The world of civil rights and employment law is undergoing a significant shift at the federal level, particularly concerning how we address discrimination. Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a final rule that dramatically alters federal enforcement under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This change, while technical in nature, has profound implications for how we tackle racial inequality in America. But here’s a crucial point: New York State is standing firm, and, in many ways, offers stronger protections than what is now being prioritized federally. Let's break it down. What Just Happened Federally: The End of "Disparate Impact" in Federal Enforcement For decades, federal agencies used two main legal theories to fight discrimination: Intentional Discrimination: This is the obvious kind, when someone is explicitly denied a job or service because of their race, color, or national origin. This remains illegal. Disparate Impact: This...
The recent $16.75 million settlement reached by New York Attorney General Letitia James with DoorDash is more than just a large financial penalty; it's a powerful statement about consumer protection and worker compensation in the gig economy. At its core, this case reveals how an allegedly deceptive business practice can run afoul of New York state law and the significant legal consequences that follow. The Core Allegation: Deception and Misleading Practices The essence of the DoorDash investigation focused on the company's payment model used between May 2017 and September 2019. The Attorney General alleged that DoorDash misled both customers and delivery workers ("Dashers") regarding the handling of tips. 1. The Tip-Subsidization Scheme In this model, DoorDash guaranteed Dashers a minimum payment for a delivery. The deception was not that tips were withheld entirely, but that they were used to subsidize DoorDash's own pay obligations: The Customer...