1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |NYC Delays Enforcement of Automated Employment Decision Tools Law

NYC Delays Enforcement of Automated Employment Decision Tools Law

Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.13.22

New York City has just announced that it will delay enforcement of Local Law 144, which will require employers and employment agencies using automated employment decision tools to ensure that a bias audit is conducted prior to the use of such tools, and will require notice of the use of such tools to covered candidates or employees.  The NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection is planning a second public hearing on the law, due to the high volume of public comments received in response to its proposed rules.  The agency is currently planning to delay enforcement of the rule until April 15, 2023.  We will continue to monitor for updates.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25

File First, Facts Later? Eleventh Circuit Says That Discovery Can Inform False Claims Act Allegations in Amended Complaints

On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending.  Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss.  And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit.  Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage.  Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending.  While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss....