The New York Court of Appeals ruled on March 14th that New York State discrimination laws apply to out of state applicants for jobs. Specifically, the court stated that refusing to hire or promote someone to a job in New York for discriminatory reasons has an impact in the city or state and is covered by their anti-bias laws "because that is where the person wished to work."
This case arose from a lawsuit filed by Nafeesa Syed against Bloomberg in the federal court, which then asked the New York Court to answer a question about the coverage of its anti-discrimination laws.
Syed was a reporter for Bloomberg in Washington DC. In 2018, she applied for multiple jobs at Bloomberg in New York, and especially for the United Nations reporter position. She did not get it, but it went to a lesser qualified male. In fact, her Managing Editor in Washington, D.C. told her that Bloomberg decided not to convert the U.N. job to a “diversity slot,” after which she understood that she would only be considered for promotions to positions identified as such. Syed later quit because she believed that could no longer work for Bloomberg because of the discrimination she encountered.
Two years later and living in California, she filed a class action lawsuit against Bloomberg, alleging under New York state and local law she was discriminated against. The case transferred to the District Court in New York City and eventually was appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
To eliminate any confusion on previous rulings on out-of-state filings under New York discrimination law, the 2nd Circuit requested that the New York court answer this question:
“Whether a nonresident plaintiff not yet employed in New York City or State satisfies the impact requirement of the New York City Human Rights Law or the New York State Human Rights Law if the plaintiff pleads and later proves that an employer deprived the plaintiff of a New York City- or State-based job opportunity on discriminatory grounds.”
In response, the court held that “the New York City and New York State Human Rights Laws each protect nonresidents who are not yet employed in the city or state but who proactively sought an actual city- or state-based job opportunity.”
In today’s world, jobs can be in-person in New York, or remote. As such, applicants could come from anywhere in the U.S. and the world, although it is unclear if this ruling would apply to applicants outside the United States. Further, it appears that the court expanded its jurisdiction to applicants who want to work remotely for New York employers. The court stated that:
“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,’ a prospective inhabitant or employee, who was denied a job opportunity because of discriminatory conduct, fits comfortably within the Human Rights Laws’ protection.”
Other states have expanded their jurisdiction as well including California, but given the nature of jobs today, the nexus of applying or working for a job that could be performed in Michigan or remotely to benefit the Michigan employer, could be subject to the New York Court’s interpretation. Michigan employers could be subject to a double whammy, not only Michigan law, but possibly the law in the jurisdiction the applicant applies from. For example, wage transparency of various states applies to Michigan employers if they advertise in those states. Therefore, Michigan employers should work with legal counsel to develop strategies to minimize the risk of out-of-state applicants suing Michigan employers for discrimination under Michigan law.
Source: Reuters 3/14/24, Syed v. Bloomberg, No. 20 (State of New York Court of Appeals, March 14, 2014)