On January 2, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated the New York Reproductive Health Bias Law’s requirement that New York State employers include a notice in their employee handbooks regarding the law’s prohibition on discrimination and retaliation based on employees’ reproductive health care choices.
Quick Hits
- The Second Circuit has revived a requirement that New York employers include in employee handbooks a notice informing employees of their right to be free from discrimination or retaliation based on their [the employees’] or their dependents’ reproductive health decisions.
- The ruling also revived a First Amendment challenge by religious organizations to New York’s Reproductive Health Bias Law (New York Labor Law Section 203-e), impacting how employers may address expressive association claims in the employment context.
In CompassCare v. Hochul, three religious groups—CompassCare, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), and First Bible Baptist Church—challenged the constitutionality of New York Labor Law Section 203-e, which went into effect in November 2019.
The law prohibits employers from accessing personal information regarding employees’ or their dependents’ reproductive health decision making without the employees’ “prior informed affirmative written consent.” The law also prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees based on their reproductive health decisions, “including, but not limited to, a decision to use or access a particular drug, device, or medical service.” Importantly, the law included a notice provision requiring employers to inform employees of their rights and remedies under the law in employee handbooks.
On March 29, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York entered a permanent injunction blocking the State of New York from enforcing the requirement that employers that issue employee handbooks “include in the handbook notice of employee rights and remedies under [Section 203-e].” The district court found that the notice provision of Section 203-e violated the First Amendment because it compelled speech that was contrary to the religious organizations’ religious beliefs as they related to reproductive choices.
The Second Circuit reversed that permanent injunction, finding the notice requirement “a content-based regulation of speech” that “is subject to … rational basis review.” Under that review, the Second Circuit found that the notice requirement did “not interfere with [the] [p]laintiffs’ greater message and mission” and that “the required disclosure of the existence and basic nature of an otherwise-valid statute” was a simple expression of employee rights, similar to many other required employment rights notices and postings.
Additionally, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration in light of the Second Circuit’s 2023 decision in Slattery v. Hochul, which held that an employer may have an associational rights claim if the law “forces [the employer] to employ individuals who act or have acted against the very mission of its organization.” (Emphasis in the original.)
The Second Circuit stated that to sustain such a claim, an employer must show that it does not simply hold particular views or interests but that an association threatens the “very mission” of the employer “in the context of a specific employment decision.” This showing would be based on an assessment of whether (1) a position at issue is client-facing or involves expressing the particular views of the employer, and (2) the conduct or specific attribute of an employee “renders the employment of that person, in that position, a threat to the employer’s mission,” the court stated.
Next Steps
As a result of this ruling, New York employers must immediately comply with the notice provision of Section 203-e. Thus, employers with New York employees that issue employee handbooks must include a notification to employees of their rights and remedies under Section 203-e in their employee handbooks or in an addendum containing New York–specific employment policies.
This requirement includes informing employees of their rights to make reproductive health decisions and not be discriminated against or retaliated against for such decisions.
With respect to the expressive association claim, employers, particularly those with specific missions or religious affiliations, may have grounds to challenge laws that they believe force them to employ individuals whose actions conflict with their organizational missions. However, such claims must be specific and demonstrate how the law threatens the organization’s mission in the context of particular employment decisions.
