employment or compensation to any person 18 years old and older because of their age.
Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Hostile Workplace Discrimination

  • Equal Pay-Gender discrimination includes sexual discrimination and/or sex-based discrimination. This occurs when any employer treats an employee in an unfair way or inequitable manner based merely on gender. This includes equal pay for men and women which is federally protected under the Equal Pay Act of 1963.
  • Sexual Orientation-Sexual Orientation discrimination also falls under this category when being homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or trans gendered impacts the way you are treated in the workplace or during the recruiting process. This kind of discrimination is protected under the Civil Rights Act and would be further be protected in a bill that is still awaiting passage by congress called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
  • Sex/Hostile Work Environment– Also protected under the Civil Rights Act, Sex/Hostile Work Environment is discrimination based in a sexual hostile environment. The “hostile environment” law also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age, and disability.

National Origin & Religion Discrimination – Our country is widely mixed with people from different parts around the globe. National Origin discrimination occurs when an employee is ignored and/or treated poorly because of his or her accent, nationality, or ethnicity. Companies are required to fairly accommodate an employee’s religious and cultural beliefs as long as they don’t negatively interfere with the workplace environment. This act of discrimination is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Disability Discrimination- The Disability Discrimination Act focuses on the specific needs of the blind, partially blind, physically or mentally handicapped or people with disabilities. Disability is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) as a physical or mental impairment that considerably limits a major life activity. Discrimination includes denying employment opportunities to people who are disabled but qualify for the position or not accommodating the known physical/mental limitations of disabled employees
Pregnancy Discrimination-There are laws that protect pregnant women and people with disabilities under the Civil Rights Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions must be treated in the same way as other temporary illnesses or conditions. Additional rights are available to women and others under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor.
If you feel you may be a victim of employment discrimination, let us help you protect your rights. Call the Law Offices of Valli Kane & Vagnini today for a free consultation.

Does Lack of State Level Prohibition Allow Discrimination in Texas?

Texas civil rights and discrimination attorneys point out areas in the law where Texas civil rights and discrimination protection falls through the cracks. Discrimination may have different motivations such as race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation and disability. Texans are not all protected equally when it comes to civil rights violations and protection from discrimination. Examples include:
Public Accommodations
gender discrimination texasMost people agree that public accommodations should be free from policies that discriminate. Texas has no statewide law prohibiting such discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation, or physical handicap. Some local governments have passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination in public places. This has resulted in confusion as to what is legal from one municipality to the next. Texas civil rights and discrimination attorneys claim this highlights the need for statewide legislation.
 
Discrimination in the Workplace
workplace discrimination texasAccording to state law in Texas, civil rights in the workplace exist in many areas including employees’ race, age, gender, religion, national origin or disability. However, Texas civil rights and discrimination state law does not extent to sexual orientation. Texas civil rights and discrimination attorneys maintain that policies that favor non-discrimination are good business.
Discrimination in Education
education discrimination texasAccording to Texas civil rights and discrimination laws there are no specific prohibitions stopping a public educational institution from discriminating on account of race, ethnicity, color, gender, disability, sexual orientation, disability, religion or national origin of the student or the parent of the student. There are laws in place prohibiting student on student harassment covered under bullying codes. However, there are no similar laws covering discrimination and harassment originating from employees of the educational institution.
Discrimination from Insurance Companies
employment discrimination texasInsurance companies are prohibited from discrimination because of race, ethnicity, color, gender, disability, marital status, disability, religion, geographic location or national origin. However, Texas civil rights and discrimination laws make no provision for the prohibition based on sexual orientation and sexual identity. This discrimination can take form of higher rates, refusal to insure, limited coverage, extent of coverage and nature of coverage.
Since in Texas, civil rights and discrimination protection does no extent to sexual orientation and transgender people when it comes to insurance coverage, many insurance companies deny coverage for procedures related to transgender and sexual orientation issues.  Many are refused coverage for procedures because of their transgender and sexual orientation status and are required to put off the procedure or pay for it out of pocket when it should have covered by the insurance premium to begin with.

Employment and the Expansion of Disability Claims

New York Employment AttorneyThe rules issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) expand the protection granted employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These rules were authorized by the ADA Amendments (ADAA) and were passed by Congress in 2008. The results are a significant expansion of the number of individuals claiming ADA protection.
Americans with disabilities are a large and economically disadvantaged group. The goals of ADA mandates are similar to civil rights. One goal is to make sure people with disabilities have access to employment. In the past, employers traditionally shut out disabled people from employment. A second goal is to increase job opportunities for disabled. As a group, people with disabilities earn less than people without disabilities. Employers that will be affected. Employers that employ 15 or more employees who work for at least twenty calendar weeks within a year. The EEOC points out that tracking this can become rather complicated and recommends staying in close communication to ensure compliance. Broad is the protection. The ADAA has expanded the definition of “disability”. As a result, employees will have a much easier time when seeking the law’s protection.
Do I fall under this broad coverage? According to the EEOC, an individual with a disability is a person who:
Long Island Employment Attorney

  • Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
  • Has a record of such an impairment; or
  • Is regarded as having such an impairment.

The key is how limited you are in performing your major life activities. For example, doctors may have diagnosed you as being clinically depressed. However, you may not be qualified for coverage because you are not substantially limited in performing major life activities.
 What are my rights?If you are covered under the ADA, your employer must make “reasonable accommodations” as long it does not cause the employer “undue hardship”. Undue hardship for the employer means it would cause significant difficulty or expense. Reasonable accommodation can take many forms, but some common examples are included here:

  •  Part time and job sharing
  • Flexible schedules
  • Time off for doctor’s appointments, support groups and therapy
  • Flexible break time to meet individual needs
  • Additional leave time

Discrimination Attorney New York
 Filing a Charge. If you think an employer has discriminated against you because of your disability, you may file at the nearest EEOC office or find an experienced employment attorney. If you have no office in your area, it can usually be over the phone.