I. Introduction

• Jurisdiction: New York

People with disabilities are America’s largest, most diverse, and fastest-growing minority group—one anyone can join at any moment. Most discussions of human rights of this group focus on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),¹ yet other laws at the federal,² state, and local levels sometimes recognize greater rights, and provide broader coverage and/or better remedies. The ADA explicitly does not preempt such state or local laws.³ The United States Supreme Court has recognized that “state laws protecting the rights of persons with disabilities in employment and other aspects of life provide independent avenues of redress.”⁴ In particular, as detailed below, the New York State Human Rights Law (SHRL)⁵ (in some respects) “provides protections broader than the ADA; and the . . . [New York City Human Rights Law (CHRL)]⁶ is broader still.”⁷ The “bottom line” varies with the laws of overlapping jurisdictions. Some of these laws, from the ADA itself to local laws, have seen significant changes in recent years. This chapter highlights how attention to local laws throughout New York State is important both to those representing people with disabilities and to those seeking to avoid violating those laws. The text provides a substantial overview, while the endnotes permit deep dives into detail and nuance.

While, with the exception of housing discrimination,⁸ the acts prohibited by the respective federal, state, and city laws each cover a wide range of issues, from discriminatory hiring practices, to denial of access to public accommodations,⁹ the relative strengths of the city, state, and federal laws are evidenced not only in their respective definitions of the term “disability” but also in substantive and procedural requirements, as well as in the availability of remedies.

The New York State Court of Appeals recognizes:

we must be guided by the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 (LCRRA), enacted by the City Council “to clarify the scope of New York City’s Human Rights Law,” which, the Council found “has been construed too narrowly to ensure protection of the civil rights of all persons covered by the law” (Local Law No. 85 [2005] of City of NY § 1). The LCRRA, among other things, amended Administrative Code § 8-130 to read:

“The provisions of this title [i.e., the New York City Human Rights Law] shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal or New York State civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions comparably-worded to provisions of this title, have been so construed.”

The application of the LCRRA provision . . . is clear: we must construe . . . provisions of the City's Human Rights Law, broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible.¹⁰

Both leading up to and in the wake of this recognition, the Appellate Division, First Department, has issued a series of significant rulings, followed as well by the Second Department; in the first of these, that First Department held that:

it is clear that interpretations of state or federal provisions worded similarly to City HRL provisions may be used as aids in interpretation only to the extent that the counterpart provisions are viewed “as a floor below which the City’s Human Rights law cannot fall, rather than a ceiling above which the local law cannot rise” (§ 1), and only to the extent that those state or federal law decisions may provide guidance as to the “uniquely broad and remedial” provisions of the local law.

****

The Council directs courts to the key principles that should guide the analysis of claims brought under the City HRL:

“discrimination should not play a role in decisions made by employers, landlords and providers of public accommodations; traditional methods and principles of law enforcement ought to be applied in the civil rights context; and victims of discrimination suffer serious injuries, for which they ought to receive full compensation” (Committee Report, 2005 NY City Legis Ann, at 537).¹¹

Federal courts have recognized the need to analyze New York City Human Rights Law claims in this light as well.¹²

Key issues covered below are: Who has a disability? What entities have what obligations with respect to people with disabilities? What procedures and remedies apply?

Although the focus of this chapter is on the significance of some local laws, any comparative analysis must include at least a brief review of the law—the ADA—to which local laws are being compared. More detailed coverage of the ADA is provided elsewhere in this volume.

--------
Notes:

<sup>1. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. To view the current text, with highlights showing the changes made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), (P.L. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553, Sept. 25, 2008); see http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08markscrdr.htm (see especially, § 2 (Findings and Purposes)). Revised Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations regarding Title I of the ADA, 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, became effective in March of 2011. Revised Department of Justice regulations concerning Titles II (28 C.F.R. Part 35) and III (28 C.F.R. Part 36) of the ADA became effective March 15, 2011; see http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/ADAregs2010.htm. The Justice Department regulations have been updated further to enhance conformity with the EEOC regulations. see 2014 Notice of Proposed Rule Making, www.ada.gov/nprm_adaaa/nprm_adaaa.htm. Final Rule Implementing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, with respect to Titles II and III of the ADA, 53204 Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 155, p. 53204 et seq., issued Aug. 11, 2016, effective Oct. 11, 2016, available through https://www.ada.gov/regs2016/adaaa.html. It generally has been helpful to consult DOJ’s ADA website frequently to stay current with myriad regulatory refinements on aspects of the ADA. However, it is important to bear in mind that regulations of other agencies, interpreting the ADA or other laws, may recognize broader rights than those reflected in DOJ’s regulations. Although the ADAAA was not effective until January 1, 2009, the amendments “narrow application” of Supreme Court precedents repudiated by the amendments, even in cases arising before the effective date and “raise serious questions as to the continued viability of the type of approach taken in” non-precedential cases inconsistent with the amendments but cited in cases arising before the effective date. Geoghan v. Long Island Rail Road, 06 CV 1435, N.Y.L.J. April 22, 2009 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2009) (Pollak, J.). But see Widomski v. State University of New York at Orange, 748 F.3d 471 (2nd Cir. 2014) (the definition in the ADAAA is not read retroactively).
2. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, (Section 504, prohibiting disability discrimination by recipients of federal funds), 29 U.S.C. § 791 (Section 501, prohibiting disability discrimination by federal agencies), 29 U.S.C. § 793 (Section 503, requiring affirmative action by federal contractors); Jobs for Veterans Act, 38</sup>...