Relates to the admissibility of certain testimony and evidence by a person alleging discrimination

• Democratic6

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Andrew Gounardes says this is needed

In criminal and civil trials in the state of New York, hearsay is gener- ally unable to serve as evidence unless it falls within one of a few noted exceptions. In criminal cases of rape and sexual assault, for example, New York courts have established a common law exception to the hearsay ban by which evidence that a victim promptly reported the inci- dent to another person such as a friend or family member may be admitted to corroborate the victim's claim that such incident occurred. This rule, known as the "prompt outcry" exception to the hearsay ban, was created in recognition of the fact that "prompt complaint (is) 'natural' conduct on the part of (a victim), and failure to complain therefore (casts) doubt on the complainant's veracity; outcry evidence was consid- ered necessary to rebut the adverse inference a jury would inevitably draw if not presented with proof of a timely complaint" (People v Rice, 75 N.Y.2d 929, 931 (1990)). Prompt outcry evidence is subject to the same analysis of reliability as other exceptions to the hearsay ban, and serves as an important evidentiary tool to help bring sexual offenders to justice in situations where other evidence might be difficult to come by. This bill extends the same logic behind the prompt outcry exception in criminal cases to civil cases as well. While courts have begun to recog- nize the viability of prompt outcry in non-criminal cases, it has yet to be explicitly extended to civil trials of sexual harassment and other types of discrimination. Without a statutory right to admit this kind of evidence at a civil trial, victims of harassment are faced with a severe disadvantage: they are both unable to submit evidence that they reported the harassment to another person, and unable to contest any doubt surfacing in a jury's mind when no evidence of a contemporaneous complaint is presented. This bill counters this disadvantage by allowing victims to submit evidence of a report of discrimination in a civil trial, so long as such report was made before the last adverse action being complained of was taken or promptly thereafter. Judges shall be able to account for the individual circumstances of the case when determining "promptness," which can be a relative concept. By explicitly allowing this crucial detail as evidence in civil trials, New York can help victims of work- place discrimination seek justice while aligning evidentiary rules in similar criminal and civil cases. This update to the rules governing our state's civil trials is the least we can do for victims seeking recom- pense for the discrimination they have faced. Categorizing reports of misconduct as admissible evidence is a critical step toward ensuring survivors' stories are heard and believed, which is why courts long ago established the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay ban in cases of sexual assault. Extending this admissibility to cases of sexual harass- ment is the next logical step.

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.