Provides for the establishment of a nexus with the state of New York relating to unlawful discriminatory practices

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Zellnor Myrie says this is needed

The New York State Human Rights Law is intended to be construed liberal- ly to accomplish its remedial purposes and maximize deterrence of discriminatory conduct. However, judicial interpretations-most notably in Hoffman v. Parade Publishing-have significantly narrowed the stat- ute's reach by imposing an "impact in New York" requirement for many non-resident workers. In Hoffman, the Court of Appeals held that the NYSHRL and NYCHRL do not apply to non-residents unless the discriminato- ry conduct had an impact within New York. Courts have since applied this rule rigidly, even where New York has substantial connections to the alleged discrimination. Recent court decisions demonstrate the problem. King v. Aramark Servs, Inc. (2d Cir. 2024) denied protection despite the plaintiff working remotely from New York and experiencing misconduct there. Stashak V. Phreesia, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2026) dismissed claims even though the employer was based in New York and the contract applied New York law. Pedroza v. Ralph Lauren Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 2020) rejected claims despite regular work travel to New York and oversight of New York employees. Schaffer v. GeneDx, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2026) dismissed claims where discriminatory deci- sions were made in New York. Pakniat v. Moor (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021) dismissed claims even though the termination decision occurred in New York. Meka v. Deloitte LLP (S.D.N.Y. 2025) and Trotter v. National Foot- ball League (S.D.N.Y. 2024) similarly relied on Hoffman to dismiss plaintiffs NYSHRL's claims These outcomes undermine the Legislature's directive that the NYSHRL be construed liberally. In today's remote and hybrid work environment, discriminatory decisions are frequently made in one jurisdiction while felt in another. The rigid "impact" test allows employers with signif- icant New York operations to evade accountability based on technical geography. This bill restores the statute's intended breadth by adopting a clear "sufficient nexus" standard. It ensures that New York residents are protected even when working remotely, that workers tied to New York employment relationships are covered, and that discriminatory decisions made in New York remain actionable. At the same time, the bill includes targeted affirmative defenses to prevent overreach where New York's connection is truly incidental. By clarifying the law, the Legislature will close an increasingly common loophole, provide predictability to courts and employers, and reaffirm New York's strong commitment to combating workplace discrimination.

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.