Prohibits discrimination by educational institutions and requires that information on the school violence hotline shall be posted in schools

Summary of provisions

Section 1 of the bill would amend Executive Law § 292 to add a new subdivision 35 to define "educational institution" as: (1) an education corporation 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; or (2) any public school, including any school district, board of cooperative educational services (BOCES), public college, or public university.

Section 2 of the bill would amend Executive Law § 296(4) to clarify that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any educational institution, public as well as private, to deny the use of its facilities to a student based on race, color, religion, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex age or marital status.

Section 3 of the bill would add a new Education Law § 2801(4-a) to require that a conspicuous notice be posted in each school that would contain the email and telephone contact information for the school violence hotline maintained by the State Education Department at the New York State Center for School Safety, as well as the circumstances under which and place where complaints may be filed with the Division of Human Rights.

Section 4 of the bill would provide for an immediate effective date.

Existing law

Executive Law § 296(4) provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for any "education corporation 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" to deny the use of its facilities to a student based on race, color, religion, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, age or marital status.

For over twenty years, the Division of Human Rights (DHR) has construed this provision to grant it jurisdiction over public school districts. Recently, however, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that Executive Law § 296(4) does not provide DHR with

jurisdiction over public school districts. See East Meadow Union Free School District v. N.Y.S. Division of Human Rights, 65 A.D.3d 1342 (2d Dep't 2009), Iv. denied, Motion No. 2010-307 (May 6, 2010).

Statement in support

The right to be free from discrimination by educational institutions is set out as one of the purposes of Article 15 of the Executive Law ("Human Rights Law"), the oldest anti-discrimination law in the country. Executive Law § 290(3) states:

The legislature hereby finds and declares that the state has the responsibility to act to assure that every individual 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...eliminate and prevent discrimination in...educational institutions...; and the division established hereunder is hereby given general jurisdiction and power for such purposes.

Similarly, Executive Law § 291(2) recognizes that the "opportunity to obtain education" without discrimination on all the bases covered by the Human Rights Law is "recognized and declared to be a civil right."

In its recent holding that the DHR had no jurisdiction over Human Rights Law violations occurring at public schools, the Appellate Division relied solely on the language of Executive Law § 296(4), without considering the principles set out in Executive Law §§ 290(3) and 291(2). See East Meadow Union Free School District, 65 A.D.3d at 1343-44. However, the Human Rights Law's purpose of ensuring every individual in the State an adequate education cannot be achieved without holding public institutions accountable for discrimination. Consistent with the broad principles and purposes of sections 290(3) and 291(2), this bill would specifically overturn the East Meadow Union Free School District decision by unambiguously providing that access to public schools without unlawful discrimination is protected under the education provisions of the Human Rights Law. This clarification of the definition of covered entities under Human Rights Law § 296(4) will ensure that the education provisions of the Human Rights Law fulfill the intended purpose of the law.

Recent reports of suicides of school children who have been subjected to bullying and cyber-bullying have made it clear that school officials must be vigilant in their efforts to prevent these incidents and to protect students who are subjected to bullying. However, if a person who is the subject of bullying feels that school officials are unwilling or unable to prevent the bullying behavior, or if a person is uncomfortable reporting to local officials that he or she is being subjected to bullying, this bill makes available to the bullied person information necessary to seek redress from State officials. SED already maintains a hotline through which students and parents can

seek assistance from the New York Center for School Safety. By requiring that the hotline number be posted in each school, students will be better able to access that State assistance.

Similarly, requiring the posting of information that may assist students and parents to file Human Rights Law complaints will help to prevent and resolve any unlawful discriminatory practices that may occur on school property.

Budget implications

This bill would have no fiscal impact on the Division of Human Rights, which has for over twenty years accepted and investigated complaints against public educational institutions alleging discrimination in education. It would have minimal State and local fiscal impacts.

Effective date

This bill would become effective immediately.