BILL NUMBER: S6470

SPONSOR: MAYER
 
TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the executive law, in relation to
expanding the scope of unlawful discriminatory practices to include
public education institutions

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL::

The purpose of this bill is to make technical corrections to A.3425
which passed the Assembly earlier this year

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS::

Section 1 of the bill would add a new § 292.35 to the Executive Law to
define "educational institution" to include language currently in Execu-
tive Law § 296.4, which prohibits discrimination in an "education corpo-
ration or association which holds itself out to the public to be nonsec-
tarian and exempt from taxation pursuant to the provisions of article
four of the real property tax law," and to expand the definition to
include "any public school, including any school district, board of
              

cooperative educational services, public college, or public university."
Section 2 of the bill would provide a technical amendment to remove the
language that would appear in the new definition of "educational insti-
tution" from § 296.4 of the Executive Law.Section 3 of the bill would
make it effective immediately.

 
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORIGINAL AND AMENDED VERSION:

Technical corrections have been made to correct the language.

 
JUSTIFICATION::

This bill would amend the Human Rights Law so that its Antidiscrimi-
nation provisions, which afford protection against discrimination,
harassment and bullying for members of protected groups, apply to public
educational institutions, and not just to private schools, as was held
in 2012 by the Court of Appeals. North Syracuse Central Sch. Dist. v.
N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights, 19 N.Y.3d 481, 950 N.Y.S.2d 67 (2012).
The right to be free from discrimination by educational institutions is
set out as one of the purposes of the New York State Human Rights Law,
the oldest anti-discrimination law in the country.  Thus, at the outset,
the Human Rights Law states: The legislature hereby finds and declares
that the state has the responsibility to act to assure that every indi-
vidual within this state is afforded an equal opportunity to enjoy a
full and productive life and that the failure to provide such equal
opportunity, whether because of discrimination, prejudice, intolerance
or inadequate education, training, housing or health care not only
threatens the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but
menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state and
threatens the peace, order, health, safety and general welfare of the
state and its inhabitants.  A division in the executive department is
hereby created to encourage programs designed to insure that every indi-
vidual shall have an equal opportunity to participate fully in the
economic, cultural and intellectual life of the state; to encourage and
promote the development and execution by all persons within the state of
'such state programs; to eliminate and prevent discrimination in employ-
ment, in places of public accommodation, resort or amusement, in educa-
tional institutions, in public services, in housing accommodations, in
commercial space and in credit transactions and to take other actions
against discrimination as herein provided; and the division established
hereunder is hereby given general jurisdiction and power for such
purposes. Exec. L. § 290.3. Moreover, in S 291 of the Human Rights Law
the "opportunity to obtain education" without discrimination is "recog-
nized and declared to be a civil right."  Exec. L. § 291.2. There is no
suggestion that the legislature intended to limit its application to
private schools. Indeed, addressing the inadequacy of education cannot
be achieved without holding public institutions accountable for discrim-
ination. In North Syracuse Central Sch. Dist. v. N.Y. State Div. of
Human Rights, supra, a case involving severe racial bullying of a young
girl, the Court of Appeals indicated that persons aggrieved by discrimi-
nation in public education are not without recourse. For example, New
York Education Law § 310 provides that a grievance may be filed with the
Commissioner of Education. However, none of these avenues of complaint
provide what private school students currently enjoy - an administrative
State forum where individual victims of bullying, harassment and other
discrimination are able to receive actual compensation for the harms
done to them. In her strong dissent to North Syracuse Central Sch. Dist.
v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights, Judge Ciparick noted that: It is
antithetical to the purpose of the Human Rights Law to exempt public
schools from its mandate. We have noted that discrimination is "all the
more invidious" when practiced by state run entities (Koerner v State of
N.Y, Pilgrim Psychiatric Ctr., 62 N.Y.2d 442, 448 (1984). The clear and
express intent of the Human Rights Law is to protect "every individual"
in the state from the evils of discrimination. Accordingly, the exten-
sion of coverage through the addition of a definition of "educational
institution" to include public as well private schools, would ensure
that the education provisions of the Human Rights Law fulfill the
intended purpose of the law.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY::

A.3425 (Dilan) - Passed both houses

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS::

None

 
EFFECTIVE DATE::

This act shall take effect on the same date and in the same manner as a
chapter of the laws of 2019, amending the executive law relating to
expanding the scope of unlawful discriminatory practices to include
public education institutions, as proposed in legislative bills numbers
A.3425 and S.4901, take effect.