Relates to actions involving public petition and participation

• Democratic2

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Andrew Gounardes says this is needed

This bill aims to protect victims of workplace discrimination based on a protected class (age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orien- tation, gender identity or expression, military status, sex, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, marital status, or status as a victim of domestic violence) covered under the NYS or NYC human rights law or federal anti-discrimination law. Victims of discrim- ination such as sexual harassment will frequently find themselves the subjects of defamation suits for libel or slander. These retaliatory tactics then have the desired effect of getting the victim to abandon their complaint or significantly delaying the investigation and adjudi- cation of the underlying harassment as well as deterring future victims at the worksite from coming forward. This bill aims to eliminate this nefarious court tactic by making it subject to New York's anti-SLAPP statute, which helps to defeat Strate- gic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The anti-SLAPP law, contained in Section 76-a of the Civil Rights Law, helps fend off calcu- lated lawsuits that are intended to silence a group or individual with the cost and ordeal of litigation. If the defendant being sued, such as a journalist, believes that the lawsuit is merely intended to silence them, they provide proof to the court that the claim of the case relates to their exercise of free speech rights "on a matter of public inter- est." The defendant must then submit documentary evidence and sworn statements in support of the motion while the discovery process is put on hold. The burden of proof then shifts to the plaintiff bringing the suit to show that the claim has a "substantial basis in law." If they cannot do so and the action is dismissed, the plaintiff must pay the defendant's attorney's fees and litigation costs. The defendant may also be awarded "other compensatory damages" and punitive damages if they can show that the case was brought with the sole intent to harass, intim- idate, punish, or maliciously inhibit their free spe ech or association rights. New York significantly expanded its anti-SLAPP protections with Ch. 250 of 2020, which previously applied only to lawsuits initiated by business entities that were involved in a public application or permit. This bill would build upon this 2020 expansion by providing that "protected alle- gations," defined as workplace complaints of illegal discrimination or retaliation, are also subject to anti-SLAPP. It is the sponsor's belief that, in making frivolous defamation suits easier to dismiss as well as more likely to result in attorneys fees and other recompense for the defendant when they are wrongly brought, victims of workplace discrimi- nation and/or retaliation will be better protected when they decide to speak up about the harms they are witnessing or experiencing at the jobsite.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.