As the Second Circuit noted, there is no ambiguity about the plain language of the NYCHRL, which is only open to one reasonable interpretation: the disability of alcoholism "shall only apply to a person who (1) is recovering or has recovered and (2) currently is free of such abuse" (Makinen, 857 F3d at 496). Indeed, by its plain language, the NYCHRL does not regulate employer actions motivated by concern with respect to the abuse of alcohol. Rather, the NYCHRL covers circumstances in which employers unfairly typecast alcoholics who have sought treatment and who are not presently abusing alcohol, so as to ensure that such persons are afforded a fair opportunity at recovery. Said differently, the NYCHRL provides that, with respect to alcoholism, a person is considered to be disabled (so as to trigger the protections of that law) only when he or she "is recovering or has recovered" and "currently is free of such abuse" (§ 8-102 [16] [c]; see § 8-107 [1] [a] [3]).
A blog edited by Arbitrator Mitchell Rubinstein which is designed to inform employers, unions, individuals, and lawyers about my practice and about recent developments in the field of labor and employment law. Mitchell Rubinstein is a labor arbitrator and handles business and commercial arbitrations before FINRA.
Showing posts with label acloholism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label acloholism. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Mistaken Perception of Alcoholism Is Not Protected Under The NYC Human Rights Law
Makinen v. City of New York, ___N.Y.3d___(Oct. 17, 2017), is an interesting case to be aware of. The case addressed a certified question from the Second Circuit, namely whether the mistaken perception of alcoholism is protected under the NYC Human Rights Law and the Court concluded that it was not. As the Court explained:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Does Janus Invalidate Mandatory Bar Association Membership Fees
Several lawyers are challenging mandatory bar dues requirements after Janus. Until Janus, the law in most, if not all, jurisdictions was tha...
-
In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), the Supreme Court upheld a state law which required public sector employees to ...
-
Croci v. Town of Haverstraw , 175 F. Supp. 3d 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2016), is an important decision to be aware of. It is common for employees who...
-
Several lawyers are challenging mandatory bar dues requirements after Janus. Until Janus, the law in most, if not all, jurisdictions was tha...