BILL NUMBER: S9284
SPONSOR: MYRIE
 
TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the executive law, in relation to providing for the
establishment of a nexus with the state of New York relating to unlawful
discriminatory practices
 
PURPOSE:
To restore and clarify the remedial scope of the New York State Human
Rights Law (NYSHRL) by ensuring that unlawful discriminatory practices
with a sufficient nexus to New York are actionable, regardless of where
the discriminatory impact is felt.
 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1 amends section 300 of the executive law to clarify that, with
respect to employers, licensing agents, labor organizations, and their
agents, an unlawful discriminatory practice need not have an in-state
impact to be actionable where the conduct has a sufficient nexus to New
York. Defines "conduct" to include decisions, actions, failures to act,
and the promulgation or maintenance of policies. Establishes that a
sufficient nexus exists where the aggrieved person is a New York resi-
dent during any portion of the relevant time, the conduct relates to
employment or an independent contractor relationship located in whole or
in part in New York, or the conduct occurred in whole or in part in New
York. Further clarifies when employment or contractor relationships are
considered located in New York, including periodic physical presence,
regular services performed in the state, or reporting relationships tied
to New York. Authorizes factfinders to determine nexus based on other
facts and circumstances. Creates affirmative defenses where respondents
demonstrate lack of authorization to do business, lack of actual busi-
ness activity, and non-residency, or where New York involvement in a
decision was merely transient and incidental.
Section 2 sets forth the effective date.
 
JUSTIFICATION:
The New York State Human Rights Law is intended to be construed liberal-
ly to accomplish its remedial purposes and maximize deterrence of
discriminatory conduct. However, judicial interpretations-most notably
in Hoffman v. Parade Publishing-have significantly narrowed the stat-
ute's reach by imposing an "impact in New York" requirement for many
non-resident workers. In Hoffman, the Court of Appeals held that the
NYSHRL and NYCHRL do not apply to non-residents unless the discriminato-
ry conduct had an impact within New York. Courts have since applied this
rule rigidly, even where New York has substantial connections to the
alleged discrimination.
Recent court decisions demonstrate the problem. King v. Aramark Servs,
Inc. (2d Cir. 2024) denied protection despite the plaintiff working
remotely from New York and experiencing misconduct there. Stashak V.
Phreesia, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2026) dismissed claims even though the employer
was based in New York and the contract applied New York law. Pedroza v.
Ralph Lauren Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 2020) rejected claims despite regular work
travel to New York and oversight of New York employees. Schaffer v.
GeneDx, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2026) dismissed claims where discriminatory deci-
sions were made in New York. Pakniat v. Moor (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)
dismissed claims even though the termination decision occurred in New
York. Meka v. Deloitte LLP (S.D.N.Y. 2025) and Trotter v. National Foot-
ball League (S.D.N.Y. 2024) similarly relied on Hoffman to dismiss
plaintiffs NYSHRL's claims
These outcomes undermine the Legislature's directive that the NYSHRL be
construed liberally. In today's remote and hybrid work environment,
discriminatory decisions are frequently made in one jurisdiction while
felt in another. The rigid "impact" test allows employers with signif-
icant New York operations to evade accountability based on technical
geography.
This bill restores the statute's intended breadth by adopting a clear
"sufficient nexus" standard. It ensures that New York residents are
protected even when working remotely, that workers tied to New York
employment relationships are covered, and that discriminatory decisions
made in New York remain actionable. At the same time, the bill includes
targeted affirmative defenses to prevent overreach where New York's
connection is truly incidental.
By clarifying the law, the Legislature will close an increasingly common
loophole, provide predictability to courts and employers, and reaffirm
New York's strong commitment to combating workplace discrimination.
 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
This is a new bill.
 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.

Statutes affected:
S9284: 300 executive law