Requires employment entities to engage in cooperative dialogue with persons requesting reasonable accommodations, or who such employment entities reasonably should have known may require such reasonable accommodations, due to disability, religion, or status as a victim of domestic violence.
S09860 amends New York’s Human Rights Law in the Executive Law to require “employment entities” to engage in a cooperative dialogue with people seeking reasonable accommodations. The bill defines cooperative dialogue as a good-faith written or oral process in which the employer, employment agency, labor organization, licensing agency, or their agents discuss the accommodation request, possible alternatives, and any difficulties the accommodation may create, with the goal of reaching an accommodation acceptable to both sides. The process is intended to continue expeditiously, be memorialized in writing, and be shared with the employee.
The bill also expands the reasonable-accommodation framework by clarifying that accommodations must be considered not only for known disabilities and pregnancy-related conditions, but also for conditions the entity “should reasonably have known” about. It makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employment entity to refuse or fail to engage in cooperative dialogue in three separate parts of the Human Rights Law covering employment, training, and other protected contexts. The bill takes effect immediately and would therefore create an affirmative legal duty for covered entities to participate in the dialogue process whenever an accommodation is requested or reasonably indicated.
If enacted, the bill would amend sections 292 and 296 of the Executive Law, strengthening enforcement of New York’s anti-discrimination and reasonable-accommodation requirements. It would impose a new statutory obligation on employers and other covered employment entities to engage in cooperative dialogue, and a failure to do so would itself be an unlawful discriminatory practice. The measure would affect employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, licensing agencies, and their agents, as well as employees, prospective employees, members, and applicants seeking accommodations related to disability, pregnancy-related conditions, and, according to the bill caption, religion and domestic-violence victim status.
The bill text and caption suggest a generally pro-accommodation, worker-protective policy approach, emphasizing inclusion in the workplace and a structured process for resolving accommodation requests. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, so no formal opposition or support is documented here. Based on the bill’s design, the likely sentiment is favorable among disability-rights and employee-protection advocates, with the main concern for covered entities being the added procedural and compliance burden.
The main point of contention is likely the new mandatory dialogue requirement, which goes beyond simply providing reasonable accommodations and makes the failure to participate itself actionable. Employers and other covered entities may view the standard as creating uncertainty about when they “should reasonably have known” of a need for accommodation and how far the good-faith dialogue obligation extends. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize that the bill prevents people from being pushed out of the workplace and creates a clearer, documented process for reaching accommodations. The caption also indicates broader coverage than the text excerpt alone highlights, including religion and domestic-violence-related status, which may be relevant to how the bill is understood and debated.