Measuring Up New York City's New Ban on Height and Weight Discrimination
Later this month, height and weight discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations will no longer be legal in New York City. This article examines the issues New York City employers and employment law practitioners can expect to grapple with under this new ordinance.
November 03, 2023 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
Despite studies suggesting majority support for laws prohibiting discrimination based upon weight, weight discrimination has remained mostly legal in the United States. But later this month, height and weight discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations will no longer be legal in New York City following the passage of Int. 0209-2022, which takes effect on Nov. 22.
This article examines the issues New York City employers and employment law practitioners can expect to grapple with under this new ordinance.
Whether due to fears of courts overrun by lawsuits in a nation struggling with an obesity epidemic or continuing stigma arising from a culture of "fat-shaming," laws banning height, weight or personal appearance discrimination have thus far failed to catch on, even as many state and local legislatures have expanded the protected categories under anti-discrimination statutes in recent decades. In fact, prior to the passage of the New York City ordinance, only one state—Michigan, which added height and weight as protected categories in 1976—and a handful of municipalities had passed such laws.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe American Disabilities Act, Sovereign Immunity and Individual Liability
7 minute readNY High Court Returns Fired Priest's Discrimination Claim to State Agency
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 2Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
- 3Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
- 4Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
- 5People in the News—Dec. 23, 2024—Barley Snyder, Marshall Dennehey
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250