Requires employment entities to engage in cooperative dialogue with certain persons regarding reasonable accommodations

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Patricia Fahy says this is needed

The New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) is intended to be construed liberally to accomplish its purposes. One purpose is to integrate employees who may need workplace accommodations, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship for the employer. Many individuals - including domestic violence survivors, those who have disabilities or pregnancy-related conditions, and those who observe certain religious practices - can perform their jobs without any accom- modations. For others, workplace barriers often keep them from fully performing their job duties that they could perform with some form of accommodation. These barriers may include physical obstacles (such as inaccessible facilities or equipment) or rules (such as those concerning when work is performed, when breaks are taken, or how essential or marginal functions are performed). Accommodations are reasonable when they remove workplace barriers for these individuals without causing an undue hardship for their employers. This bill clarifies that the discovery of a potential reasonable accom- modation is best determined through a cooperative dialogue, defined as communications about the employee's challenges, exploring potential accommodations to overcome such challenges, difficulties certain proposed accommodations might impose on the employer, and ultimately working together to find effective solutions that enable the employee to perform the core duties of their job. Not all cooperative dialogues will result in a reasonable accommodation. Currently, however, an employer's failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue about potential reasonable accommodations is not, by itself, considered unlawful. Rather, the employee must go above and beyond to prove that the employer could have accommodated the employee, even where the employer has refused to discuss potential accommodations. For exam- ple, in Pimentel v. Citibank, N.A., the worker's case was dismissed because they could not prove a reasonable accommodation existed, even though the employer "did absolutely nothing to attempt to ascertain whether there were any available positions that fit her varied experi- ence and qualifications." 29 A.D.3d 141 (1st Dept. 2006). This bill levels the playing field by making an employer's failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue an unlawful discriminatory practice. It does not mandate a guaranteed outcome or require employers to grant unreasonable accommodations. Moreover, this bill will bring state law in line with the cooperative dialogue requirement of the New York City Human Rights Law. By clarifying the law, the Legislature will provide guidance to employ- ers and employees alike about the process for identifying possible reasonable accommodations. This bill will decrease the likelihood of costly litigation and help integrate individuals into the workplace rather than the unemployment line.

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.