In a landmark decision, the Southern District of New York ruled that punitive damages can be awarded against municipalities under the NYC Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). This ruling in Jordan v. City of New York redefines accountability for public employers in discrimination cases.

In Nuziard v. Minority Business Development Agency, a federal court awarded over $357,000 in attorney's fees after the government stubbornly defended unconstitutional race-based policies. This case highlights a recurring issue: the significant financial burden placed on taxpayers when agencies refuse to abandon legally weak positions. Instead of recognizing clear legal vulnerabilities, the government’s persistence led to costly litigation, wasting public resources that could have been avoided.

Don’t fall into the FOIL appeal trap! If your FOIL request is partially denied, your 30-day appeal clock starts immediately—not when all records are disclosed. Learn from the Matter of Mingo case, where waiting for full disclosure cost the petitioner his chance to challenge the denied portions in court. Read our post on why acting fast is crucial after a partial denial and how to protect your rights.

In Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York v. Adams, the plaintiffs challenged revisions to New York City’s Specialized High Schools admissions process, arguing that changes to the Discovery Program disproportionately excluded Asian-American students. The Second Circuit addressed key issues of discriminatory intent and effect under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite no overall negative impact on Asian-American students, the court emphasized that individual harm caused by a racially motivated policy still warrants strict scrutiny. This case will now return to the district court for further discovery.

The Supreme Court will review Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, a pivotal case challenging the heightened evidentiary standard for reverse discrimination claims under Title VII. Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, claims she was demoted in favor of gay colleagues. Will the Court uphold or revise the standard? This decision could reaffirm the principle of equal protection for all under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the latest blog post, we explore the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense, a tool for employers facing certain harassment claims—but one with significant limitations, and some pitfalls especially in New York City. Using the case of Fay v. City of Newburgh, we break down how this defense works, its applicability under different laws, and the potential legal risks employers take when asserting it. Whether you're an employer or employee, understanding the complexities of this defense can help protect your rights. Read more to discover why consulting an experienced attorney early is crucial in these cases.

Explore how courts in reverse discrimination cases navigate around the McDonnell Douglas test. Using real cases from the Seventh Circuit, this post breaks down how legal strategies shift to focus on non-discriminatory reasons, avoiding heightened standards and costly appeals. Learn how these tactics, along with attorney fees, influence the outcome of employment litigation.

In employment discrimination cases, the McDonnell Douglas framework is a critical tool for analyzing claims based on circumstantial evidence. However, when applied in reverse discrimination cases, where plaintiffs belong to historically majority groups, courts often impose a heightened standard. This disparate treatment may conflict with the Equal Protection Clause and is increasingly being scrutinized in light of recent Supreme Court rulings, such as Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. As legal challenges mount and circuit courts remain divided, the days of this uneven application may be numbered.

Explore the implications for both plaintiffs and defendants, and why understanding this evolving legal landscape is crucial.

Explore how the NYPD's objection to a massive FOIL request was overturned in court. Discover the 'Sentiment Meter' and why large document volumes don't exempt agencies from transparency. Learn strategies for managing extensive FOIL requests effectively. Read more about this decision and its implications for public access to government records.

Accrual in hostile work environment claims is more complex than it seems. Learn how the continuing violation doctrine and different types of accrual affect when the clock starts on your legal rights. Understand the impact of Olivieri v. Stifel and what it means for both employees and employers. Timing is everything in employment law—don’t let your claim slip through the cracks.

SFFA v. Harvard continues to impact Section 1981 litigation

In a recent ruling, the Northern District of California allowed claims of disparate impact discrimination against Workday's AI hiring tools to proceed, while dismissing intentional discrimination claims. This decision underscores the need for employers and AI vendors to ensure fairness and avoid bias in automated hiring processes. Learn more about the case and its implications for AI in hiring.

The recent Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis and the Second Circuit's ruling in Emilee Carpenter, LLC v. James have brought the clash between free speech and public accommodations law into sharp focus. These cases explore the boundaries of expressive activity and the rights of business owners under the First Amendment. As courts navigate these complex issues, the outcomes will significantly impact the application of public accommodations laws to businesses. Stay informed on how these pivotal decisions shape the legal landscape for free speech and public accommodations.