Many employees still believe workplace discrimination has to be obvious to be unlawful. A slur. A threat. A supervisor who says the quiet part out loud.

But some of the most harmful discrimination in modern workplaces looks nothing like that. It shows up as a rule that sounds neutral and is applied to everyone, yet consistently harms one group more than others. Employers call it efficiency. Standardization. Policy. And for a long time, that framing made it harder for workers to challenge.

New York law has now made clear what many employees already know from experience. Discrimination does not require bad intent. It can be proven by impact.

New York recently amended the New York State Human Rights Law to expressly codify disparate impact as a basis for employment discrimination claims. Under the amended statute, an unlawful discriminatory practice may be established by a practice’s discriminatory effect, even if the employer did not intend to discriminate. In other words, a policy can violate the law because of what it does, not just why it was adopted.

For employees, this matters because many workplace barriers today are built into systems rather than individuals.

A company adopts a rigid attendance policy that predictably penalizes employees with certain disabilities. A promotion process relies heavily on subjective scoring and consistently disadvantages women or older workers. A hiring screen filters out candidates based on criteria that disproportionately exclude people of color. A background check policy knocks out applicants in ways that fall hardest on certain communities. An algorithm decides who advances and who does not, and no one can explain why the results look the way they do.

None of this requires a manager to express bias out loud. But the consequences can be just as real.

Disparate impact focuses on the gap between how a policy is described and how it actually operates in practice. It asks who is affected, how, and what the result is.

This does not mean employers cannot set standards or run their businesses. The law does not punish ordinary management. But when a rule predictably produces discriminatory effects, New York law now provides a more straightforward path for employees to challenge it.

The statute reflects a familiar framework. Employers may defend a challenged practice by showing it is job-related and consistent with business necessity, and that there is no alternative approach that would serve the same business purpose with less discriminatory effect. This is often where factual disputes live. Many employers adopt policies without considering whether there are less harmful ways to achieve the same goal.

Uniformity, however, is not always fairness. And in New York, it is not always lawful.

New York City law has long recognized disparate impact claims. The State’s amendment makes clear that this theory is now expressly available statewide under the New York State Human Rights Law. That alignment matters for workers outside the City and reinforces that outcomes matter across New York.

Disparate impact discrimination often unfolds quietly. Because the rule applies to everyone, employees tend to internalize the result. They assume they were not good enough. They believe they just did not fit. It can take time to notice that the same kinds of people are consistently being filtered out, disciplined, or denied opportunities.

When those patterns come into focus, intent becomes less critical than effect. The law asks whether a neutral practice predictably shuts certain people out because of a protected characteristic such as race, age, disability, sex, religion, or another protected trait.

If you are wondering whether this applies to your situation, the starting point is not motive. It is a pattern. What exactly is the rule? How is it used? Who tends to be harmed by it? And is there a realistic alternative that would achieve the same business goal with less discriminatory impact?

These are not abstract questions. They are the questions that determine whether a policy is merely inconvenient or whether it crosses a legal line.

At Risman and Risman, P.C., we represent New York employees who are trying to make sense of workplace decisions that do not feel accidental. We look beyond surface explanations and examine how policies operate in practice, who they affect, and what the law requires.

If you believe a workplace policy is harming you or others because of a protected characteristic, and the employer insists it is neutral, we can help you understand your options.

For a free confidential consultation, contact us at 212-233-6400 or online.