BILL NUMBER: S4901

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 educational institutions

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

The purpose of the bill is to extend the anti-discrimination protections
of Article 15 of the Executive Law ("Human Rights Law") to cover public
as well as private schools.

 
SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC 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 non-
sectarian 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.

 
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.in North S racuse Central Sch. Dist. v.
N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights, 19 N.Y.3d 481, 9 50 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 antidiscrimination law in the country.

Section 291 of the Human Rights Law the "opportunity to obtain educa-
tion" without discrimination is "recognized 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, address-
ing the inadequacy of education cannot be achieved without holding
public institutions accountable for discrimination. 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 discrimination 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 Educa-
tion. 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 in 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 extension of coverage through the addition of a defi-
nition 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:
2009-2010: A.11563/S.8436
2011-12: A.8094/S.5823 2
2013-14: A.6807/S.4606
2016: A.9761/S.7457

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately.