Search form

New York City Expands Definitions of ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘Gender’ in Human Rights Law

By Michelle E. Phillips, Richard I. Greenberg, Brian R. DeShannon and Christopher M. Repole
  • February 12, 2018

A new law passed by the New York City Council amends and significantly broadens the definitions of “sexual orientation” and “gender” in the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The new law will become effective on May 11, 2018. 

Under Int. No. 1186-A, “sexual orientation” includes “an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, physical or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.” Additionally, the broader definition highlights that “[a] continuum of sexual orientation exists and includes, but is not limited to, heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, asexuality, and pansexuality.”

The law also amends the definition of “gender” to state that it “include[s] actual or perceived sex, gender identity, and gender expression including a person’s actual or perceived gender-related self-image, appearance, behavior, expression, or other gender-related characteristic, regardless of the sex assigned to that person at birth.”

The change to New York City law follows a similar expansion in California law in 2017 (see our article, California Adds ‘Transgender,’ ‘Gender Nonconforming Individuals’ to Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors). Accordingly, to ensure compliance, employers should address all aspects of LGBTQ and gender nonbinary designations during their annual harassment prevention training.

In addition to expanding the scope of the training, employers should review their equal employment and anti-harassment policies for compliance with these laws, and modify their policies to cover protections for gender nonconforming people. This will send a message to staff that the employer recognizes gender fluidity and promotes inclusion and diversity of many different types of people.

For more on New York State and New York City guidelines on the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, please see our article, New York State and New York City Guidance Focus on Transgender Discrimination.

Employers should regularly review their policies and practices with employment counsel to ensure they address specific organizational needs effectively and comply with applicable law. Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding workplace requirements.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

April 16, 2019

Indiana Court Declines to Expand At-Will Employment Exception

April 16, 2019

Reaffirming Indiana’s “strong” presumption of at-will employment, the Indiana Court of Appeals has declined to expand the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine to include an employee’s mistaken belief that he was subpoenaed to testify at an unemployment hearing. Perkins v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, No. 18A-CT-... Read More

April 2, 2019

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Its ‘Similarly Situated’ Standard for Workplace Discrimination Claims

April 2, 2019

The proper standard for comparator evidence in cases alleging intentional discrimination is “similarly situated in all material aspects,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has clarified in an en banc ruling. Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., No. 15-11362, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8450 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019). The... Read More

March 28, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Agency-Deference Doctrine

March 28, 2019

Should courts defer to agency interpretations of their own regulations so long as the interpretations are reasonable, even if a court believes another reasonable reading of a regulation is the better reading? In Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), the U.S. Supreme Court... Read More

Related Practices