Paula Lopez, March 11, 2016. New York City’s Council has been active in passing legislation that impacts the workplace and imposes new legal obligations on New York City employers.  This week, we discuss the recently enacted New York City Commuter Benefits Law and the Caregiver Discrimination Act, and highlight employment related legislation currently pending before the New York City’s Council. New York City’s Commuter Benefits Law (NYCCBL) went into effect on January 1, 2016. NYCCBL requires employers with 20 or more full-time employees working in New York City…

Share

Diana Uhimov, February 23, 2016 The Compassionate Care Act (CCA) was signed into law in New York in 2014, making New York the 23rd state in the U.S. to legalize medical marijuana.  The CCA regulates the manufacture, sale and use of medical marijuana in New York.  Under the Act, certified patients are allowed to use marijuana for treatment of a “serious condition” so long as the treatment is prescribed by a certified physician.  Additionally, the CCA establishes employment regulations for medical marijuana use, including the creation of new…

Share

Diana Uhimov, January 7, 2016 On December 19, 2015, the New York City Commission on Human Rights announced that the city’s Human Rights Law would establish among the strongest protections in the country for transgender people.  New York City landlords, employers and businesses will be subject to the new regulations.  Gender identity and expression bias has been illegal in New York City since 2002.  But the announcement provided guidance for the first time on what conduct constitutes discrimination under the city’s Human Rights Law, setting forth penalties of…

Share

Paula Lopez, June 5, 2015. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the case EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,  Inc., reversing the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision holding that Abercrombie could not be held liable on a religious discrimination claim for failure to accommodate.  In an 8-1 decision reversing a decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that Title VII requires employers to make efforts to accommodate an applicant or employee’s “religious observance and practice”…

Share

By Diana Uhimov, March 18, 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit against Abercrombie over its refusal to hire a Muslim teen, Samantha Elauf. Although she scored highly in her interview for a sales associate position with the retailer, she was not hired because she wore a black hijab—a Muslim headscarf she has worn since the age of 13. When the interviewer consulted with a manager about the headscarf, she gave Elauf a low score in…

Share

Nicholas Fortuna, July 25, 2014. The Supreme Court will determine next term if pregnant employees are entitled to work accommodations due to their pregnancy under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978. The case, Young v. United Parcel Service (UPS), was granted a Writ of Certiorari after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that United Parcel Service was not obligated to provide any accommodations to Ms. Young due to her pregnancy. Ms. Young claims that UPS violated the PDA because it refused to temporarily modify her work…

Share

Diana Uhimov, June 11, 2014. Eastern District Judge Nicholas Garaufis’ decision last month in United States v. American Express held that a plaintiff is not required to establish a defendant’s market power to prove a vertical restraint in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  A firm with market power has the ability to influence the price of an item by exercising control over its demand, supply, or both.  The U.S. Department of Justice brought this action against American Express, among other credit card companies, disputing their…

Share

Paula Lopez, May 28, 2014. On April 22, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., rejected Ford’s position that its employee’s presence at the workplace is necessary to perform her essential job functions and found that Ford failed to establish that telecommuting, in this instance, would impose an undue hardship on an employer obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  In doing so, the Sixth Circuit upended the typical deference given to an employer’s…

Share

Paula Lopez, February 5, 2014. Employers in New York City and New Jersey are now required to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees. While State and Federal laws prohibit employers from discriminating against pregnant employees, none of these laws require employers to provide reasonable accommodations. Instead, reasonable accommodations have only been required to the extent that they are available to similarly-situated non-pregnant employees. Effective January 30, 2014, the New York City Human Rights Law was amended to prohibit discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. And,…

Share