New York State's Division of Human Rights applauds federal court decision upholding state’s LGBTQ+ protections

 

December 21, 2021

New York State's Division of Human Rights applauds federal court decision upholding state’s LGBTQ+ protections

New York State Division of Human Rights Acting Commissioner Maria Imperial issued the following statement in response to a federal court ruling upholding the agency’s authority to enforce protections against discrimination for LGBTQ+ New Yorkers.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to dismiss this claim. The New York State Human Rights Law makes clear that a New Yorker’s sexual orientation or gender identity cannot be a barrier to accessing public places, services and businesses,” said Acting Commissioner Maria Imperial. “We thank the office of New York State Attorney General Letitia James for their vigorous defense of the law. The Division of Human Rights remains committed to shielding LGBTQ+ New Yorkers from unlawful discrimination and holding bad actors accountable for their discriminatory behavior.” 

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a legal advocacy organization that has initiated lawsuits challenging LGBTQ+ protections across the United States, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of an Elmira-based wedding photographer against the Division and the Attorney General in April 2021.  The photographer claimed that the potential enforcement of the New York State Human Rights Law’s prohibition on sexual orientation discrimination violated her constitutional rights. 

In his ruling, US District Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. dismissed the photographer’s claims, writing that New York State “has a compelling interest in ensuring that individuals have equal access to publicly available goods and services.” 

New Yorkers can learn more about the Human Rights Law or report bias and discrimination by contacting the New York State Division of Human Rights at 1-888-392-3644 or visiting https://dhr.ny.gov. 

The doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata bar the litigation of the same issue involving the same parties a second time

In the event a plaintiff has been afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue and loses, the doctrine of collateral estoppel and the doctrine of res judicata both serve to bar  a plaintiff from litigating the same causes of action involving the same parties with respect to those issues decided in a previous proceedings.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's ruling in this action.

Termination while serving a disciplinary probation period

Petitioner failed to submit evidence demonstrating that his termination was in bad faith or for illegal reasons while serving as a probationary employee pursuant to the terms of a probationary agreement providing that if he violated the employer's sick leave regulations, he was subject to termination "as any other probationary employee."

Click HERE to access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.

The future disease burden of pandemic Covid-19 for individuals, communities, and society

The Environmental Claims Journal, on December 16, 2021, posted Dr. Robert A. Michaels' article entitled The future disease burden of pandemic Covid-19 for individuals, communities, and society. Click HEREto access the Journal's post on the Internet.

This article is also available for download as a pre-print at no charge on ResearchGate by clicking on the following URL:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357115538_The_Future_Disease_Burden_of_Pandemic_Covid-19_for_Individuals_Communities_and_Society

Below is the abstract of Dr. Michaels' article. 

Abstract

Pandemic Covid-19 has exposed tension between personal choice and public health policy. Vaccination has damped pandemic inertia in the U.S., but emergence of highly infectious variants such as delta and omicron has increased infection of fully vaccinated people. This worrisome trend justifies vaccine booster eligibility and access for all vaccinated people in a timeframe responding to waning protection.

In restricting booster eligibility, US FDA and CDC statements indicate failure to consider that SARS-CoV-2 might be persistent, meaning that it might remain dormant in immune-privileged “refugia” such as the central nervous system of previously infected people, even if their Covid-19 symptoms had been mild or non-existent. Opportunistic re-activation of dormant viruses can cause severe illness, as in childhood chickenpox producing adult shingles decades later.

External re-infection is unnecessary. Consistent with the “precautionary principle,” the overriding FDA and CDC public health priority should be to prevent as many SARS-CoV-2 infections as possible, not tolerate them, assuming optimistically that they will not impose major public health and associated economic burdens in the future.

We naturally have focused upon our tragic past losses. We also must focus upon the future, learning from Covid-19 to manage pro-actively the inevitable next pandemic.

The doctrine of res judicata prohibit a petitioner litigating an issue that could have been brought in an earlier proceeding

Citing Matter of Hunter, 4 NY3d 260 the Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's claims for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law [Executive Law §296] and New York City Human Rights Law [Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107] were precluded in the instant action by the doctrine of res judicata because those claims could have been brought in her prior federal action, which alleged gender discrimination under 42 USC §1983. In addition, the Appellate Division noted that Plaintiff acknowledged  that her claim for disability discrimination is barred by the election of remedies doctrine, as she elected to first file a New York State Division of Human Rights complaint alleging disability discrimination.

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's ruling in this action.