November 27, 2019

Gender Discrimination in Bathroom Access

New York State and New York City laws prohibit employment discrimination with regards to bathroom choice. On February 24, 2019, New York State passed the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA), amending the New York State Human Rights Law. Under GENDA, it is unlawful to refuse someone access to a single-sex restroom, or other single-sex facilities, appropriate to their gender identity. For example, if a person chooses to use the women’s room because they identify as a woman, though they were born a man, they cannot be required to use the men’s room.

Under the New York City Human Rights Law, all people have the right to use the single-gender facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, most closely aligned with their gender identity or expression, regardless of their gender expression, sex assigned at birth, anatomy, medical history, or the sex indicated on their identification. NYCHRL’s guidance on Gender Identity and Gender Expression suggests creating policies and mandating trainings on compliance with this policy. Further, the guidance suggests having gender-neutral, single occupancy restrooms to help avoid violations of the NYCHRL to accommodate a person’s request to use a single-occupancy restroom because of their gender, or as an alternative for any individuals who may “express discomfort” from sharing a facility with a transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming person. Importantly, it is unlawful to require a person to use a single-occupancy restroom because they are transgender, non-binary, or non-conforming.  

Additionally, New York City’s Local Law 79 requires all single-occupant restrooms in New York City to be gender-neutral. The law requires signs be posted on the bathrooms indicating that it is for all sexes. The law does not mandate the construction of single-occupant bathrooms or require any physical alterations to any existing single-occupant toilet rooms, except for the posting and maintenance of appropriate signage as required. Individuals cannot be discriminated against due to their choice for using a gender-neutral bathroom.

Employers should be aware of the potential liability under these laws. Under the State Human Rights Law, employees covered in the State can bring a claim within one year after alleged discriminatory conduct for compensatory and punitive damages, and civil penalties may be imposed. Under the City Human Rights Law, covered employees in the City can bring a claim for gender-based harassment with the Commission’s Law Enforcement Bureau or in court within three years of the discriminatory act for compensatory and punitive damages, and civil penalties may be imposed. Building owners in violation of Local Law 79 may have fines imposed, may be required to appear before the City’s Environmental Control Board, and must correct the violation.

Creating clear policies prohibiting discriminatory access to single-gender facilities, training employees on these policies, and creating gender-neutral restrooms could help avoid violations of these laws. However, employers cannot force someone to use a single-occupancy restroom because of their gender or gender-identity.

Employers are not the only ones who need to worry about liability for gender identity discrimination. Statewide reporting on harassment incidents in New York public schools between 2010 and 2015 showed that 19% of harassment incidents were related to a student’s sex, gender, or sexual orientation. The New York State Human Rights Law protects all transgender individuals across the state, including those in schools. Further, the City’s Guidance, in providing examples of violations of the Human Rights Law, include a public university prohibiting a transgender man from using the men’s restroom, and barring a non-binary student from a single-gender after-school program. All transgender individuals, from employees to students, are protected against unlawful gender identity discrimination in both New York State and New York City.

 Written by Emily Entwistle

white line

The Week in FFCRA Complaints: Employers Do Not Seem to Understand Mandated Worker Protections

July 31, 2020
Leave
Disability Discrimination
t is starting to seem, from our perspective, that either employers have not been made sufficiently aware of the leave entitled to workers under the FFCRA or that they are willing to risk a lawsuit for wrongful termination.

The Berke-Weiss Law Weekly Roundup: While the Outlook Darkens, We Celebrate Some Small Victories

July 31, 2020
No items found.
The clock has essentially wound down on extending assistance for the 30+ million Americans currently on the unemployment rolls. White House officials and Congressional Democrats remain miles apart, with the latter rejecting a temporary extension of the benefits. There are also huge question marks over issues we focus on, particularly child care and employment law, both of which were in the news this week and are the subject of several of the stories we feature

With the HEALS Act the Fight over Pandemic Lawsuits Takes Center Stage

July 30, 2020
No items found.
Earlier this week, Senate GOP leadership introduced their $1 trillion opening response to the $3 trillion Congressional HEROES Act, originally proposed in May. As we have noted, the signal demand coming from Mitch McConnell’s office is liability protection (the “L” in HEALS) for businesses and health care organizations. Translated, McConnell wants to prevent workers from suing employers if they contract coronavirus at work. And the GOP appears firm that without consensus on this issue, there will be no new stimulus.

Get In Touch

Knowing where to turn in legal matters can make a big difference. Contact our employment lawyers to determine if we can help you.