A04040 Summary:
BILL NO | A04040A |
  | |
SAME AS | SAME AS S04067-A |
  | |
SPONSOR | Lasher |
  | |
COSPNSR | Wright, Carroll P, Epstein, Glick, Gonzalez-Rojas, Hevesi, Hooks, Kelles, Levenberg, O'Pharrow, Reyes, Shimsky, Tapia, Torres, Zaccaro, Zinerman, Gallagher, Schiavoni, Lee, Ramos, Burroughs, Bores, Rosenthal, Jacobson |
  | |
MLTSPNSR | |
  | |
Amd §296, Exec L | |
  | |
Codifies the disparate impact standard in the human rights law; provides that in cases of alleged housing discrimination, an unlawful discriminatory practice may be established by a practice's discriminatory effect. |
A04040 Memo:
Go to topNEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION
submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)   BILL NUMBER: A4040A SPONSOR: Lasher
  TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the executive law, in relation to codifying the dispa- rate impact standard in the human rights law   PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL: This bill would codify the "disparate impact" standard for housing discrimination cases under the New York State Human Rights Law, ensuring the continued protection of New Yorkers even as the Department of Hous- ing and Urban Development, ("HUD") rule and federal case law establish- ing disparate impact comes under attack, through the administrative process and litigation.   SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: Section 1 of the bill amends section 296 of the Executive Law, the unlawful discriminatory practices section under the New York State Human Rights Law, by adding a new subdivision 5-a to specify that practices leading to discriminatory effect, even if such practices were not moti- vated, by discriminatory intent, would be considered unlawful discrimi- nation. Paragraph b of the new subdivision 5-a provides that this unlawful discrimination would apply to the protected classes for the sale, rent, or lease of a housing accommodation under the state's Human Rights Law provisions in Section 296, subdivision 5 of the Executive Law. Paragraph c of the new subdivision 5-a provides for what constitutes a legally sufficient justification. Paragraph d of the new subdivision 5-a specifies that the complainant shall have the burden of proof that a practice being challenged would have a discriminatory effect. Paragraph e of the new subdivision 5-a specifies that a demonstration of disparate impact may not be used as a defense against a claim of inten- tional discrimination, Section 2 of the bill sets forth the effective date.   JUSTIFICATION: The federal Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) protects people from discrimination when they are renting or buying a home, getting a mortgage, seeking housing assistance, or engag- ing in other housing-related activities. At the state level, it is enforced by the New York State Attorney General and the Division of Human Rights ("DHR"). The Attorney General and DHR also can take action against housing discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law, The "disparate impact" (or "discriminatory effects") standard is essen- tial to the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, given that discrimi- nation often hides behind facially neutral policies and practices. Disparate impact is longstanding doctrine, supported by case law, that provides for enforcement based on outcome-based evidence of housing discrimination against protected classes, rather than requiring proof of intent to discriminate. The disparate impact standard was codified as a federal agency rule by HUD during the Obama Administration. The first Trump Administration approved a new rule to effectively repeal disparate impact and make it far more difficult, if not impossible, to prove housing discrimination, in late 2020, however, the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts enjoined implementation of the Trump rule. President Biden then restored the Obama-era rule. While the U.S. Supreme Court upheld disparate impact in its 2015 deci- sion in Texas v. Inclusive Communities, its 5-4 majority included Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg, both of whom have been replaced on the Court by more conservative justices. More broadly, in its 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overruled 40 years of precedent (established in the 1984 Chevron decision) under which federal courts had extended deference to federal agencies' reason- able interpretations of statutes they enforced. In the years ahead, disparate impact is almost certain to come under attack, either from the second Trump Administration, or through liti- gation, or both - and, as a result, fair housing enforcement nationwide may be jeopardized. This bill aims to protect New Yorkers from this outcome. Despite the role that disparate impact has historically played in housing discrimi- nation cases brought in New York, the standard itself is not currently codified in the Human Rights Law, By doing so, we can ensure that robust enforcement action against housing discrimination in New York can continue under State law, come what may in Washington and in the courts.   PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: This is a new bill.   FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None   EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all cases alleging unlawful discriminatory practices constituting housing discrim- ination occurring on and after such effective date. Effective imme- diately, the addition, amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of this act on its effective date are authorized to be made on or before such effective date.