Search form

New York Extends Civil Rights Protections to Gays and Lesbians

  • December 19, 2002

Three hours after the New York State Senate voted 34 to 26 on December 17, 2002 in its favor, Governor George Pataki signed into law a bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act, which will take effect 30 days from enactment, or January 16, 2003, amends the New York State Human Rights Law to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, education and credit on the basis of sexual orientation. Prior to the Act's passage, the Human Rights Law granted protection against discrimination to individuals only on the basis of race, sex, creed, color, national origin, disability, age and marital status.

Under the Act, "sexual orientation" is defined to include heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality or asexuality. A claim for sexual orientation discrimination under the Human Rights Law may be based on an individual's actual or perceived sexuality. An amendment to the Act to include protection against discrimination for trans-gendered individuals (cross-dressers and individuals who undergo a sex change, etc.) was not approved. It also should be noted the Act does not change the provision in the Human Rights Law allowing religious institutions and organizations to limit employment or make employment selections designed to promote the religious principles for which they are established or maintained.

While the Act adds an additional category to the anti-discrimination in employment protection afforded individuals statewide, employers operating in New York City and numerous other localities within the State already are subject to similar prohibitions regarding sexual orientation. For example, the New York City Human Rights Law, which is part of the New York City Administrative Code, already outlaws discrimination because of actual or perceived individual characteristics of sexual orientation.

Employers affected by this legislation should assure that their policies are updated and that anti-harassment training make explicit reference to the inclusion of this new protected class.

©2002 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 www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

May 15, 2019

EPLI Trends, Sexual Harassment Claims, and Planning for 2019

May 15, 2019

As workplace laws continue to evolve, the potential risk exposure is increasing. Jackson Lewis prepared this trends overview to help assess the current workplace law landscape in the #MeToo era and the wave of agency charges, latest claims, and new laws.  Highlights include: Pay Equity Lawsuits: The Next Wave of Litigation... Read More

May 7, 2019

Kentucky Employers Must Be Represented by Counsel in Unemployment Compensation Hearings, Court Rules

May 7, 2019

Non-lawyers may no longer represent employers in unemployment compensation hearings in Kentucky, the Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled. Nichols v. Kentucky Unemployment Commission, et al., No. 2017-CA-001156-MR, 2019 Ky. App. LEXIS 73 (Ky Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2019). The Court held the section of the Kentucky unemployment compensation... Read More

April 24, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court: Employment Class Arbitration Must Be Expressly Addressed in Contract

April 24, 2019

Class action arbitration is such a departure from ordinary, bilateral arbitration of individual disputes that courts may compel class action arbitration only where the parties expressly declare their intention to be bound by such actions in their arbitration agreement, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision. Lamps Plus, Inc.... Read More

Related Practices