FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT L
`EXHIBIT L
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`Committee on Civil Rights
`Alesha S. Brown, Committee Counsel
`Muzna Ansari, Policy Analyst
`Eisha Wright, Finance Division Unit Head
`Wesley Jones, Counsel
`Won Park, Counsel
`Kaitlin Caruso, Counsel
`Annie Decker, Deputy Director of Legislative Drafting Unit
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE COUNCIL
`
`COMMITTEE REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS DIVISION
`Matthew Gewolb, Legislative Director
`Rachel Cordero, Deputy Director, Governmental Affairs Division
`
`
`COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS
`Council Member Darlene Mealy, Chair
`
`March 8, 2016
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`Proposed Int. No. 805-A: By Council Members Dromm, Lander, Chin, Johnson, Mendez,
`Richards, Rosenthal and Menchaca
`
`Title:
`
`A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New
`York, in relation to expanding the protections of the city of New
`York human rights law with regard to public accommodations, and
`making certain technical corrections.
`
`
`Proposed Int. No. 814-A: By Council Members Lander, Johnson, Rosenthal and Lancman
`
`Title:
`
`A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New
`York, in relation to construction of the New York City human
`rights law.
`
`
`Proposed Int. No. 818-A: By Council Members Mealy, Lander, Johnson, King, Mendez,
`Rosenthal and Menchaca
`
`
`
`Title:
`
`
`Int. No. 819:
`
`Title:
`
`A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New
`York, in relation to the provision of attorney’s fees under the city
`human rights law.
`
`By Council Members Mendez, Lander, Chin, Johnson, Rosenthal
`and Menchaca
`
`A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New
`York, in relation to the repeal of subdivision 16 of section 8-107 of
`such code relating to the applicability of provisions of the human
`rights law regarding sexual orientation.
`
`
`Proposed Int. No. 832-A: By Council Members Williams, Cumbo, The Speaker (Council
`Member Mark-Viverito), Lander, Eugene, Gentile, Johnson,
`Mendez, Richards, Wills, Rosenthal and Rose
`
`Title:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New
`York,
`in relation
`to prohibiting discrimination
`in housing
`accommodations on the basis of an individual’s status as a victim
`of domestic violence.
`
`3
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`On Tuesday, March 8, 2016, the Committee on Civil Rights, chaired by Council Member
`
`Darlene Mealy, will hold a hearing to vote on Proposed Introductory Bill Number 805-A (“Int.
`
`No. 805-A”), a Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation
`
`to expanding the protections of the city of New York human rights law with regard to public
`
`accommodations, and making certain technical corrections, Proposed Introductory Bill Number
`
`814-A (“Int. No. 814-A”), a Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New
`
`York, in relation to construction of the New York City human rights law, Proposed Introductory
`
`Bill Number 818-A (“Int. No. 818-A”), a Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city
`
`of New York, in relation to the provision of attorney’s fees under the city human rights law,
`
`Introductory Bill Number 819 (“Int. No. 819”), a Local Law to amend the administrative code of
`
`the city of New York, in relation to the repeal of subdivision 16 of section 8-107 of such code
`
`relating to the applicability of provisions of the human rights law regarding sexual orientation,
`
`and Proposed Introductory Bill Number 832-A (“Int. No. 832-A”), a Local Law to amend the
`
`administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to prohibiting discrimination in housing
`
`accommodations on the basis of an individual’s status as a victim of domestic violence. The
`
`Committee held hearings on earlier versions of the bills. During these hearings testimony was
`
`submitted and heard from the New York City Commission on Human Rights (“the
`
`Commission”), advocates, and other interested parties.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`The New York City Human Rights Law (“HRL”), embodied in the New York City
`
`Charter and title eight of the New York City Administrative Code, is one of the most expansive
`
`and comprehensive human rights laws in the nation. The HRL protects a number of classes of
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`persons from discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, and
`
`more.1 Protected classes covered under the HRL include race, national origin, disability, sexual
`
`orientation, alienage or citizenship status, gender, partnership status, age, and others.2
`
`While the HRL is comprehensive, there is potential to strengthen it by including
`
`additional protections. Int. No. 805-A would extend the HRL’s public accommodations
`
`provisions to cover franchisors, franchisees, and lessors of public accommodations, and would
`
`update the language of the law to entitle any person to full and equal enjoyment of public
`
`accommodations, on equal terms and conditions. Int. No. 805-A would also ensure that both
`
`access to, and advertisements for, public accommodations would be protected for anyone who is
`
`actually, or perceived to be, a member of a protected class. Int. No. 814-A would provide
`
`guidance for interpreting the HRL by directing that exemptions from the general provisions of
`
`the law should be interpreted narrowly and by referring to three significant court decisions that
`
`have given the law an independent construction, as required by the 2005 Restoration Act. Int.
`
`No. 818-A would expand the already existing attorney’s fees provision in the HRL to apply to
`
`complaints brought before the Commission. Int. No. 818-A would also require all attorney’s fees
`
`awarded by courts or the Commission to be based on an hourly market rate charged by attorneys
`
`of similar skill and experience practicing in New York County, which are the highest rates in
`
`New York City. Int. No. 819 would repeal certain limitations on the HRL’s protections against
`
`discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Int. No. 832-A would protect an individual
`
`from discrimination in housing accommodations, based on their status as a victim of domestic
`
`violence, a sex offense, or stalking.
`
`
`
`1 N.Y.C. Admin. Code §8-101 et se.q
`2 Id.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`III. ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION
`
`i.
`
`Int. No. 805-A
`
`The HRL currently prohibits anyone who owns, leases, runs or manages a place of public
`
`accommodation (such as a store, restaurant, or government agency when it acts as a public
`
`accommodation), or his or her employees, from denying someone access, for discriminatory
`
`reasons, to the product or benefit being offered to the public. Int. No. 805-A would amend that
`
`law to add three types of people to that list of those who cannot engage in discriminatory
`
`conduct: anyone who buys a franchise, sells a franchise or leases space to a provider of public
`
`accommodations.
`
`Int. No. 805-A also would update the language of the public accommodations provision
`
`to confirm that its ban on discrimination is broad. The revised language makes explicit that it is
`
`illegal to offer a person who is or is perceived to be a member of a protected class the same
`
`benefits, services, or privileges as others, but in such a way that they do not receive “the full and
`
`equal enjoyment” of those benefits on “equal terms and conditions.” Int. No. 805-A also would
`
`amend the current law for consistency: Under the revised language, every person who is actually,
`
`or is perceived to be, in a protected class is protected. This is the phrase already used for most of
`
`the public accommodation protections under the current HRL, but for certain kinds of
`
`advertisements the current law instead protects any person “belonging to, purporting to be, or
`
`perceived to be” part of a protected class. Int. No. 805-A also would make a technical correction
`
`to the existing law, replacing an erroneous use of “subdivision” with the correct word “section.”
`
`Int. No. 805-A would take effect 120 days upon enactment.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`ii. Int. No. 814-A
`
`Over at least the last 25 years, the Council has sought to protect the HRL from being
`
`narrowly construed by courts, particularly through major legislation adopted in 1991 and 2005.3
`
`These actions have expressed a very specific vision: a Human Rights Law designed as a law
`
`enforcement tool with no tolerance for discrimination in public life. The 2005 Restoration Act4
`
`provided that the HRL is to be interpreted liberally and independently of similar federal and state
`
`provisions to fulfill the “uniquely broad and remedial” purposes of the law. The Act amended the
`
`HRL’s liberal construction provision, Administrative Code § 8-130, to accomplish this goal.
`
`Some courts have recognized and followed this vision, but others have not, and many areas of
`
`the law remain as they were before the 2005 Restoration Act because they have not been
`
`scrutinized to determine whether they are consistent with the uniquely broad requirements of the
`
`HRL.
`
`First, Int. No. 814-A would complement the liberal construction requirement in § 8-130
`
`by directing that exemptions from the HRL’s general provisions be construed narrowly in order
`
`to maximize deterrence of discriminatory conduct.
`
`Second, Int. No. 814-A would cite three cases—Albunio v. City of New York, 16 N.Y.3d
`
`472 (2011), Bennett v. Health Management Systems, Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29 (1st Dep’t 2011), and
`
`the majority opinion in Williams v. New York City Housing Authority, 61 A.D.3d 62 (1st Dep’t
`
`2009)—that are important for their understanding and interpretation of the Restoration Act,
`
`including its strengthening of the liberal construction provision of the HRL. Highlighting these
`
`cases (1) would reaffirm that courts must apply the liberal construction provisions in every case
`
`
`3 See Local Law No. 39 (1991); Local Law No. 85 (2005); see also Craig Gurian, “A Return to Eyes on the Prize:
`Litigating Under the Restored New York City Human Rights Law,” 33 Fordham Urb. L.J. 255 (2006).
`4 Local Law No. 85 (2005).
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`and with respect to every issue; (2) would illustrate best practices when engaging in the required
`
`analysis; (3) would endorse the legal doctrines where they were developed pursuant to liberal
`
`construction analyses; and (4) would accelerate the process by which other doctrines inconsistent
`
`with the commands of Restoration Act are abandoned.
`
`The examples from the cases cited below are illustrative, not comprehensive.
`
`Broad and Independent Construction
`
`As noted, Int. No. 814-A would recognize three cases as having given the HRL the
`
`independent construction required by the Restoration Act—Albunio, Bennett, and the majority
`
`opinion in Williams.
`
`In Albunio, the New York Court of Appeals recognized that the 2005 Restoration Act
`
`required it to interpret an anti-retaliation provision of the HRL liberally. The court quoted the
`
`Council’s finding from the Restoration Act that the HRL “‘has been construed too narrowly to
`
`ensure protection of the civil rights of all persons covered by the law,’”5 concluding that § 8-130
`
`required that the anti-retaliation provision contained in the HRL had to be construed, “like other
`
`provisions of the City’s Human Rights Law,” “broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to
`
`the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible.”6
`
`In Bennett, the Appellate Division, First Department, reexamined the application of a
`
`federal summary judgment burden-shifting procedure, known as the McDonnell Douglas
`
`analysis, to claims brought under the City’s HRL. Although the court ultimately concluded that a
`
`version of the McDonnell Douglas analysis may be applied to HRL claims, the court first
`
`
`5 Albunio, 16 N.Y.3d at 477, quoting Local Law No. 85 § 1 (2005).
`6 Id. at 477-78.
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`satisfied the requirement of the Restoration Act by evaluating the framework to ensure that it
`
`comported with the “uniquely broad and remedial purposes of the [HRL].”7 Bennett provided,
`
`among other things, important reconfirmation that there are no provisions of the law or judge-
`
`made doctrines that stand outside the liberal construction requirements of § 8-130. Bennett found
`
`that:
`
`[T]he identification of the framework for evaluating the sufficiency
`of evidence in discrimination cases does not in any way constitute
`an exception to the section 8-130 rule that all aspects of the City
`HRL must be interpreted so as to accomplish the uniquely broad
`and remedial purposes of the law . . . and for [the court] to create
`an exemption from the sweep of the Restoration Act for the most
`basic provision of the City HRL—that it is unlawful “to
`discriminate”—would
`impermissibly
`invade
`the
`legislative
`province.8
`
`Bennett altered the way that courts use McDonnell Douglas analysis for deciding
`
`summary judgment motions in discrimination cases under the HRL and provided a reminder that
`
`McDonnell Douglas is only one of the evidentiary routes available to plaintiffs.
`
`Third, in the majority opinion in Williams, the Appellate Division, First Department, held
`
`that sexual harassment need not rise to the level of “severe and pervasive” to invoke the HRL’s
`
`protections against gender discrimination, even though that would have been the federal standard
`
`for sexual harassment. The court’s analysis of the HRL standard as independent of the federal
`
`standard thus fulfilled the Restoration Act’s requirement that the City’s HRL be interpreted
`
`independently of similar federal and state laws.9 As the majority opinion explained,
`
`[T]he Restoration Act notified courts that (a) they had to be aware
`that some provisions of the City HRL were textually distinct from
`its state and federal counterparts, (b) all provisions of the City
`
`7 Bennett, 92 A.D.3d at 34-35.
`8 Bennett, 92 A.D.3d at 34-35.
`9 Williams, 61 A.D.3d at 73.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`HRL required independent construction to accomplish the law’s
`uniquely broad purposes, and (c) cases that had failed to respect
`these differences were being legislatively overruled.10
`
`The court wrote that the liberal construction provision was envisioned as “obviating the
`
`need for wholesale textual revision of the myriad specific substantive provisions of the law.”11
`
`As the court further explained,
`
`While the specific topical provisions changed by the Restoration
`Act give unmistakable illustrations of the Council’s focus on
`broadening coverage, section 8-130’s specific construction
`provision required a “process of reflection and reconsideration”
`that was intended to allow independent development of the local
`law “in all its dimensions.”12
`
`Thus, “areas of law that have been settled by virtue of interpretations of federal or state
`
`law ‘will now be reopened for argument and analysis . . . . As such, advocates will be able to
`
`argue afresh (or for the first time) a wide range of issues under the City’s Human Rights Law . . .
`
`.’”13 The Williams court found that the HRL’s text and legislative history represent a legislative
`
`desire that the HRL “‘meld the broadest vision of social justice with the strongest law
`
`enforcement deterrent.’”14
`
`Development of Legal Doctrine Reflecting Those Principles
`
`Having correctly understood and interpreted the Restoration Act, the cases developed
`
`legal doctrine accordingly. Some of that doctrine reflects determination of specific issues.
`
`
`10 Id. at 67-68 (internal footnote omitted).
`11 Id. at 74.
`12 Id., quoting Craig Gurian, “A Return to Eyes on the Prize,” 33 Fordham Urb. L.J. at 280.
`13 Id. at 77 n.24, quoting Craig Gurian, “A Return to Eyes on the Prize,” 33 Fordham Urb. L.J. at 258 (first alteration
`in Williams).
`14 Id. at 68, quoting Craig Gurian, “A Return to Eyes on the Prize,” 33 Fordham Urb. L.J. at 262.
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`For example, Albunio held that “opposition” to discrimination under the HRL can be
`
`established on limited evidence, with a jury given broad range to infer that the plaintiff was “in
`
`substance” conveying the idea that a third party had been discriminated against.15
`
`And Williams concluded that the question of the “severity” or “pervasiveness” of
`
`harassment is relevant only to the question of damages, not to liability under the HRL.16
`
`Williams also stated that an affirmative defense is available to a covered entity to show that the
`
`conduct complained of consisted of nothing more than petty slights and trivial inconveniences,
`
`but provided that this defense is limited to “truly insubstantial” cases.17 Williams further
`
`elaborated on the uniquely broad coverage of the HRL’s retaliation provision, concluding that
`
`“no challenged conduct may be deemed nonretaliatory before a determination that a jury could
`
`not reasonably conclude . . . that such conduct was . . . ‘reasonably likely to deter a person from
`
`engaging in protected activity.’”18 Williams also rejected the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002
`
`narrowing of the doctrine of continuing violations,19 holding that the narrowing was inapplicable
`
`to the HRL.20 Accordingly, all types of discriminatory conduct, including what the Supreme
`
`Court had characterized as “discrete” actions,21 continue to be eligible to be treated as continuing
`
`violations.22 In restoring the broad scope of the continuing violation doctrine, the Williams court
`
`wrote that:
`
`
`15 Albunio, 16 N.Y.3d at 478-79.
`16 Williams, 61 A.D.3d at 76.
`17 Id. at 80.
`18 Id. at 71, quoting New York City Admin Code § 8-107(7).
`19 See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002).
`20 Williams, 61 A.D.3d at 72-73.
`21 Discrete actions include actions such as a failure to promote, or a change in assignment, or a reduction in pay.
`Williams explained that different types of discrimination could combine to constitute a continuing violation—for
`example, an instance of harassment outside of the limitations period and a different type of gender-based
`discrimination within the limitations period. Id. at 81 n.31.
`22 See id. at 72-73.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`remedial provisions are
`[T]he Restoration Act’s uniquely
`consistent with a rule that neither penalizes workers who hesitate
`to bring an action at the first sign of what they suspect could be
`discriminatory
`trouble, nor
`rewards covered entities
`that
`discriminate by insulating them from challenges to their unlawful
`conduct that continues into the limitations period.23
`
`
`These cases do not just establish specific ways in which the HRL differs from its federal
`
`and state counterparts; they also illustrate a correct approach to liberal construction analysis and
`
`then develop legal doctrine accordingly. It is therefore important for courts to examine the
`
`reasoning of the cases—including their extensive discussions of why the U.S. Supreme Court’s
`
`analysis can be inadequate to serve the purposes of the HRL—and then for courts to employ that
`
`kind of reasoning when tackling other interpretative problems that arise under the HRL. Finally,
`
`Int. No. 814-A would remind courts that legal doctrine might need to be revised to comport with
`
`the requirements of § 8-130 of the Administrative Code.
`
`Int. No. 814-A would take effect immediately upon enactment.
`
`iii.
`
`Int. No. 818-A
`
`Int. No. 818-A affects attorney’s fee awards both in front of the Commission and in the
`
`courts. Regarding the Commission, currently, attorney’s fees are not included in the enumerated
`
`list of awards the Commission may include in an order.24 Int. No. 818-A would allow the
`
`Commission to include reasonable attorney’s fees, expert fees and other costs in that list. If the
`
`Commission decides to award the complainant reasonable attorney’s fees, the Commission may
`
`consider factors in setting the amount such as the novelty or difficulty of the issues presented, the
`
`
`23 Id. at 73.
`24 Pursuant to NYC Admin Code § 8-120, the awards the Commission may include in an order include, but are not
`limited to hiring, reinstatement or upgrading of employees; back pay and front pay; and payment of compensatory
`damages to the person aggrieved by such practice or act.
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`skill and experience of the complainant’s attorney, and the hourly rate customarily charged by
`
`attorneys of similar skill and experience litigating similar cases in New York County.
`
`As for the courts, the HRL allows courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to
`
`a party that prevails in a discrimination claim brought under the HRL.25 However, the law does
`
`not explicitly mention expert costs. Int. No. 818-A would make it explicit that expert fees may
`
`also be awarded to a prevailing party.
`
`Moreover, currently, courts hearing cases in New York County—i.e., Manhattan—that
`
`award attorney’s fees often will factor in hourly rates that are higher than those factored in by
`
`courts hearing similar cases outside of New York County. This difference both gives incentives
`
`to attorneys practicing outside of New York County to take on cases brought in New York
`
`County and discourages attorneys practicing within New York County from taking cases outside
`
`of New York County. To equalize the hourly rate discrepancy and to support cases being brought
`
`in the proper venue, Int. No. 818-A directs courts to base attorney’s fee awards on the market
`
`rate charged by attorneys of similar skill and experience litigating similar cases in New York
`
`County. As noted, Int. No. 818-A similarly directs the Commission to consider the hourly rate
`
`charged by attorneys of similar skill and experience litigating similar cases in New York County
`
`when awarding attorney’s fees.
`
`Int. No. 818-A would take effect immediately upon enactment.
`
`iv. Int. No. 819
`
`Int. No. 819 would repeal Administrative Code § 8-107(16). That provision addresses
`
`how the HRL’s protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be
`
`construed, providing that the HRL should not be read to (a) restrict an employer’s right to insist
`
`
`25 See NYC Admin Code § 8-502.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`that an employee meet bona-fide job qualifications; (b) authorize or require affirmative action on
`
`the basis of sexual orientation; (c) limit or override any exemptions from the provisions of the
`
`HRL; (d) make lawful any act that violates the New York Penal Law; or (e) “[e]ndorse any
`
`particular behavior or way of life.”26
`
`These limitations single out sexual orientation; they do not apply to any other class
`
`protected by the HRL. The limitations were added in 1986 in the same local law that added
`
`protections based on sexual orientation,27 apparently to address concerns and help gather support
`
`for the new sexual orientation protections. However, in 2016 this provision singling out sexual
`
`orientation protections is outdated and unnecessary. For instance, the Penal Law’s prohibition
`
`against consensual sodomy, which was in effect when the limitations were adopted in 1986, was
`
`repealed by the State Legislature in 2000.28 Other portions of the text that Int. No. 819 would
`
`repeal are unnecessary because they merely duplicate more general provisions in the HRL that
`
`apply without singling out sexual orientation or any other protected class.
`
`Int. No. 819 would take effect immediately upon enactment.
`
`v.
`
`Int. No. 832-A
`
`Int. No. 832-A would amend the HRL to make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for
`
`landlords and other agents of real estate to refuse to sell, rent or lease, or otherwise deny or
`
`withhold an interest in a housing accommodation, because of an individual’s actual or perceived
`
`status as a victim of domestic violence or as a victim of sex offenses or stalking. This protection
`
`from discrimination for victims of domestic violence, sex offenses or stalking, would not apply
`
`to housing accommodations that are not publically-assisted accommodations and are within an
`
`26 Administrative Code § 8-107(16).
`27 See Local Law No. 2 (1986).
`28 N.Y. Laws 2000, c. 1, § 6 (repealing N.Y. Penal Law § 130.38 prohibiting consensual sodomy).
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/08/2022 04:43 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 321
`
`INDEX NO. 154010/2021
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/08/2022
`
`owner-occupied building with only one or two units if such accommodations were not publically
`
`advertised, or to the rental of a room within a non-publically assisted accommodation that is
`
`occupied by the owner of such accommodation. This exemption would essentially cover smaller
`
`owner-occupied homes. Int. No. 832-A would not prohibit landlords or real estate agents from
`
`evicting a tenant for reasons other than such tenant’s actual or perceived status as a victim of
`
`domestic violence, sex offense or stalking.
`
`Int. No. 832-A would take effect 120 days upon enactment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`