Each week, significant developments in employment law affect New York workers. Here is a plain-English summary of the most important developments from the week of September 14 through September 20, 2026, and what they mean if you are a New York employee.

$230,000 ADA Settlement: Your Employer Cannot Blame Its Leave Vendor

The most significant development this week is a $230,000 settlement announced by the EEOC involving a long-tenured employee who sought intermittent leave for chemotherapy. According to the agency, the employer referred her to a third-party benefits administrator to process the leave request — and then the leave was never actually granted. Cancer-related absences generated attendance points under the employer's automated system, and she was eventually fired.

The employer's defense — essentially, that it handed the matter off to a vendor and the vendor failed — did not hold up. The settlement requires the employer to designate a liaison specifically responsible for communications with the leave administrator and to revise its accommodation procedures. The message from the EEOC is clear: an employer cannot treat referral to its leave vendor as the end of its legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

What this means for you: If you requested a medical leave or disability accommodation and were told to contact a third-party administrator — and then your leave was denied, delayed, or simply never processed — your employer may still be legally responsible for what happened. The fact that HR pointed you to an outside vendor does not transfer the employer's legal duty to accommodate you. If absences related to a medical condition were counted against you in an attendance system while your accommodation request was pending or lost in a vendor's process, that is exactly the kind of fact pattern that can support a legal claim. Document every step: who you contacted, when, what they told you, and what happened to your attendance record in the meantime.

Two Pregnancy Accommodation Cases Resolved — With an Important Distinction

The EEOC announced resolutions in two separate pregnancy-related cases this week, totaling more than $97,000. The cases illustrate a distinction that comes up frequently in pregnancy accommodation matters: the difference between an accommodation an employee actually requested and an employer's unilateral decision to remove a pregnant employee from her job.

In one case, an employee was fired after objecting to a reassignment involving X-ray equipment — a change her doctor advised against. In the other, an employer simply stopped scheduling a pregnant employee after she disclosed her pregnancy, even though her doctor had imposed no work restrictions at all. Both employees were effectively pushed out of their jobs. But the legal theories differ: one involves a failure to accommodate a documented medical need, and the other involves an employer making assumptions about what a pregnant employee can or cannot do without any medical basis for those assumptions.

What this means for you: Pregnancy discrimination does not always look like an outright firing. It can look like a sudden schedule reduction, a reassignment to a less desirable role, or an employer deciding on your behalf that you cannot handle your normal duties — without asking you or your doctor. If your employer changed your job, your schedule, or your assignments after you disclosed a pregnancy, and you did not ask for those changes, that may be discrimination rather than accommodation. The key question is: who decided you could not continue your existing work, and on what basis?

A Caution on Harassment Case Valuations

The EEOC also announced a $60,000 settlement this week covering at least three women who experienced owner-level sexual harassment — including sexual comments and unwanted touching — at a home-care company. One employee resigned as a result. The settlement also requires an outside monitor and reporting reforms.

The relatively modest dollar amount for serious alleged conduct is a useful reality check. Settlement value in harassment cases depends heavily on economic losses — how long the employee was out of work, what they earned before and after, and how quickly they found comparable employment. A case with strong liability facts but limited wage loss will not automatically produce a large monetary recovery. That does not mean the case lacks value — nonmonetary terms like policy changes, neutral references, and personnel-file corrections can matter significantly — but it does mean that documenting your economic losses is just as important as documenting the harassment itself.

What this means for you: If you experienced harassment and left your job as a result, keep records of your job search, every application you submitted, every offer you received, and what you ultimately earned in your next position. That documentation directly affects the monetary value of your case. An employment attorney can help you understand how to calculate and present your damages.

Have Questions About Your Rights?

The developments described here are summaries of complex legal matters — not legal advice about your specific situation. If something in this week's roundup resonates with what you are experiencing at work, I offer free consultations and am glad to talk through what you are seeing.