New York Court of Appeals expands the scope of the City and State antidiscrimination laws

The New York Court of Appeals has issued a definitive ruling on the scope of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Answering a certified question from the Second Circuit, the State Court of Appeals holds that a New York City-based company may be held liable under the remedial City and State Human Rights Laws if it denies an out-of-state job applicant a position for discriminatory reasons.

The case is Syeed v. Bloomberg, L.P., issued on March 14. Plaintiff worked in defendant's Washington, D.C. bureau and applied to work for its bureau in New York City. Bloomberg instead hired a less-qualified male applicant. She sued Bloomberg under the State and City laws, but the case was dismissed because she was not a New York resident when defendant denied her the promotions. A prior New York Court of Appeals ruling, Hoffman v. Parade Publications, 15 N.Y.3d 285 (2010), held that the City law only applies when the discriminatory personnel decision "impacts" New York City. The trial court in this case relied on Hoffman in dismissing Syeed's case. As the Court of Appeals in Syeed summarizes the Hoffman holding:

"the impact requirement does not exclude all nonresidents from [the] protection" of the Human Rights Laws. Instead, the impact test "expands" the protections of the Human Rights Laws "to nonresidents who work in the" state or city and to those who "state a claim that the alleged discriminatory conduct had any impact in either of those locations." Hoffman therefore sets forth two ways in which a nonresident may satisfy the impact requirement: (1) working in New York or (2) establishing that the challenged conduct had some impact on the plaintiff within the respective New York geographic boundaries.

How do we apply Hoffman in Syeed's case, where she claims she was denied promotions for New York City-based jobs, but she was not living in New York City when the promotion denials took place? The Second Circuit was presented with this issue in Syeed's case because her case is pending in Southern District of New York, and she appealed to the Second Circuit. The Circuit, in turn, forwarded this issue to the New York Court of Appeals, a common practice when the Circuit has an open issue of state law and wants the State Court of Appeals to issue a definitive ruling on the issue.

The State Court of Appeals unanimously holds that the City and State Human Rights Laws govern Sayeed's case. 

a nonresident who has been discriminatorily denied a job in New York City or State loses the chance to work, and perhaps live, within those geographic areas. The prospective employee personally feels the impact of a discriminatory refusal to promote or hire in New York City or State, because that is where the person wished to work (and perhaps relocate) and where they were denied the chance to do so. When applying the required liberal construction of "inhabitants" and "individual within this state" (Executive Law § 290 [3]; Administrative Code § 8-101), a prospective inhabitant or employee, who was denied a job opportunity because of discriminatory conduct, fits comfortably within the Human Rights Laws' protection.

Policy reasons also support this holding. The State and City have robust antidiscrimination laws. 

the Human Rights Laws contemplate that discrimination harms the state and city as governmental institutions, in addition to the targeted individual. The state and the city are deprived of economic and civic contributions from individuals discriminatorily denied the opportunity to work in New York, along with the more diverse workforces and communities that the individuals would advance. Our resolution of the certified question has the beneficial effect of protecting New York institutions and the general welfare of the state and city—as the legislature and city council intended.

The case now returns to the Second Circuit, which will apply the State Court of Appeals' holding. Since this holding favors plaintiff, I assume this case will be revived and proceed to discovery in the Southern District of New York