New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Executive Law § 291 (2026)

Equality of opportunity a civil right

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 291. Equality of opportunity a civil right.
  1. The opportunity to obtain employment without discrimination because
of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender
identity or expression, military status, sex, marital status, or
disability, is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.
  2. The opportunity to obtain education, the use of places of public
accommodation and the ownership, use and occupancy of housing
accommodations and commercial space without discrimination because of
age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender
identity or expression, military status, sex, marital status, or
disability, as specified in section two hundred ninety-six of this
article, is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right.
  3. The opportunity to obtain medical treatment of an infant
prematurely born alive in the course of an abortion shall be the same as
the rights of an infant born spontaneously.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 55 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1968–2024 · leading case: Eugene Margerum v. City of Buffalo, 28 N.E.3d 515 (NY 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Eugene Margerum v. City of Buffalo, 28 N.E.3d 515 (NY 2015). · cites it 8× “to be a civil right"3 (Executive Law § 291 [1]). Since 1945, the legislature has amended the civil rights provision of the Human Rights Law several times, and on each occasion extended the provision's anti-discrimination protections (see L 1975, ch 803 [extending the prohibition…”

Dipilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). · cites it 2× “N.Y. Exec. Law § 291 (l)-(2). Defendants contend that § 291 does not provide an independent statutory basis for relief and that plaintiffs employment discrimination claims pursuant to §§ 296(l)(a) and 296(1-a)(b)-(c) articulate plaintiffs claims therein.”

Alexandra York v. Ass'n of the Bar of the City of New York, 286 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2002). “N.Y. Exec. Law § 291 (1), (2). The CHRL provides a similar right.”

Reyes Ex Rel. Reyes v. Fairfield Props., 661 F. Supp. 2d 249 (E.D.N.Y 2009). · cites it 2× “See N.Y. Executive Law § 291 (2). To the extent that plaintiffs assert a claim for race discrimination pursuant to this provision, such a claim *270 is dismissed with leave to replead, consistent with the discussion regarding the Section 1982 claim supra.”

Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 774 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2014). “, and the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 291 et seq., 6 as well as a common-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

Wilson v. Phoenix House, 42 Misc. 3d 677 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013). · cites it 8× “a declaratory judgment that defendants violated Executive Law § 291 et seq. (NYSHRL) and Administrative Code § 8-107 et seq.”

Fletcher v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., 619 N.E.2d 998 (NY 1993). · cites it 2× “The Human Rights Law makes the opportunity to obtain employment a civil right (Executive Law § 291). That section reads as follows: "The opportunity to obtain employment without *646 discrimination because of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sex or marital status is…”

Aurecchione v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 771 N.E.2d 231 (NY 2002). “The Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15), affords employees the opportunity to “obtain employment without discrimination” (Executive Law § 291 [1]). To ensure the protection of this right the Legislature enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme that provides employees with…”

Uddoh v. United Healthcare, 254 F. Supp. 3d 424 (E.D.N.Y 2017). “The New York legislature has prohibited discrimination based on various protected categories in specified circumstances, including sexual preference, see N.Y. Exec. L. § 291 (prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation); N.”

Skates v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport, 265 F. Supp. 3d 222 (E.D.N.Y 2017). “§ 1983 ; and (vi) racial discrimination and retaliation pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 291 et seq. See Docket Entry (“DE”) [1], Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.”

Yuka Kato v. Shintaro Ishihara, Governor, & Tokyo Metro. Gov't, 360 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2004). “Plaintiff filed claims under Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 291 et seq., and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, § 8-107.”

Caruso v. Bon Secours Charity Health Sys., Inc., 703 F. App'x 31 (2d Cir. 2017). “) and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 291 et seq. As relevant here, 1 Caruso, a woman in her early fifties who was born in Italy, alleged that she was wrongfully terminated due to her race, sex, national origin, and age, or as an act *33 of…”

Show all 55 citing cases →

— N.Y. Executive Law § 291(1) — 2 cases

Colon v. City of New York, 535 F. Supp. 1108 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).

Cdr Enter., Ltd. v. Bd. of Ed. of City of Ny, 412 F. Supp. 1164 (E.D.N.Y 1976).

— N.Y. Executive Law § 291(2) — 3 cases

Reyes Ex Rel. Reyes v. Fairfield Props., 661 F. Supp. 2d 249 (E.D.N.Y 2009). “See N.Y. Executive Law § 291 (2). To the extent that plaintiffs assert a claim for race discrimination pursuant to this provision, such a claim *270 is dismissed with leave to replead, consistent with the discussion regarding the Section 1982 claim supra.”

Jones v. Deutsch, 715 F. Supp. 1237 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).

Male v. Crossroads Assocs., 320 F. Supp. 141 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.