Civil Rights for All: The New York State Human Rights Law Turns 80 -- A Tribute to New York State’s Legacy in Advancing Human Rights

 

State Capitol Exhibit Highlights Historic Contributions and Ongoing Role of the New York State Division of Human Rights in Defending New Yorkers Against Discrimination On July 10, 2025, the New York State Division of Human Rights and the New York State Office of General Services announced the opening of an exhibit in the State Capitol to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the New York State Human Rights Law. The exhibit, entitled “Civil Rights for All: The New York State Human Rights Law Turns 80,” explores pivotal moments that have positioned New York State at the forefront of protecting individuals from discrimination under what has become one of the most comprehensive human rights laws in the country.  The exhibit can be viewed on the second floor of the State Capitol in the Governor’s Reception Room. Admission is free and will remain open to the public from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays through September 1st.  “Since 1945, we’ve defended every New Yorker’s right to belong. As the nation’s first state agency dedicated to the protection and furtherance of human rights, we’ve set the standard for fairness and equity, from workplaces to homes and communities. And today, we continue to uphold our commitment of creating a New York where everyone feels at home,” New York State Division of Human Rights Commissioner Denise M. Miranda, Esq. said. “I encourage everyone to visit the State Capitol this summer to celebrate the people and milestones that shaped the oldest statewide anti-discrimination law in the country, and one of the most expansive sets of civil rights protections anywhere in the United States.”  New York State Office of General Services Commissioner Jeanette Moy said, "New York State is home to many of our nation’s firsts, and enacting the Human Rights Law that laid the groundwork for future civil rights protections is one of them. Team OGS is proud to join forces with DHR in marking this critical moment of our state’s history by co-developing the ‘Civil Rights for All: The New York State Human Rights Law Turns 80’ exhibition. I invite everyone to stop at the New York State Capitol to visit this exhibit. There is no better way to celebrate the 80th anniversary than by learning about our state’s Human Rights Law and the individuals and events leading to the Law's expansion.”  “Civil Rights for All: The New York State Human Rights Law Turns 80” traces the history of New York State’s trailblazing and nation-leading protections of human rights. The exhibit highlights key milestones of New York’s progress in expanding human rights protections, beginning with the groundbreaking legislation in 1945 that made New York the first state to enact an anti-discrimination law and continuing up to the present day.  Some of these landmark moments include the 1950s expansion of the law to prohibit discrimination in housing and places open to the public, like hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and hospitals; the 1974 expansion of the law to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities—nearly two decades ahead of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act; the 1980s handling some of the nation’s earliest cases of discrimination against people diagnosed with AIDS; the 2003 expansion of the law making it illegal to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation; the 2019 strengthening of workplace sexual harassment protections; and the 2023 expansion of the law increasing the statute of limitations for all discrimination claims from one year to three years.   Marking the 80th anniversary of the New York State Human Rights Law and the creation of the Division of Human Rights, the exhibit also highlights the Division’s instrumental role in enforcing these protections. The Division’s role has been significantly strengthened by Governor Hochul’s historic investments in the Division, doubling the agency’s budget and enabling the Division to expand its staff and improve every aspect of its operations and services.  Since Governor Hochul appointed Commissioner Miranda to lead the agency in March 2024, the Commissioner has increased staffing by more than 50 percent; launched an overhaul of the Division’s complaint intake process; established critical new internal and performance analytics units; and expanded public education and outreach initiatives. These key investments and initiatives continue to make the Division stronger and more prepared to meet present-day challenges in the fight for civil and human rights.   About the New York State Division of Human Rights The New York State Division of Human Rights is dedicated to eliminating discrimination, remedying injustice, and promoting equal opportunity, access, and dignity. Anyone who believes they have experienced discrimination can report it to the Division. If it is under the Division’s authority and jurisdiction, Division staff will investigate and adjudicate the case. Throughout this process, the Division is a neutral fact finder representing the interests of the State, not functioning as an advocate or attorney on behalf of either complainants or respondents. All of the Division’s procedures are conducted free of charge, and members of the public are not required to have an attorney to file a complaint. The Division’s work shows that New York State will make violators of the law pay. During the Division’s 2024 Fiscal Year, the agency awarded more than $8 million in compensation to complainants who experienced discrimination. The Division can also order a wide range of additional remedies—including reinstatement to a job, back pay with interest and benefits, changes in organizational policies, and a variety of other forms of compensation and remediation. The Division of Human Rights is also empowered by law to investigate and file complaints in cases of systematic discrimination through its Division Initiated Action Unit (DIAU). The DIAU can, upon its own motion, initiate investigations and file complaints alleging violations of the state anti-discrimination law. Individuals can report systemic issues of discrimination by emailing the Division at tips@dhr.ny.gov. Copyright © 2025 New York State. All rights reserved. Our Privacy Policy

Selected items posted on the Internet during the week ending July 11, 2025

Puerto Rico Reboots Ethics Rules: Tech Innovation Required - Rochester, New York attorney Nichole Block's recent Daily Record column notes that "The times they are a-changin" and State Bars are struggling to keep up. Read the whole entry 

AI training for teachers - A group of leading tech companies is teaming up with two teachers’ unions to train 400,000 kindergarten through 12th grade teachers in artificial intelligence over the next five years. Read More HERE

Rethinking the Government Workplace - Agencies can use a combination of emerging technologies, data-informed design and cross-functional collaboration to transform traditional office space. This paper explains multiple factors government leaders should consider in return-to-office strategies. DOWNLOAD

A Mosquito Abatement Success Story - This California mosquito abatement district slashed chemical costs by 50% and reduced complaints tenfold—using connected field devices, GPS mapping, and mobile data management. Read how public health meets public tech. DOWNLOAD

Massachusetts Drafts New Rules for How Cops Interact With Youth Proposed statewide standards would cover everything from transporting young people to arresting their caregivers. READ MORE

Strategic Procurement to Navigate Fiscal Constraints in Local Government Faced with inflation, labor shortages and mounting infrastructure needs, local governments must find smarter ways to manage costs without compromising service delivery. READ MORE

AI in State and Local Government: Everything You Need to Know - A go-to guide, Artificial Intelligence, shares everything you need to know to quickly begin implementing AI and developing the appropriate policy for the technology. DOWNLOAD 

New York State municipal and school audits issued

On July 9, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the audit posted on the Internet.

Vertus Charter School – Information Technology (IT) Asset Management (Monroe County) School officials did not appropriately track, inventory and safeguard IT assets acquired or in use during the audit period. Although the board-adopted financial policies and procedures manual required the chief operating officer to ensure accurate inventory records were maintained to safeguard all assets, it did not provide detailed guidance for maintaining inventory records for most IT assets because the dollar amount of most IT assets do not individually meet the policy’s inventory record-required threshold of $1,500 for fixed assets. In addition, the IT asset inventory was decentralized with multiple individuals and a service provider maintaining inventory records, which resulted in the records containing inconsistent information.

Port Washington Union Free School District – Payroll (Nassau County) Auditors examined compensation totaling $449,510 that was paid to 40 of the district’s clerical, custodial, maintenance, security and transportation employees and found district officials designed and implemented policies and procedures that ensured the compensation paid was accurate. Therefore, the report does not contain recommendations.

Town of Cohocton – Procurement (Steuben County) Town officials did not always solicit competition in accordance with the town’s procurement policy, statutory requirements or good business practices and stated it was an inconvenience for them to adhere to the town’s procurement policy. This resulted in procurements that were not made in the most prudent and economical manner. For example, of the $3.7 million in goods and services purchased between Jan. 1, 2023 and August 6, 2024, almost $2 million were procured without competition. The audit identified instances where officials and employees responsible for purchasing did not solicit competitive bids for purchases of goods totaling approximately $1.3 million from 10 vendors, for which auditors identified potential cost savings of $23,000 for vehicle and energy purchases. Officials also did not issue RFPs or use any other form of competitive process before procuring professional services from 15 providers totaling approximately $540,000. In addition, officials did not obtain the minimum number of quotes required by the town’s procurement policy for purchases totaling approximately $131,000 or the minimum number of required quotes for credit card purchases totaling approximately $21,000.

Germantown Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Columbia County) District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health regulations. Auditors determined 63 of the 146 water outlets identified that students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. District officials also did not have a remedial action plan that detailed which water outlets they exempted from sampling and how they would be secured, and what remedial actions were planned or enacted for water outlets identified as exceeding the lead action level.

City of Yonkers – Budget Review (Westchester County) The city’s 2025-26 adopted budget totals $1.55 billion, which includes operating and debt service funding of $809.2 million for the Yonkers Public Schools and $739.8 million for the city. The 2025-26 budget is $35.8 million more than the city’s budget for 2024-25, an increase of 2.4%. The 2025-26 budget relies on nonrecurring funding sources of $114.4 million, such as appropriated fund balance, one-time state and Federal funding and sale of property, to balance its budget. The city plans to borrow up to $15 million for tax certiorari settlements in the 2025-26 fiscal year. Overtime costs could potentially be underestimated for police by as much as $341,000. Employee retirement costs are likely underestimated by as much as $5.3 million. The city should be mindful to ensure appropriations are sufficient for any potential liabilities when contract agreements for collective bargaining agreements are reached. The city’s contingency reserve is 1.5% of the city’s general fund budgeted appropriations, leaving a limited flexibility to cover any other unforeseen or unexpected costs. Since 2017, the city’s debt service payments have risen 6.2% and the city will need $90.4 million to service its debt obligations during 2025-26.

###

Administrative Law Judge denies a request to take judicial notice of testimony given by the witness in an earlier hearing in the instant hearing

New York City's Office of Trials and Hearings [OATH] Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Joycelyn McGeachy-Kuls denied the Respondent’s application asking the ALJ to take judicial notice of, or admit as evidence, transcripts from a prior OATH administrative hearing proceeding.

The New York City's Department of Sanitation [Petitioner] had charged Respondent with certain time and leave violations. Although Respondent appeared at the first day of the instant administrative hearing, he failed to appear at subsequent hearings scheduled in the instant proceeding and authorized his counsel to proceed in his absence.

In addition, Respondent failed to call any witnesses or present any evidence in the instant administrative hearing but after the conclusion of the hearing Respondent’s attorney submitted an application seeking to have the ALJ "take judicial notice of the transcripts of testimony taken at an earlier concluded 11-day OATH hearing involving Respondent." Plaintiff's attorney also reported that Respondent was unavailable “despite reasonable efforts to locate him.” 

The ALJ denied Respondent's judicial notice request noting that the transcript of the prior proceeding contained contested information and information that was "not common and general knowledge". 

In addition, Judge McGeachy-Kuls rejected Plaintiff's attorney's argument that the transcripts were admissible as prior judicial admissions. The ALJ explained that such admissions are offered to establish an inconsistency between a witnesses' testimony in an earlier proceeding and the witnesses' former and current testimony.

The ALJ further noted that Respondent had refused to testify in the instant proceeding and reject Plaintiff's attorney's argument that the transcripts were admissible as prior testimony hearsay because there was no evidence in the record that Respondent was unavailable to testify at the instant hearing.

Click HERE to access the decision and recommendation of Judge McGeachy-Kuls posted on the Internet.

Circuit Court of Appeals hold that, under the circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to a new hearing before a different administrative law judge

Plaintiff appealed the United States District Court’s granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security [SSA].

The Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, ruled that as hearing officer who had  presided at Plaintiff’s initial SSA hearing not been properly appointed when he had  conducted the hearing regarding [Plaintiff’s] application for Social Security benefits and issued a decision denying her benefits, Plaintiff “is entitled to a new plenary hearing on her disability benefits [claim] before a different, properly appointed" SSA Administrative Law Judge.

The United States District Court had remanded Plaintiff’s case “on the merits” to SSA for a new hearing before a different ALJ.  Plaintiff, however, appeared before the same SSA Administrative Law Judge who had presided at Plaintiff's initial administrate hearing for the new, second administrative hearing. 

The Circuit Court observing that Plaintiff’s application was to be heard “by a different adjudicator”, held that as SSA did not provide Plaintiff a different hearing officer to hear Plaintiff's claim, this “rendered the Commissioner’s final decision” a violation of the "appointments clause".

Without addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s application for Social Security benefits, the Second Circuit vacated SSA's "final decision" and directed the district court “to REMAND the matter to the Commissioner for a de novo hearing" on Plaintiff’ disability benefits claim before a different, validly appointed SSA administrative law judge.

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court’s decision posted on the Internet.