Here is what they actually did. They closed the racist loophole of pronouncing ''oh no - I'm only a cultural nativist'.
Discrimination based on immigration status often overlaps with discrimination based on national origin23 and/or religion. The “line between discrimination based on ancestry or ethnic characteristics, and discrimination based on place or nation of . . . origin, is not a bright one,”24 and it is often difficult to disentangle the motivation behind discriminatory animus based on immigration status, national origin, and other protected categories. Individuals who feel they have experienced discrimination may file a complaint under any or all of these categories that relate to their claim.25
Here is the legal reasoning as to why they did it - and what they did exactly.
Legislative History
Local Law 97 of 1965 amended the NYCHRL to add “national origin” as a protected category in employment, public accommodations, and housing.27 Two decades later, the federal government passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”)—a statute that changed the landscape of immigration law by creating sanctions for employers who hire undocumented workers,28 legalizing the presence of certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants, and granting amnesty for all immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982.29 After the passage of IRCA, New York City found that some employers, in an effort to comply with the new federal law, were discriminating against immigrant New Yorkers by asking only “foreign-looking” individuals for work authorization documents or hiring only U.S. citizens.30 The New York State Interagency Task Force on Immigration Affairs similarly found that, due to IRCA, New York employers were engaging in practices that disadvantaged or discriminated against noncitizens by refusing to accept legally valid proof of residency, denying employment to those who experienced minor delays in gathering documentation, asking for documents only from individuals who they perceived to be foreign, and refusing to hire individuals not born in the U.S. 31 The City determined that immigrants “are often victims of discrimination and denied rights conferred upon them by the U.S. Constitution and other federal, state, and City law.”32 As a result, the City enacted Local Law 52 of 1989, adding “alienage and citizenship status” as a protected category to the NYCHRL, 33 providing anti-discrimination legal protections to documented and undocumented immigrants alike. 34
So the 'protected' category already existed.
And got extended to harassment:
In the workplace
As with other forms of harassment, employers are strictly liable for an unlawful discriminatory practice where the harasser exercises managerial or supervisory responsibility.85 Employers may be held liable for a non-managerial employee’s harassment if the employer: (1) knew about the employee’s conduct and “acquiesced in such conduct or failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action,”86 or (2) should have known about the employee’s discriminatory conduct and “failed to exercise reasonable diligence to prevent such discriminatory conduct.”87 Employer threats to call federal immigration authorities can constitute unlawful harassment under the NYCHRL when motivated, in whole or in part, by animus related to the employee’s actual or perceived immigration status and/or national origin. In addition, using the specter of calling immigration authorities or the police to force employees to work in unsafe, unequal, or otherwise unlawful conditions is unlawful harassment under the NYCHRL. 88 While reporting a violation of the law to the police is otherwise permitted, it is a violation of the NYCHRL when such action is taken or threats to take such action are made based solely on a discriminatory or retaliatory motive. If workers have engaged in any protected activity, such reports to authorities may be actionable as retaliation.89
In Housing
harassment related to immigration status or national origin covers a broad range of conduct and occurs generally when an individual is treated less well because of their actual or perceived immigration status or national origin. Such treatment may be demeaning, humiliating, or offensive. Even a single comment by a housing provider or agent made in circumstances where that comment would signal discriminatory views about immigration status or national origin may be enough to constitute harassment.100
In public accommodation (dont do it in public transportation, racists - BUT ONLY if you are working in public accommodation)
Harassment by providers of public accommodations because of an individual’s immigration status or national origin, or any other protected category, is unacceptable. Such harassing conduct may include an incident or behavior that makes a patron feel unwelcome, or that fosters an atmosphere that is demeaning, humiliating, or offensive. A single comment made in circumstances where that comment would signal discriminatory views about immigration status or national origin may be enough to constitute harassment.119 Harassment by providers of public accommodations may include comments, or jokes and can occur in public accommodations such as schools, hospitals, or public transportation.
There is a special clause for whats called Discriminatory Harassment. (Thats the threatening to call ICE onto someone part.)
Discriminatory Harassment The NYCHRL prohibits discriminatory harassment or violence motivated by an individual’s actual or perceived immigration status or national origin.130 Discriminatory harassment occurs when someone uses force or threatens to use force against a victim, or when someone damages or destroys another individual’s property, because of the victim’s actual or perceived immigration status or national origin. This form of discrimination does not require a special relationship, such as employer-employee, landlord-tenant, or between a provider of public accommodation and a customer.
As in all the other instances of harassment noted do require 'special relationship' as in 'holding power over someone', or interacting in a provider/customer relationship in public accommodation.
MEANING THE NORMAL CITZEN IS UNAFFECTED. If he doesnt threaten to call ICE on people.
So f*ck you and f*ck your lying blogs, you lying piece of...
There is also a clause against racial profiling in policework.
There is a clause that extends this to prohibiting Associational Discrimination
Associational Discrimination The NYCHRL’s anti-discrimination protections extend to prohibit unlawful discriminatory practices based on an individual’s relationship to or association with an individual who actually has or is perceived to have a particular immigration status, or because of their actual or perceived national origin.140 The law does not require a familial relationship for an individual to be protected by the association provision; the relevant inquiry is whether the covered entity was motivated by the individual’s association with an individual who has a particular immigration status or national origin.
But thats not free speech anymore (discrimination only concerns acts of disperate treatment.).
There is no mention in the act as to how large of a fine would be imposed. So in reporting thats probably just the top figure for violating 'protected categories' in general. No case law. No actual fine structures.
I doubt, let me rephrase, I HIGHLY DOUBT, that the normal metro worker engaging in this will be stuck with a 250.000 USD fine.
Also - take this as a very concrete example on how you f*cking right wing blogs lie to you on a daily basis, and you disaminate their crap into other communities for free.
A final f*ck you seems appropriate.
src:
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/immigration-guidance.pdf
