New York City and New York State have an extensive framework of laws protecting employees from discrimination. Both define the categories that can be the basis of a claim of discrimination more broadly than many federal statutes. They cover not only race, gender, gender identity, religion, age and disability; they include even weight and hair (or lack thereof) discrimination. These statutes also have language stating that they should be broadly applied and liberally construed. This encourages plaintiffs to make creative arguments as to why these laws should be applicable, even to those outside of New York State.
The long-held standard in New York as established in the 2010 decision, Hoffman v. Parade Publs., is that in order for New York discrimination laws to apply in New York, the discrimination must have an impact within the state. In Hoffman, the Court held that a Georgia resident who worked in Atlanta for a defendant with headquarters in New York could not bring a claim under New York discrimination laws.
Recently, the New York Court of Appeals revisited this issue in Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., accepting a certified question from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court answered the question: Can a nonresident plaintiff not yet employed in New York City or New York State pursue claims under city or state law where the allegations are that the plaintiff was deprived of a job within the city/state for discriminatory reasons?
In the case, the plaintiff alleged that she was denied opportunities to work for positions in the defendant’s New York bureau based on sex and race discrimination.
The Court held that the plaintiff could assert such claims. She satisfied Hoffman’s impact test because she had proactively sought employment in New York City or State by pursuing an “actual job opportunity,” and the discrimination deprived her of the opportunity to become a New York City/New York State employee or inhabitant. The Court held that she, therefore, “personally feels the impact” of the discrimination within New York City/State.
The Court also bolstered its decision by citing “the beneficial effect of protecting New York institutions and the general welfare of the state and city,” which are goals expressly stated in New York’s Human Rights Law and New York City’s Administrative Code.
The takeaway is that employers must take care that they comply with federal, state and local laws when hiring someone for a position in New York. Similarly, employees should be aware that they could have rights under another state’s laws.
If you have a claim or are facing a potential claim of discrimination, contact one of our attorneys for a consultation.