New York State’s Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (GENDA) adds "gender identity or expression" as a protected characteristic under New York’s civil rights laws. The statute defines gender identity or expression as a person’s actual or perceived gender-related identity, appearance, or behavior, regardless of their sex assigned at birth. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression in employment, housing, education, public accommodations, and credit decisions.

This law amends §§3216 ,3221, and 4303 of NYS Insurance Law, and amends §365-a of NYS Social Services Law to require that health insurance policies in New York State provide comprehensive contraceptive coverage. It mandates coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, including over-the-counter options when permitted by law.

Section 489-LLLL Participation of Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (MWBE), permits any city with a population of at least one million to establish programs that promote the use of minority- and women-owned business enterprises in construction projects connected to local property tax benefits. A city may adopt local laws or ordinances that require developers receiving tax exemptions, abatements, or deferrals to include certified MWBEs in construction or related project work.

The Constitution of the State of New York defines the rights of individuals and the structure of the state government. Several provisions function as the core constitutional bases for equality and nondiscrimination in the State of New York. Article I, Section 11 provides equal protection and bars civil rights discrimination on the grounds of race, color, creed, or religion.

In the case State v. Jackson (S.D. 1985), the defendant and his wife operated a club and escort service, and they were accused of inducing employees to engage in prostitution. Two women testified that the defendant personally hired them, arranged for them to provide nude dancing for and to have sexual intercourse with male clients in motel rooms, and then transported them to these encounters. Based on their testimony, the defendant was convicted on two counts of inducing another to become or remain a prostitute.

Two decisions, Hughes I (S.D. 1999) and Hughes II (S.D. 2001), arise from the termination of an elementary school guidance counselor after a third-grade student alleged sexual abuse by her father. The guidance counselor, doubting the child’s credibility, spoke directly with the child’s parents instead of reporting the allegations to school authorities or child protective services. The guidance counselor later admitted this during an investigation in which the father was charged with abusing another child.

In the case Chicoine v. Chicoine (S.D. 1992), the parties were married for three years before the wife engaged in a series of openly same-sex affairs. The husband obtained a temporary custody order for their two children and later filed for divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty. The trial court awarded custody to the husband, granted the wife restricted visitation including unsupervised overnight visits, and imposed an additional condition prohibiting unrelated women or gay men from being present during the visitation.

In State v. Webster, the defendant was convicted of grand theft by deception and appealed, arguing that the State engaged in unconstitutional gender discrimination during jury selection. Specifically, the prosecution used seven of its ten peremptory strikes to remove female jurors. The defendant claimed this was based on the stereotype that women would be more sympathetic toward him because he was a young and attractive man.

The plaintiff worked for Hy-Vee Foods for 13 years, until her termination in 2000. During her employment, she overheard derogatory remarks by the store director, including phrases such as “fire the bitch” and comments about another employee’s breast reduction. She reported these incidents to human resources and to the director of operations. Shortly after reporting these incidents, the director of operations terminated her, allegedly stating that “it wasn’t a workable situation anymore.” The plaintiff brought claims of sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge.

In Davis v. Wharf Resources (USA), Inc., 2015 S.D. 34, the plaintiff was an employee of Wharf Resources. She applied for a different position within the company, but the position was ultimately offered to a male employee. The plaintiff later learned that her supervisor had made disparaging remarks about women not belonging in mining. She raised concerns about discrimination to management, and several weeks later, she was terminated for alleged disruptive and hostile behavior. She filed a gender discrimination and retaliation claim.