New York City Bans Appearance-Based Discrimination

Updated May 30, 2023

New York City Mayor Eric Adams enacted an anti-discrimination law on May 26 banning discrimination based on an individual’s height or weight when it comes to employment, housing or access to public accommodations.  With the new legislation, residents of New York City will be able to bring claims of discrimination related to their physical appearance before the New York City Commission on Human Rights, a local agency responsible for examining cases of discrimination and harassment.

The bill, sponsored by Manhattan Democratic Councilman Shaun Abreu, will be effective on Nov. 22, 2023. Prior to that date, employers must review their official policies to ensure that they do not include discriminatory practices against height and weight The law includes an exemption for positions where a certain height and weight are required to complete the functions of the job, as stated in federal, state or local law, or if permitted by the NYC Commission on Human Rights.

New York State legislators are aiming to pass a similar bill on the state level, which would prohibit weight and height discrimination across the state. Other states, including Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Jersey, are considering similar legislation in their respective states.

Michigan is currently the only state that bans height and weight discrimination, and only three US cities already have an ordinance in place to ban appearance-based discrimination – San Francisco, California; Madison, Wisconsin; and Urbana, Illinois.

Mayor Eric Adams said the passage of this bill is a significant step towards eliminating appearance-based discrimination in New York City.

“It shouldn’t matter how tall you are or how much you weigh when you’re looking for a job, are out on the town, or trying to rent an apartment,” he said. “This law will help level the playing field for all New Yorkers, create more inclusive workplaces and living environments, and protect against discrimination.”

Full 5th Circ. To Examine Employer-Friendly Title VII Rule

The family behind a massive Brooklyn Navy Yards film studio complex stands accused of stiffing local partners out of $50 million in profits, a new lawsuit contends.

Steiner Studios — where films such as Steven Spielberg’s”West Side Story” and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Tick Tick Boom!” were filmed — has been named in a civil suit filed by a group of local entrepreneurs who says they developed the complex then were cut out of profits, court records show.

Continue reading

Brooklyn Movie Studio Shut Out $50M Profits From Partners

The family behind a massive Brooklyn Navy Yards film studio complex stands accused of stiffing local partners out of $50 million in profits, a new lawsuit contends.

Steiner Studios — where films such as Steven Spielberg’s”West Side Story” and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Tick Tick Boom!” were filmed — has been named in a civil suit filed by a group of local entrepreneurs who says they developed the complex then were cut out of profits, court records show.

Continue reading

Wage and Hour Litigation: Are You Being Paid What You Deserve?

Wage and Hour Litigation: Are You Being Paid What You Deserve? by Robert J. Valli, Jr.

Wage and Hour Litigation: Are You Being Paid What You Deserve? by Robert J. Valli, Jr.
{6 minutes to read}  In addition to employment discrimination the firm practices wage and hour litigation. Wage and hour litigation is mostly comprised of two separate violations, minimum wage and overtime.  The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) delineate the rules for employers regarding paying Minimum Wage and Overtime.Continue reading

Fischman v. MCHA: Privilege and Confidentiality Regarding In-House Counsel

Attorney-Client Privilege concept

Attorney-Client Privilege conceptPrivilege and Confidentiality in the Attorney Client Relationship
 Regarding In-House Counsel and Their Employer
Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc.(18-cv-08188)
{3 minutes to read}  Attorney client privilege is an integral part of our legal system.  As most situations that require legal intervention are emotional and stressful, reliance on an experienced professional who will commit to your needs while keeping your information confidential has allowed millions of people to have a voice and retain their rights.Continue reading

SB7848A Increases Worker’s Ability to Bring Claims of Sexual Harassment to Court

workplace harassment formBy Shaloni Pinto and Aimee Christianson
{Read in 4 minutes}  With the passage of New York Senate Bill 7848A, the state will make it easier for workers to bring sexual harassment claims to court. Aimed to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, the bill will amend the general business law to limit the coverage of mandatory arbitration clauses in relation to sexual harassment and will also amend the labor law to promote the prevention of sexual harassment.Continue reading

Babb v. Wilkie – The ADEA and Federal Employees Over Forty

Babb v. Wilkie - The ADEA and Federal Employees Over FortyBy Shaloni Pinto and Aimee Christianson
{Read in 4 minutes}  Ms. Norris Babb alleges that her employer, the Department of Veterans Affairs, denied her advancement opportunities due to her age and gender, and retaliated against her after she filed complaints about the issue. If Ms. Babb was an employee in the private sector, she would have to test these allegations against the tried-and-true standards set by court precedent. Ms. Babb, however, is a federal employee, and the courts do not have a clear standard about how she can prove her age discrimination claim.
The federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), states that any personnel actions which affect agency employees forty or older must be free from age discrimination. The “free from” wording within the law is unique to the provisions of the federal sector. The Court will answer whether a federal employee has to prove that an action was discriminatory but for her age.
Unlike public employers, private employers cannot make decisions “because of” an employee’s protected class. Both Congress and the courts have deliberated and set precedents on the standard a plaintiff must use to have a valid claim of employment discrimination. Employees in the private sector can either use the “but-for” standard or the motivating factor standard to confirm their allegations of employment discrimination. A motivating factor standard is lenient; it only requires the plaintiff to show that bias relating to their protected class influenced their employers.
Let’s examine Ms. Babb’s case to illustrate the difference between the “but-for” and “motivating factor” standard.

  • If the Court holds that federal employees under the ADEA must use the “but-for” standard, then Ms. Babb will have to prove that she would have been promoted, if not for her age. 
  • Whereas if Ms. Babb used the motivating factor standard, she would have to prove that her age was a factor within a list of other factors that the employer used to deny her opportunities for advancement.

The “but-for” standard is stricter because Ms. Babb (as a plaintiff) must investigate the motivations of the employer and put forth an explanation that ties the other party’s decision-making to the age factor.
While the federal government has argued for the stricter “but-for” interpretation, Plaintiff Babb argues that the motivating factor standard should extend to federal employees. Now, the Court must decide whether federal employees have to abide by the stricter “but-for” standard or whether a motivating factor standard is permissible.
The circuit courts have given conflicting rulings on the issue. The DC Court of Appeals has held that the motivating factor is a valid standard for federal employees. Agencies like The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charged to enforce the ADEA, have followed this precedent. Yet, other federal appeals courts like the Ninth and Eleventh Circuit have adhered to a stricter standard, holding that the “but-for” causation is the only way to allege age discrimination as a federal sector employee. Thus, this decision by the Supreme Court will resolve the conflicts among the circuit court of appeals and decide whether federal employees over forty need to adhere to a strict standard when alleging age discrimination. 
Reference: Babb v. Wilkie, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 4444

SCOTUS Finds Leniency in Exhausting EEOC Administrative Filing Requirements

SCOTUS Finds Leniency in Exhausting EEOC Administrative Filing Requirements
By: Aimee Christianson and Shaloni Pinto
 {Read in 4 minutes}  On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court released their decision in the case Fort Bend County v. Davis [No. 18-125], which involves Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claim filing disagreements. This case involves Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a potential complainant’s administrative requirements with the EEOC.Continue reading

Employment Overwatch: The EEOC

Employment Overwatch: The EEOC by James Vagnini{Read in 5 minutes} In my previous post, I wrote about the impact an impending Supreme Court decision may have on employee protections — particularly LGBT employees. The issue is whether or not sex discrimination as prohibited by Title VII includes sexual orientation or gender identity protections for employees. While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has consistently found that it does, District and Circuit Courts have differed on the matter, and the Supreme Court will rule on the issue in their next term. Continue reading

Interpreting Title VII

Interpreting Title VII by James Vagnini {Read in 4 minutes}  When I was in law school 20 years ago, I wrote an article on legislation before Congress referred to as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or “ENDA.” This legislation was aimed at expanding Title VII’s coverage to specifically include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories not specifically provided by Title VII.  
Title VII is part of the original Civil Rights Act federal law enacted in 1964 which provides employees protection from discrimination because of race, national origin, and gender. Over the years, the law was expanded to include some protections for those over the age of 40 and the disabled, and is the bedrock of civil rights law in the employment environment.
To this day, the ENDA legislation has not been passed and there are no specific federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  Moreover, Title VII has not been amended to include these additional specific categories (despite other expansions). It is a sad commentary on our country, and our politics, that in 20+ years, we could not get our act together to provide the specific protections many working citizens require.
Despite this hurdle, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the watchdog agency empowered to enforce Title VII, has interpreted Title VII to protect against discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity.  
In fact, the EEOC has consistently interpreted any act of discrimination on account of these factors to be something that is covered by sex/gender discrimination. This means you are protected if:

  • You don’t conform to sexual or gender stereotypes
  • You identify as a different gender than the gender you may appear to be or were born
  • You have a different sexual orientation or prefer sex that doesn’t conform with the popular notion of what a man or a woman should be
  • Trans workers who don’t fit the form of what is considered to be the gender norms of society

The EEOC has been granted broad discretion to resolve disputes but unsettled legal issues still have to be resolved, by and large, in court — and federal courts have differed. Some circuits agree with the EEOC’s interpretation that sexual orientation falls under Title VII sex discrimination,while others have found that it does not.
Whenever you have circuit court splits like this, the issues become ripe for the Supreme Court — which can either agree to take up the issue or decline to take up the case(s) that address the conflict between the circuits. Recently, it was announced that the Supreme Court will take up this issue in the next term.
This is going to be a big, big decision. Obviously, we have a different Supreme Court makeup today than we did a few years ago, but this is an issue that has gained a lot of popularity and a lot of momentum legally, politically and socially.
The decision will have a huge impact on the landscape of workplace discrimination.  The Supreme Court will determine whether Title VII is essentially expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes thereby making it the law of the land.  If they find that Title VII does not provide such protection, it will permit employers, to a degree, to discriminate on account of sexual orientation and gender identity.
LGBT workers would have to turn to state and local laws for protection should the Supreme Court limit the law.  Many states, such as New York, have laws that protect the LGBT community working in the state. Many states, sadly, have not extended such protections to members of the LGBT workforce.   
Things take time, but this decision will be here before we know it.  It is something that will have a huge impact on employee protections in the workplace — and could set back a lot of work and progress that has been made so far by the EEOC and the lower district courts who have upheld the EEOC’s interpretation of the law.

James A. Vagnini
Partner
email: [email protected]