New York City workers will find it easier to pray on the job – and to thank God for having one in this economy -- if a bill passed by City Council yesterday becomes law.
At its one meeting this month, the council also voted to prevent the sale of drugs past their expiration debt and introduced a measure on immigration that could set up a rare between Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.
In a meeting devoid of controversy even by New York City Council standards, all measures passed unanimously.
The discrimination bill (Intro 632-A) introduced by Councilmember Mark Weprin essentially requires that public and private employers in New York City go to greater lengths to accommodate the religious practices of their employees. This cover such things as allowing workers to wear attire required by their religions, such as turbans for Sikhs, letting them pray at work and allowing them time off for religious practices.
Currently businesses, government and other employers can avoid allowing such religious practices if it would constitute a hardship. The intro raises the bar to require that the employer be able to prove that accommodating the employee would constitute "an undue hardship."
This, said City Councilmember Deborah Rose, chair of the civil rights committee, represents "a significant expansion of the definition."
"We have to make sure the standards we are instituting are the strongest in the nation," Weprin said, adding that the bill, if signed into law by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, would give New Yorker tougher protections than those called for in federal law.
"For too long," said Council Speaker Christine Quinn, "workers in the New York City have been forced to chose between a job they love and need to support their family, and the full practice of their religion."
The city's Sikh community played a role in advocating for the protection, Quinn and Weprin said. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has ordered that its Sikh employees put an MTA logo on the turban that Sikh men must wear at all time. Several Sikh transit workers have filed suit against this requirement.
At a press conference, Quinn said the bill was not prompted by any specific incident, She also declined to say specifically whether the police department, for example, would have to allow police officer to wear turbans on the job.
On the council floor, Weprin said his Sikh constituents "have often felt there might be discrimination against people who wear a turban or a beard." In a possible reference to the question of turbaned or hijab-clad police officers, he added, "If someone want to put their life on the line and maybe protect my family, we should accommodate" their religious practices.
Employers found to violate the law would face a $125,000 civil penalty and have to pay compensatory damages and back pay, and reinstate any affected workers.
The other bill passed yesterday – Intro 541, sponsored by Ruben Wills -- will fine anyone found to be selling medication after its expiration date.
The city already bars retailers from selling the old drugs, but the past-their-prime medications apparently show up at such places as the Aqueduct Flea Market and yard sales. This bill, barring individual from selling such drugs, aims to stop that.
Violators face a fine of up to $250 for a first violation and $500 each for subsequent violations. A single sale constitutes a violation.
The intro also gives the police department and Department of Consumer Affairs authority to enforce the measure.
The measure that probably sparked the most attention at yesterday's meeting though will not come up for a vote for weeks, if not months. Intro 656 would limit the extent to which the city Department of Correction could cooperate with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
Under the U.S. http://www.ice.gov/criminal-alien-program/ Criminal Alien Program, the Department of Correction gives names of people arrested to ICE so it can check whether they are immigrants. The department also will detains for an additional 48 hours people who have been found innocent or served their sentences to give ICE time to transfer the one-time inmates to a federal facility where they remain pending deportation hearings. (For more, see Concerns Raised over City Role in Deporting Immigrants.)
The legislation introduced yesterday disputes the use of taxpayer dollars to aid deportations. "New York City -- home to millions of immigrants -- should not be a willing participant in a program that separates thousands of immigrant families each year without a concomitant benefit to public safety," the intro says.
To accomplish this, the bill sets limits on who the Department of Correction can keep for the additional time. It would, for example, prevent the city from detaining or sharing information on most people who were arrested but then acquitted of the charges against them.
The measure has 35 sponsors, including Quinn, which almost guarantees passage. It could, though, face opposition from the Bloomberg administration. Although the mayor has supported immigration and issued an executive order that prohibits city workers from inquiring about immigration status when the people seek city services or witnesses a crime, his administration has defended the cooperation with ICE.
John Torres has always struggled with what to refer to his same-sex partner of four years, Eufemio, without making people feel uncomfortable. His mother calls Eufemio his "friend" and his landlord called him his "little buddy."
"I'm not 16. It's weird to call him my boyfriend," said John, 46, who legally changed his last name to adopt Eufemio's. They were married last December in Vermont, one of the six states that recognize same-sex marriage.
But this time, they are making it official in their home borough.
Both dressed in dashing tuxes, the Torreses left their house in Williamsburg early Sunday morning for the downtown Brooklyn office of the Marriage Bureau to tie the knot again.
But as they checked in, a city employee outside the Brooklyn municipal building asked to see their identifications. When they showed the worker their respective American and Mexican passports, they were told that they could not get married because of Eufemio's foreign passport. The couple refused to leave. After a few phone calls to the mayor's and city clerk's offices, they were allowed to enter the building.
"It was a few minutes of horror," said John afterward. "But we are used to it."
Once inside the building, they were warmly greeted by city workers and other couples waiting to get married. By noon, a judge had married the Torreses in Borough Hall. A champagne-and-cake reception hosted by Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz followed.
"Now I am going to refer to him as my husband," said John. "It might bother some people, but that's my prerogative."
Now officially husband and husband, or spouse A and spouse B as in their marriage license application, the Torreses were happy and emotional.
"I feel vindicated. I feel that I'm on the right side of the law," said John. "There is only one kind of marriage. We are just as married as my parents."
Not quite. They do not have many federal benefits that straight couples do. One of the most important ones is immigration. Eufemio is Mexican and is out of status in the United States, meaning he is either undocumented or his visa has expired. Unlike a citizen married to an immigrant of the opposition sex, John cannot sponsor Eufemio for a green card because the federal government does not recognize their marriage.
Lots of other other bi-national same-sex couples remain in a similar legal limbo because their marriages are recognized by only their states. Many couples have to move overseas or be separated. In some cases, the foreign spouse continues to live here without the proper documents or tries to obtain a non-immigrant visa, such as a student visa.
So far only Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York and Washington D.C. allow same-sex marriage. Internationally, 10 countries recognize it -- including Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden -- while several European Union countries recognize same-sex partners for the purpose of immigration.
In the United States, according to the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, passed in 1996, marriage is only between a man and a woman. Since the federal Department of Homeland Security handles immigration matters, including whether or not to issue a green card, no foreign national can obtain a green card through his or her American same-sex spouse.
"Marriage is a state issue. Same-sex marriage is not recognized at the federal level, and immigration is a federal issue," said Erwin de Leon, a columnist on gay and lesbian issues and immigrant advocate who has worked with Immigration Equality, a national organization advocating for immigrant rights. "Foreign same-sex spouse are at risks of deportation if their status expires."
De Leon said that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a law enforcement agency that is part of Homeland Security, is unlikely to go after these couples as long as they stay out of trouble. He noted that a recent memo issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief John Morton discussed who the agency views as its priority for removal from the country, including serious felons, people who pose a clear risk to national security and public safety, those with long criminal records and individuals involved in immigration fraud.
The memo also asked immigration officers and attorneys to consider a variety of conditions, such as health, education and age. The list mentioned the individual's ties and contribution to the community, including family relationships.
"Things are happening. I am hopeful that marriage equality will be more widespread and in time, DOMA will be repealed. But nothing is going to happen anytime soon," said de Leon. "The political reality is, with all the major problems in this country like the economy and wars, this is the last thing that politicians want to talk about."
The act, though, has been challenged in a number of suits. Last year, a Massachusetts judge struck down the act. As the cases wind their way through the legal system -- probably to eventually reach the Supreme Court -- the Obama administration has stopped defending the act in court, and several weeks ago even argued strongly against it.
The effects of the Defense of Marriage Act go far beyond immigration. Same-sex couples, for example, cannot be treated as married under federal tax law. A 2004 Government Accounting Officereport found that same-sex couples are denied access to more than 1,000 federal benefits.
To address the immigration issue specifically, U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York has sponsored the Uniting American Families Act. It would add three words "or permanent partner" wherever the word spouse appears in U.S. immigration law, opening the way for American citizens to petition for green cards for their foreign partners.
In a commentary on Politico after the bill was introduced, one of its authors, Rep. Mike Honda of California wrote: "We are a nation of immigrants, and our country deserves an immigration system that honors that legacy and supports key family values -- like keeping families intact. This act represents a giant step forward in that commitment. It provides a blueprint that respects families, strengthens our economy and fixes a badly broken system."
The legislation has been introduced in every session of Congress since 2000. This year, it has 119 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and 21 in the Senate, a record for the bill.
Sean Yang is a native of Taiwan who came to New York to study for a master's degree in accounting four years ago. Now with his degree at hand and having passed all four required exams for the certified public accountant license, he found himself in one of the toughest job market in decades. It was especially hard for him because he needed a work permit to work legally in the United States. He was only able to find a less-than-satisfactory job at a bank. The salary is below New York's living standard.
"I understand that companies want to hire Americans first," said Yang, who lives with his boyfriend. "But if I were a woman, I could marry my boyfriend and get a green card, which would allow me to work anywhere."
Yang said he believes that the immigration rights will eventually be granted to same-sex bi-national couples. "Probably in 20 years or so, but it doesn’t help me now," he said. "I wouldn't necessarily use it. But I wish I had that option."
For the Torreses, their concerns are more pressing. Eufemio had an accident at work a few years ago and hurt his eyes. His then employers did not take him to the hospital. Now he needs eye surgery. Fortunately, John was able to add him to his health plan from work. But John worries about the worse-case scenario.
"If I die unexpectedly," said John, Eufemio would "not be able to get my social security benefits, which I work all my life to pay into. He would only be able to get what's in my 401K retirement account.
The Torreses hope that things will change but they also have contingency plans if nothing pans out.
"We are saving more money than average couples, putting money away should disaster strike," said John.
If all else fails, the Torres said they will retire to Mexico, where Eufemio owns a house and can get universal health coverage. But they said they prefer to stay in New York.
"Mexico is a great place to visit, but New York is a great place to live," said John. "But if Mexico is the only place for us to stay together, we will go to Mexico. Nobody is separating us."
Larry Tung is a Brooklyn-based journalist and media artist.
For New Yorkers, parks are not simply aesthetically pleasing. In a city where people live in cramped spaces, parks offer a place -- an oasis -- to retreat from the chaos of the bustling sidewalks and colossal buildings. People go to these public spaces to read the paper on their lunch break, walk their dogs in the wee hours of the morning or sun bathe on a Sunday afternoon. Despite being public, parks provide New Yorkers with a kind of backyard -- a free space to enjoy a wide range of activities.
Lately, though, some New Yorkers have come to feel less free in their parks. In the past month, the New York City Parks and Recreation Department has started to enforce some highly contentious regulations. The city-wide smoking ban and the recent enforcement of quiet zones in designated areas of Central Park have garnered criticism from many New Yorkers. And the never-ending battle continues between artist vendors and the city government regarding sale of "expressive matter" in public parks.
While the administration maintains such controls make parks more enjoyable for all New Yorkers, some in the city wonder whether the government has over-regulated the parks, eroding their cherish role as a "free space."
On May 23, New York City instituted a ban on smoking in its 1,700 parks, 14 miles of city beach and on pedestrian malls such as Times and Herald Square. If caught with a cigarette, violators can face a fine of $50. Although this new law will be enforced by park officials -- not police -- the parks department "expects that New Yorkers will ask people to follow the law and stop smoking." This ban expands Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 2002 anti-smoking regulation, which outlawed smoking in restaurants and bars.
Many New Yorkers have lauded this new regulation and believe it will contribute to a healthier environment.
"There is a demonstrated health and maintenance management issues around smoking. Cigarette butts present a real problem to the parks department. We are supportive of that policy," said Alyson Beha, director of research, planning, and programs at New Yorkers for Parks.
Although many New Yorkers agree with Beha, others argue that banning cigarette smoking violates the civil liberties of smokers.
In a phone interview, Audrey Silk, the founder of the smokers advocacy group CLASH (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment said, "This isn't about public health; it's about control. It's a slippery slope." Silk believes that this issue is "not just about defending smoking" but a "matter of civil liberties that we are defending."
Silk and fellow CLASH supporters organized a "Smoke In The Park" protest on Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, on May 28 to express their contempt for the new smoking ban.
"There is no more trying to reason with the City Council and Mayor Bloomberg," said Silk, but her group plans to continue to press the issue. "We will never stop trying to get this done," she said.
Since the smoking ban went into effect on May 23, only one ticket has been issued by park officials. It went to a Daily News photographer who, for the benefit of a story, was hanging out on the High Line trying to get a ticket. She finally did, but not before, in the News' words, she and her colleague got " a first-hand look at the lax enforcement."
The fight over vendors goes back far longer. For years, New York's parks have served as a bastion for artists and vendors whose livelihood rests on sales to tourists and other park-goers. Artists from all over the city go to Manhattan's most celebrated parks to display their works --whether glorified paintings of New York or quirky souvenirs.
In the past year the city government has started to crack down on artists and other vendors who sell what is referred to as expressive matter in parks. In June 2010, the parks department proposed new limits, which designated where artist vendors could sell their artwork. They also limited the number of artists who could be present in one area (only one artist per spot). According to the department website, "expressive matter vendors may only vend expressive matter at the specifically designated spots identified by the commissioner."
The city wanted to enforce these new regulations in Central Park, the High Line, Battery Park and Union Square -- the four parks with the highest concentration of artist vendors. The city hoped that these new limits would decrease congestion on park sidewalks and pathways and allow for park-goers to enjoy the verdant scenery without the hustle and bustle of vendors.
This restriction spurred an uproar from parts of the artist community and others who felt it represented yet another curtailment of New Yorkers' civil liberties. Several artists sued the parks department, charging the rules infringed on their first amendment rights. The lawsuits have been going on for over a year within the state and federal courts. However, in May an appeals court ordered that a temporary restraining order be removed, allowing the city to proceed with enforcement of the limits.
Robert Lederman, the president of A.R.T.I.S.T. has been fighting the city government on this matter for years. "The whole idea of the first amendment is that the government cannot make laws that limit people's freedom of speech," he said. "If you can have giant advertisement banners in a park then why can't an artist show a picture?"
In the past few weeks, musicians also have come to feel they are a target of parks department rules as the city has started enforcement of "quiet zones" in Central Park. Eight of the park's most frequented spots, including Strawberry Fields and Bethesda Fountain, are now dotted with green signs officially designating them as "quiet zones" and prohibiting any musical instrument or amplified sounds. The signs have only been put up in Central Park so far.
"Quiet zones have been in place for decades. It's a new season. The parks are crowded. A lot park visitors want quiet zones. We are responding to all park users,” said Vickie Karp, a spokeswoman for parks department.
But for the many musicians who make their living playing in Central Park, these new quiet zones may end up costing them money. Tickets have been issued to musicians who have violated the rule, and there was even one arrest.
Vasyl Fomytskyi is a Urkainian cellist who has been playing in the hall of Bethesda Terrace for three and a half years. When asked about the new enforcement of quiet zones, he said, "I think it is very stupid. This spot has wonderful acoustics, and it makes our music sound even better. It is our right to play here."
Civil liberties and street artist advocates agree with Fomytskyi and the coterie of musicians who have practically become permanent fixtures in certain areas of Central Park.
Susie Tanenbum, cofounder of the Street Performer's Advocacy Projectbelieves, "Current policies framing artistic performances in New York’s streets and parks make it increasingly difficult for street musicians and dancers to exercise their First Amendment right to express themselves in public space,"
"And yet, for centuries, street performing has helped to make New York the vibrant cultural center that it is," she added.
Many New Yorkers feel that all these park restrictions constitute a clear breach of our first amendment rights.
James Keller immigrated to New York when he was in his early 20s and has lived here for 41 years. Keller believes that these regulations are yet another sign of governments trampling on our civil liberties.
"We are gradually starting to lose our freedom," he said.