For a statute that was passed after years of debate and rebuke, one would think all its challenges had been addressed and interpretations considered. Instead, however, the most basic rights protected by GENDA face relentless fundamental attacks; both current and moving in real time; including legislative attempts to change court rulings.

Changes and Challenges

Effective February 24, 2019, one of the law’s earliest applications involved individual name changes for transgender individuals. In In the Matter of M.M.H., Petitioner for Leave to Change Petitioner’s Name to S.J.H., the Erie County Supreme Court cited GENDA in finding a “reinforced and clarified public policy” of “extending protection to an individual’s identity or expression”. In determining that the Petitioner should be exempt from the requirement of publishing their Name Change Order publicly, the Court held that they only needed to show a general concern for their safety, not any specific threat to them personally; and that GENDA’s mere existence was evidence that being transgender warranted protection.

On the litigation front, most of the first cases of note were originally filed in the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). In 2018, the Second Department upheld a DHR award of over $130,000 in back wages and $30,000 in emotional damages, to a woman who was fired because she was transgender. In 2020, the Division found probable cause to believe that Buffalo News/Gannett had engaged in discriminatory activity when it refused to hire a transgender news editor. That case settled. In 2022, the then-Director of the Rochester PBA filed a complaint with DHR for sexual orientation discrimination. After DHR found probable cause, they filed a civil lawsuit that remains active to this day.

More recently, the debate around GENDA has heated up. In Berkemeier v. Genesee Country Museum,
Liberty Counsel filed an action challenging GENDA as unconstitutional. Specifically, the Plaintiff, on behalf of an employee, argues that the Law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because using chosen pronouns is the same as forcing her to “bear false witness”. As a result, she requested an accommodation to be excluded from some of the museum’s DEAI policies.

More famous are the cases involving bathrooms and sports.

In Nassau County, a Local Law (No. 121-24) was passed in 2024 that banned transgender women from participating in women’s sports at county parks and facilities. The law was passed after an Executive Order issued by the County Executive for the same purpose was struck down by courts. The New York Attorney General sued to invalidate it. There is currently an injunction against enforcing the Local Law while the case works its way through the courts on the question of whether it violates Human and Civil Rights laws.

In April of this year, also in a community on Long Island, a school district passed a policy prohibiting transgender students from using facilities that do not correspond to their gender assigned at birth. The New York Civil Liberties Union took the lead on litigation there. On April 20, 2026, the State Department of Education ruled in favor of transgender students, finding that the policy was contrary to state law.

These are interesting, active developments in GENDA jurisprudence; but they are also the outliers. This issue actually comes up every day in what appears to be the most mundane—and yet liability-incurring—ways.

Pitfalls and Practice Tips

On the most basic operational front, when a person advises that they want a particular pronoun used in addressing them, employers have to respect that. If the pronoun is new, then new business cards should be issued; electronic signatures should be changed; and co-workers should start to address one another with the correct pronouns. Refusal to use chosen pronouns will most likely be interpreted under New York laws as deliberate discrimination.

Beyond intentional discrimination, however, the law looks to disparate impact in analyzing liability. Employer dress codes and grooming standards should be gender-neutral. Pay disparities should be based on legitimate, identifiable bases. Job applications, recruitment materials, and onboarding documents should eliminate gender-binary assumptions.

As always, the best way to handle this issue is by being proactive. Employers should make sure their anti-discrimination and harassment policies and training include gender identity and expression. They should make sure their vendors are trained and provide certificates. Adverse employment actions need to be documented; discipline has to be executed so that there is no room for an accusation of retaliation. Health plans need to be evaluated for coverage of gender-affirming care. And, particularly relevant to GENDA-related issues is that health records and complaints need to be kept confidential—in separate files away from the rest of an employee’s personnel file.