Clarifies the standard for when a practice has a discriminatory effect

• Democratic2

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Shelley Mayer says this is needed

Disparate impact analysis has long been a key tool for fighting discrim- ination under federal law. Codified in Title VII, disparate impact anal- ysis allows a plaintiff to argue that a practice or conduct is discrimi- natory, regardless of intent, if it has a discriminatory effect. This approach was born from Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 US 424 (1971) in which the Supreme Court found that Duke Power's requirement that all prospective employees have a high school diploma or pass an intelligence test was discriminatory because it disproportionately barred African Americans from gaining employment. Under Title VII, an unlawful employment practice may be established based on disparate impact if the complainant can demonstrate disparate impact on the basis of certain protected classes, and the respondent cannot demonstrate that the challenged practice was both job specific and consistent with business necessity. In April 2025, the Trump administration issued an Executive Order dubi- ously finding disparate impact analysis unconstitutional ("Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy," April 23, 2025). The ED declares that it is now the policy of the federal government to elimi- nate the use of disparate impact analysis to the full extent possible to "avoid violating the Constitution, federal civil rights law, and basic American ideals," nevermind that disparate impact is codified in federal law. Despite the shaky 1:eg.1- ground, the Trump administration has plowed ahead to end civil rights cases and investigations based on disparate impact analysis. For example, the Justice Department backed out of a consent agreement it reached with a Maryland Police Department after finding that the Department had engaged in a discriminatory prac- tice by requiring prospective police officers to pass a written test which was not job specific.1 This legislation would codify disparate impact analysis for employment discrimination cases in New York State law, ensuring plaintiffs can continue to bring disparate impact cases under New York law, despite the shifting federal landscape. Under this bill, complainants could bring a case arguing that a challenged practice had or predictably would have a disparate impact on a protected class under section 296 of the Human Rights Law. If the complainant successfully demonstrates that disparate impact, consistent with federal law, an employer would have the opportu- nity to argue that the challenged practice was job related and consist- ent with business necessity. A complainant could also argue that such business necessity could be served by another practice with a less discriminatory effect. This legislation affirms New York' s commitment to fighting discrimi- nation in employment, despite the federal government's abdication of their responsibility.

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.