Employment Discrimination Help

New York Department of Labor


Unemployment Insurance (UI)

Individual UI Claim Assistance
(888) 209-8124
(877) 358-5306 (Outside NYS)

Other UI Contact Information
NY.GOV ID Assistance
(800) 833-3000
General Inquiries Unrelated to Individual UI claim assistance
(518) 457-9000
(888) 4-NYSDOL (888-469-7365)
(800) 662-1220 TTY/TTD

National Labor Relations Board

The National Labor Relations Board protects the rights of most private-sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions. If you believe your rights have been violated, or that an employer or a union has engaged in unlawful conduct, you may file a charge through one of our regional offices. Petitions for representation and decertification elections may also be filed at regional offices.


Regional Office
26 Federal Plaza
Room 3614
New York, NY 10278-0104
Phone: (212) 264-0300
Fax: (212) 264-2450
8:45am - 5:15pm ET

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

New York Field Office:

Location: 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10004

Phone: 1-800-669-4000

Fax: 212-336-3790

TTY: 1-800-669-6820

Director: Kevin J. Berry

Regional Attorney: Robert Rose

Office Hours: The New York District Office is open Monday-Friday from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Intake hours are Monday - Friday, from 9:00am to 3:00 pm. We encourage you to call our 800 number listed above for information, and pre-screening by an intake information representative before you visit our office.

EEOC Compliance Manual

EEOC Enforcement Guidelines

2nd Circuit Decisions

Recent Decision on Employment law by U.S. Supreme Court

As appeared in the ABA and SCOUTS publications

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc

To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an applicant need show only that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer actually knew of his need. read here

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

Employee retaliation claims filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be proved according to traditional principles of but-for causation, not the lessened causation test stated in the 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(m). read here

Vance v. Ball State University

In Vance, the Supreme Court defined “supervisor,” clarifying the Title VII vicarious liability rule for a supervisor’s harassment of an employee. In Vance, Maetta Vance sued her employer, Ball State University (BSU), alleging that another employee subjected her to a racially hostile work environment. The Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s decision, and held that BSU was not liable for harassment under Title VII as the employee accused of wrongdoing was not a supervisor. The alleged harasser lacked the ability to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” Vance. The Supreme Court rejected the EEOC’s definition of supervisor and noted that an employee’s “ability to direct another employee’s tasks is simply not sufficient” to establish employer liability under Title VII. read here

Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczk

In Symczk, the Supreme Court held that when a single plaintiff in an uncertified collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) receives an offer from all defendants to satisfy her claims in full, that case becomes moot and subject to dismissal. At trial, Laura Smyzck argued that her employer, Genesis Healthcare Corp. (GHC), violated the FLSA by unlawfully making automatic deductions for its employees’ meal breaks. GHC made an offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 in full satisfaction of the Symczk’s alleged damages, fees, and costs. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit’s decision and held that employers may terminate uncertified collective action lawsuits under the FLSA, where no other individuals have joined the action, by agreeing to pay the putative class representative the entire amount of damages claimed. The Court ruled that “the mere presence of collective-action allegations in the complaint cannot save the suit from mootness once the individual claim is satisfied.” read more

U.S. Airways v. McCutchen

McCutchen resolved a circuit court split regarding the proper interpretation of the terms of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan. The employee in McCutchen suffered injuries from an automobile accident that occurred during his employment with U.S. Airways. U.S. Airways’ self-insured group health plan, under which McCutchen had coverage, paid $66,866 of his medical bills. For $110,000, McCutchen settled a lawsuit against the insurance company that covered the driver who caused the automobile accident. McCutchen’s net recovery was $66,000 after he paid 40 percent in attorney fees. The terms of U.S. Airways’ group health plan required McCutchen to reimburse the plan for “amounts paid for claims out of any monies recovered from a third party.” McCutchen asserted that in interpreting group health plans, a court may use equitable principles effectively to reduce the amount a plan stands to recover by the amount the participant paid in attorney fees. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, however, and held that equitable defenses cannot trump a plan’s terms setting forth the right to reimbursement. Nonetheless, the Court held that parties may rely upon equitable principles, to “fill gaps” left by the plan or to help interpret ambiguous plans. read here