Search form

New York City Issues New Enforcement Guidance on Discrimination Based on National Origin, Immigrant Status

By Richard I. Greenberg
  • September 30, 2019

Continuing its pattern of issuing enforcement guidance on areas on which it focuses, the New York City Commission on Human Rights has released guidance reiterating the obligations of most employers, housing providers, and providers of public accommodations in New York City to avoid discrimination based on national origin and immigration status.

The guidance reiterates the following primary points to New York City employers:

  • Discrimination or harassment in favor of U.S. citizens over other work-authorized individuals is generally prohibited.
  • Questions about work authorization must be made in a non-discriminatory manner.
  • All hired employees must be treated in a non-discriminatory manner.
  • Employers must not engage in document abuse and ask for verification or reverification documentation beyond the documents authorized by federal law.
  • Implementing an adverse action based solely on a “no match” letter from the Social Security Administration is problematic.
  • Threatening investigations by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for harassing purposes violates the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
  • Undocumented employees, if hired, are fully covered by the NYCHRL.
  • Retaliation is prohibited if an individual opposes discrimination based on his or her national origin or perceived immigration status.

The guidance then provides these examples of conduct the Commission asserts violates the NYCHRL:

  • A construction company sponsors a temporary worker for the summer with an H-2B visa. The company does not allow the worker to take any breaks for his 12-hour shift, while the company allows U.S. citizen workers to take two breaks during their 12-hour shifts. The company threatens to not sponsor the worker again for next season when he complains.
  • An employee develops a medical condition and requests an accommodation to attend necessary medical appointments once a week. The employer denies her request. When the employee informs her employer that another employee may leave work for medical appointments, the employer tells her that she does not have that right because she is an undocumented immigrant. The employer then threatens to call ICE if she misses work for any reason.
  • An employer refuses to accept a Social Security card and demands a birth certificate from a job applicant because the applicant speaks English with an accent.
  • A hotel prohibits its housekeepers from speaking Spanish while cleaning because it would “offend” hotel guests or make them uncomfortable.
  • An employer receives a No-Match Letter that lists an employee who immigrated from the Philippines. The employer has long looked for a reason to discharge the employee because of her accent. With receipt of the No-Match Letter, the employer discharges the employee.
  • A construction company provides its Polish workers priority in scheduling and time off to the disadvantage of its U.S. citizen workers.

The guidance also discusses prohibited national origin and immigration discrimination in housing and public accommodations.

If you have any questions about this guidance, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney.

©2019 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 that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 18, 2019

Pay the Piper – California Employers Pressed to Pay Arbitration Fees or Risk Harsh Consequences

October 18, 2019

California employers may face harsh consequences for failing to pay arbitration fees on time under a bill (Senate Bill 707) signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 13, 2019. The new law go into effect on January 1, 2020. Under the new law, if an employer fails to pay fees required for the commencement or continuation of an... Read More

October 15, 2019

New California Law Attacks Mandatory Arbitration Again … But Is It More Bark Than Bite?

October 15, 2019

California has joined a number of states in passing legislation purporting to prohibit mandatory arbitration agreements for sexual harassment and other claims. Such laws have gained popularity in the wake of the #MeToo movement, but are subject to challenge under Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preemption principles. (See our articles... Read More

October 15, 2019

Third-Party Harassment and Discrimination: The Customer Isn’t Always Right

October 15, 2019

As fiscal year 2019 ends for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), it has announced it is pursuing several new discrimination suits, including one alleging a casino failed to protect female staffers from sexual harassment by patrons. Sexual misconduct and harassment have been in the national spotlight more than ever and... Read More