[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. New York City continues to await a decision by the Manhattan DA over whether to indict the subway choker Daniel Penny in the death of Jordan Neely. The medical examiner has determined, as you know, that the compression of Neely's neck is what killed him. DA Alvin Bragg can decide on charges himself or in panel of grand jury for further deliberations.

Yesterday, Mayor Adams used the killing to double down on his previously announced policy of involuntary hospitalization for people with mental illness deemed a danger to themselves or others or incapable of taking care of themselves. He proposed that the state legislature enact a new law that he calls the Supportive Interventions Act.

Mayor Adams: Supportive Interventions Act would make it clear in the law itself what New York courts have already said in interpreting it. When mental illness prevents a person from meeting their basic needs to such an extent that they are a danger to themselves, the state has the authority to intervene. The bill would also make it crystal clear to our hospitals that a person should not be released from psychiatric care simply because they have calmed down and appear stable in the moment. People in crisis often need extended hospital care to fully recover.

Brian Lehrer: Mayor Adams yesterday. Advocates are frustrated that the mayor keeps talking more about forcing homeless people and mentally ill people to do things by coercion rather than as much about housing, but the mayor did also say this relevant to the death of Jordan Neely.

Mayor Adams: No family should have to suffer a loss like this, and too many Black and Brown families bear the brunt of system long overdue for reform. Our work starts with acknowledging that we must reverse the effects of decades of disinvestment in housing, healthcare and social services.

Brian Lehrer: We'll talk in a minute to a city Councilmember who was on both the housing and mental health committees. Also last night, housing-related, Gothamist reports that the mayor issued an executive order allowing city officials to bypass certain portions of New York City's decades' old right-to-shelter law, which obligates the city to provide a bed to anyone who asks for one. This is in relation to the 60,000-plus asylum seekers from nearby countries who have come to or been sent to New York over the last year, and with a new wave expected as pandemic era restrictions at the border are expiring today.

The executive order as first reported by Gothamist suspends certain minimum shelter requirements including a rule which requires those seeking shelter to receive a bed within a certain timeframe. It would also allow the city to avoid fulfilling a requirement that families have units with access to a bathroom, refrigerator, and kitchen. Suspending those city shelter rights came on the same day that the mayor backed off a plan to house 340 migrant men in a hotel in Rockland County following local opposition there.

We're keeping our eye on city council today for another reason too. They are expected to pass a bill today to ban discrimination in the city based on your height or your weight. With us now is the lead sponsor of that bill, who also, relevant to the Jordan Neely-Daniel Penny story and the right-to-shelter story, is on the Committee on Mental Health, Addiction and Disabilities, and the Committee on Housing and Buildings. He is New York City Councilmember Shaun Abreu whose district spans north from the Upper West Side through Morningside Heights, West Harlem, Manhattan Valley, Manhattan Ville, Hamilton Heights and Washington Heights. Councilmember Abreu, thanks for coming on again. Welcome back to WNYC.

Councilmember Councilmember Abreu: Hey, Brian, thank you so much for having me back. Today is a big day for Manhattan, for the City of New York and really for the country. We are banning discrimination on height and weight, which we see as a civil rights issue that's been long overdue. We've heard the testimonies at the City Council of people's experiences with wage discrimination. We've heard stories of people, especially women, who gained baby weight during the pandemic, and when they came back to work, lost on commission because they were sent to the back of the store.

We've heard a dietitian testify that she couldn't become a dietitian anymore because of the way she appeared. She appeared bigger than her average peers. We also heard of a person testify that she did well with her job interview over the phone, but when she showed up, she was told that she could not keep up with a fast-paced work environment, and she was later ghosted. These are the stories that we want to put an end to, by creating a legal remedy for people to bring in cases, but also to change the culture around weight and how we think about weight.

Brian Lehrer: Lots of people are talking about weight discrimination these days. Why did you include height in the same bill? Do you think that's a widespread problem, too?

Councilmember Abreu: Yes, height is also a widespread problem. Smaller people are perceived as having mental illness or being less productive and society rejecting them. It's important that people of all bodies, all sizes are treated with dignity and respect, that we change the way we think about people who come in different sizes, and that's what this bill aims to do, provides a legal remedy before the Commission on Human Rights. People can now bring a claim, but also now force employers to think twice before they act.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we will make Councilmember Abreu's bill the heart of the call-ins for this conversation, though we will also get to the Jordan Neely-Daniel Penny case, and the mayor's new limits on the right-to-shelter policy too, but help us report this story. Have you ever been discriminated against in the workplace based on your weight? 212-433-WNYC. What about your height? 212-433-9692.

The business lobby, and we'll get to their objections with the councilmember, claims to doubt this is a widespread problem in the city. They're asking for documentation that it's a widespread problem, so help us report this story. I realized it would be anecdotal not statistical, but who has experience that might address that attempt to create doubt? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Or maybe you're an employer who supports or opposes an anti-discrimination bill covering size or weight, or anyone else, 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 for City Councilmember Shaun Abreu, the lead sponsor of the bill, which is expected to pass today.

Councilmember, let me just get one thing crystal clear before we go on to the objections by the business lobby and have you respond to those. Is this only to protect people in the workplace, or does it also apply to housing and other areas in which people might be discriminated against because of height or weight?

Councilmember Abreu: This ban on discrimination in height and weight would apply to employment, housing, as well as public accommodations. No, it has a lot of teeth to it. Looking forward to hearing about the objection from the business lobby.

Brian Lehrer: How far does the public accommodations piece of that go? What would that include, for example?

Councilmember Abreu: Well, that would include places like restaurants, areas of public accommodation. I think that right now it's pretty broad, and that was the way it was intended.

Brian Lehrer: That would be, if you're using a restaurant as an example, a refusal of service based on height or weight, or would they have to accommodate in space terms, or what would be required there?

Councilmember Abreu: This bill does not provide a mechanism for accommodations. We would treat people with disability for instance. Folks experiencing disability, they will be requiring accommodation, literal physical accommodation, this wouldn't do that, but you can't reject people just based on the way they look and that's super important.

Brian Lehrer: I know we've heard stories of people who were kind of heavy objecting to flimsy chairs in restaurants. I heard one particular story of a chair that did fall under somebody's weight, and they feel that chairs should be made to a standard, and restaurant should be required to have those kinds of chairs at least available, but that doesn't go in your bill at the moment, right?

Councilmember Abreu: It does not, but I do share those same concerns. We had the executive director to the National Association for [unintelligible 00:09:29] testify that when she got on a plane from Arizona to New York to come and testify, she had to buy two flights because she couldn't fit on one chair. We heard another person testify that when she was on an Uber on her way home, she didn't have a seat belt that would be big enough to keep her safe. While the bill does not address accommodations, we very much share those concerns of physical accommodation. That is something that we would like to see happen in the future.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take our first caller. I think Michael in Brooklyn is going to identify another kind of height discrimination that we haven't mentioned yet. Michael, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Michael: Hey, hi. I just thought it was a funny story. I didn't know you're going to put me on the air. I'm a building maintenance worker and I work in a giant Midtown office thing. It is a firm that has 12 floors or something, I don't know. I think they're a law firm. I was doing this thing that I have to do with a wall there. It's going to take me a couple of days. Apparently, I got the news that a young woman, I think I know which one it is had said-- I'm about 6'2'' and maybe 210 pounds. I'm not huge, but I'm not a little guy. She had complained that she's sitting at her desk, but I'm standing there, which I was, working, she doesn't feel safe with me towering over her. I was asked if we could switch these repairs to after five o'clock when the office mostly would be empty. I didn't mean to take up time. I just thought it was a funny story.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Well, okay. In that case, his 6'2'', 210 was imposing. He seems to be focusing more on the height aspect towering over her, the other person said. I don't know if we come up in the real world against employment discrimination against people based on being tall. Have you seen it Councilmember?

Councilmember Abreu: Well, you'd be surprised there's discrimination for people being too tall or too short. I can't cite a specific example where it's happened to being too tall, but it certainly happens. I mean, it happens.

Brian Lehrer: The city's big business lobby led by Kathy Wylde, it's called the Partnership for New York has pushed back. She is quoted saying, "You should demonstrate that weight discrimination is a significant problem in the city before passing such a bill." I think the employers' concern is a lot more lawsuits as well as further restrictions on their personal preferences for who to hire. Have you documented to that expressed concern about demonstrating that it's a significant problem in the city? Have you documented in any way that this is a significant problem?

Councilmember Abreu: Certainly. First of all, I'll say there will be actually less lawsuits if employers engage in less discrimination for one. For two, yes, there are 32 million Americans who experienced weight discrimination. There are two million New Yorkers who experienced weight discrimination. 84% of people in larger bodies have experienced shame because of their weight at some point in their lives. 64% of Americans have experienced weight discrimination.

There was a study by Vanderbilt Law School, which was actually covered today on CNN, that showed that for every six pounds in American women gains, that results in a 2% wage loss. This is real. Another study showed that heavier women, compared to the average weight peers earn thousands of dollars less. This is the facts, my friends, and this is what this bill was designed to eliminate.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take another call. Let's see. Is it Jay in Mount Vernon? You're on WNYC. Hi, Jay.

Jay: Hey, how are you doing? All right. I'm not clear. If the bill does not take into account accommodation, how does one go about proving that in fact that they have been discriminated against based on their weight issue? What's the benefit at the end of the day?

Brian Lehrer: Councilmember?

Councilmember Abreu: Yes, the benefit at the end of the day is for people to keep their jobs and to have secure jobs. Discrimination can come in many forms. There was that one testimony where a person did well at her job interview, but when she went in person, she was told that she can't keep up in a fast-paced environment. The logic inference there was, she was too big, and therefore she couldn't do the job functions.

What this bill is designed to do is designed to say, listen, if weight is not related to the essential job function of a job, you should be job secure, and you shouldn't be treated any differently than any other person. This protects you when it comes to hiring, but also during employment. It protects you during the process of you getting an apartment, but also during the time that you're living in an apartment.

Sometimes discrimination manifests in direct or in circumstantial ways, and we're here to make sure that no matter what way they show up, and when it rears its ugly head, that there's a legal remedy to prevent this from happening, but also that we are conscientious of the fact that this is a cultural shift and paradigm that we must embrace.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, Councilmember, I see you've discussed this in personal terms after you gain 40 pounds earlier in the pandemic and saw people treating you differently.

Councilmember Abreu: Yes. Just about a month ago, a friend of mine who I consider a dear friend came up and touched me in my stomach and said, "You're getting big there, buddy." It just speaks to a culture that's so embedded with just toxic attitudes, negative attitudes towards weight. It just goes to show you that it comes up in your personal life, but it also comes up outside of your personal life with people you don't know, like strangers, who feel like they have a license to speak to you in a certain way.

My goal is for people to challenge themselves to think differently about weight and to really think before they act, to treat people with dignity and respect and really rewire their brains around this.

Brian Lehrer: If you're just joining us, we're talking with New York City Councilmember Shaun Abreu of Manhattan, who was the lead sponsor of the bill that's expected to pass in City Council today to ban discrimination in employment and housing and public accommodations against anybody based on weight or height. Let's take another caller with a story. Reggie in Harlem, you're on WNYC. Hi, Reggie.

Reggie: How are you doing? Good morning. Longtime listener, a first-time caller. The first time you took my call.

Brian Lehrer: [chuckles] Sorry, we get a lot of calls, but go ahead.

Reggie: Yes. This is a crazy show you got today because I think about this all the time. I've been getting this all my life. I'm 6'4''. I'm a Black man. I weigh about 300, but you wouldn't know it's 300 because I'm in shape. I've always been athletic. The first thing is my size. It never fails. It never fails. It's used to justify discrimination. I think it's because I'm a Black man. The first thing that comes to people's minds is aggression and violence. Men say, "Just because you're big, don't think I'm not afraid of you," which tells me they're afraid of me. Women say, "Oh, you're intimidating. Your voice is too loud." It's crazy. Even as a kid, it was like, I eat all the food because I was the biggest kid. Obviously, I was eating all the food.

Brian Lehrer: As they saw it. Right. It's bad enough to be seen as one thing or another just on the basis of size. You're saying that when you're Black and 300 pounds and 6'4'', people over-perceive how intimidating you would be compared to a white person?

Reggie: Yes, of course. Because I know, I've heard studies where taller people do better, bigger people do better, but I don't see it. [chuckles] It's used against me as opposed to be succeeding because of it.

Brian Lehrer: Reggie, thanks for taking--

Reggie: As a matter of fact, I'm going through it right now. I just quit a job because they were saying I'm aggressive and this and that, and I wouldn't sign off on it. I wound up losing my job, because that's their justification for their fear, irrational fear, because I never give that off. I don't give off that vibe. In Harlem, they call me the nerd going bad or they call me teddy bear because I'm soft.

Brian Lehrer: [chuckles] You sound like a gentle guy on the phone too. Reggie, thank you. Please call us again. Don't make your first-time call a last-time call or at least first time getting through. Maybe we can take Reggie's case as an example. I realize you don't know all the details, Councilmember, you can't.

Councilmember Abreu: No, but I think I have something to share on this for sure.

Brian Lehrer: Please.

Councilmember Abreu: Yes. I have a background as a labor attorney. There's often the intersectionality between different protected classes. For instance, you can't discriminate based off of someone being pregnant. After their pregnancy ends and they gain baby weight during the pregnancy, you don't have pregnancy to protect you anymore. Now, this bill would include height and weight to protect you from that.

Similarly here with Reggie's case, is also sometimes work in the inverse. In this case, he is a Black man and your weight and your perception of your weight often exacerbates the discrimination with other protected class, here being the discrimination that he is bigger and heavier as a Black man. Yes, the heavier Black men experienced discrimination than someone who is white and also less heavy in size. These are the intersectionalities that we think about when it comes to different protected classes and how they relate with each other.

Brian Lehrer: I think we're going to hear a different kind of story from Caroline in Long Island City. Caroline, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Caroline: Hi. I'm someone that has struggled with my weight my whole teenage adult life. I was working in an environment where my supervisor felt very comfortable harassing me and saying that because I was overweight, I shouldn't wear certain types of clothing, clothing that was too tight. She felt very comfortable as if it was a favor. She wasn't policing other individuals in our department and I would bring up, well, this person's wearing a turtleneck that I wore three days ago or a V-neck shirt, and she still felt very comfortable being very vocal about it.

I'm glad that the Councilman is bringing this up as a way to make a cultural shift. It didn't mean that my weight made me lazy, which I think is a common misperception or that I wasn't capable. My job was very rigorous. I was on my feet, I was in the field and I did my job to the utmost, but it was that constant comment and harassment that really made it unlivable workplace.

Brian Lehrer: Councilman, in a case like Caroline's, under your bill, if it passes, and it's expected to pass easily today in City Council, what could she do that she couldn't do yesterday?

Councilmember Abreu: Well, this law goes into effect in 120 days. We should be able to bring an action when the law goes into effect. Under that, those snide comments would not be allowed under this law. I would encourage her and other people similarly situated to bring a claim to the Commission on Human Rights where they can introduce their evidence and the employer will have their voice heard too. This is the way to get this done, getting the facts in, and then having that being litigated. That's something that couldn't have been done yesterday, but that we'll be able to do moving forward.

Brian Lehrer: By the way, before we take a break and move on to some other topics with you, is there no law already in place that protects people from discrimination based on height or weight?

Councilmember Abreu: Not in the State of New York, but there are other jurisdictions that do have them. I don't believe that another jurisdiction has been able to pass this in a few decades. There are other jurisdictions that do have them.

Brian Lehrer: Councilmember, on the chokehold death of Jordan Neely, do you want the DA to press charges against the subway chokehold Daniel Penny?

Councilmember Abreu: A crime most committed against Jordan Neely and I would personally want charges to be brought against the murderer. I have every face in DA Bragg to exercise his legal acumen to achieve justice here for the families and for everyone who's certainly hurting. It's definitely something that I know is on a lot of our minds, especially today as the council is getting ready for today's stated hearing.

Brian Lehrer: Your district is in Manhattan. Have you had any contact with the Manhattan DA's office about whether he's going to decide this on his own or in panel a grand jury or if he's leaning one way or another or if he's investigating in certain ways that you approve of or disapprove of, anything like that?

Councilmember Abreu: I can tell you right now we can't get involved with investigations and they will be the first to make it clear. I can tell you that the DA is definitely getting a lot of pressure. We certainly put out a comment on Twitter calling this a crime, calling this a murder and really speaking to the need for supportive housing and mental health services.

Brian Lehrer: This is WNYC-FM HD and AM New York, WNJT-FM 88.1 Trenton, WNJP 88.5 Sussex, WNJY 89.3 Netcong, and WNJO 90.3 Toms River. We are New York and New Jersey Public Radio and live streaming at wnyc.org. A few more minutes with Councilmember Abreu. The mayor called it irresponsible when Congress member Ocasio-Cortez called the incident a murder. I guess he would apply that to you too.

Why use that word when the DA is still investigating and also when some people say not a murder because he didn't intend to kill him, so maybe it's manslaughter? That's for the DA to determine. What would you say if the mayor were to call you irresponsible for using that word?

Councilmember Abreu: Well, it is certainly up to the DA to determine the level of the charge. In your hypothetical scenario, I would just say that the video is crystal clear. I would like to say, however, I think what the mayor does get right is that we need to have a bigger conversation about mental health and housing in particular, and Jordan Neely should have never been attacked in the position that he was. The city needs to double down on support of housing, mental health services, but I think it's crystal clear it was murder in plain sight.

Brian Lehrer: On the condition that Jordan Neely was in, I want to play another clip of the mayor from yesterday in his news conference where he focused partly on the fact that Jordan Neely who was screaming on the subway and making people feel threatened, should probably have been in a psychiatric hospital. In this clip, the mayor addresses a report that Neely had agreed to a treatment program rather than go to prison for a previous assault, but he walked out, which the law as it stands allows him to do. Listen.

Mayor Adams: Service providers make repeated attempts to keep those who need help engaged in the programs that are available to them, but there's no guarantee that those efforts will succeed. This is the kind of care Jordan needed, and there are so many we're trying to get for him. It wasn't always successful. Over the last several years, Jordan interacted with many city agencies and community-based organization and providers. He had various encounters with the criminal justice system and was provided services to help him live safely in the community, but those efforts were not enough. We must find ways to strengthen our system.

Brian Lehrer: What's your reaction to the need as the mayor sees it for more mandatory hospitalization for people in the condition Jordan Neely was apparently in and the enforceability of a court-ordered mental health treatment program like that Neely reportedly was able to choose after a crime as an alternative to prison?

Councilmember Abreu: I think there are different shows for different folks, right? I can't say what exactly would have been right for Jordan Neely. I'm sure his family and Jordan himself would have known what would have worked for him. What I would say is that the city has doubled down on supportive housing. We have a housing crisis right now. In terms of the mental health services, it's lacking. I think we need to hold nonprofits more accountable for outcomes so that we are following the life of people who are getting these services.

It doesn't make sense if, on the one end, they're getting services from nonprofits and some providers, and on the other end, they're recidivism or really folks getting back into this vicious cycle that's perpetuated by these systems. That's something that we need to hold our providers accountable for. Again, I think I'll defer to the family there on figuring out what would have worked best for Jordan and Jordan himself.

Brian Lehrer: From what I've read, the family also did speak out against the facility allowing him to walk out. I've read that quote. Anyway, I hope it was in context. The mayor did also invoke decades of disinvestment in housing, and we know Governor Hochul failed to get her big housing development bill through the legislature this year. Who should do what now, in your opinion?

Councilmember Abreu: Well, I think we all need to step up. That goes to the city, the state, and the federal government. It was certainly disappointing that Hochul's housing plan couldn't get through because of the nimbyism and the culture of nimbyism that we're seeing upstate and in places in rural areas throughout the state. The council and Speaker Adams, she's doing everything that she can to make sure that every neighborhood commits its fair share of housing.

In fact, today, I'm a co-sponsor for Fair Housing Bill that would make every single neighborhood in council districts come up with targets for housing and come up with a plan to achieve those targets by a certain date. At the city council, you can count on us to build housing. Just to make a point about this housing issue that we're facing is also related to the migrant crisis that we're seeing. We've had New York Yorkers living in shelters for years who should have been in permanent housing a long time ago. If they were, then our shelter system would be able to handle these emergencies that we're seeing with asylum seekers as intended.

Brian Lehrer: Let me get one housing call in for you from within your district. In fact, here's Anita in Hamilton Heights. You're on WNYC with Councilmember Abreu. Hi, Anita.

Anita: Oh, wow, hello. Hello, Shaun. This is Anita from Hamilton Heights.

Councilmember Abreu: Hello.

Anita: Hi, I just have two questions about, as you said, affordable housing has been a problem for generations. I'm so afraid that it's impacting the generations to come, the people who've lived here for a long time and would like to stay. I wonder what you would think about using available resources, for example, preserving HDFCs, helping them out. It's a program for affordable home ownership, and they need support to survive. If there's any concrete plans you might have in mind. Also, can we use a few of the buildings that are apparently owned by the city that have been empty for many years? It doesn't seem to make sense. I wonder if they could also be converted to affordable housing.

Councilmember Abreu: I think that when folks think about housing, they only think about new buildings and not existing facilities. Obviously, I think we need to do both, but there's a lot of HPD-owned properties in the district that we're actually identifying as areas we can leverage for more affordable housing. There are some along Convent Avenue, for instance, that we're working on with HPD.

With respect to your other question with HDFCs, I mean path to homeownership is supercritical. We have, I believe, one of the largest HDFC's housing stock in the entire city. We need to double down on our investment to make sure that the HDFCs are paying their water bills, that the city doesn't displace HDFC homeowners. This is a very important issue, Anita. I appreciate you for highlighting it.

Brian Lehrer: Anita, thank you for your call. Before you go, Councilmember, you tied that need for housing into the shelter issue that the mayor spoke about and issued an executive order on last night for unhoused people. What about the influx of asylum seekers expected to increase even more now with the new federal legal framework and that Title 42 coming off at the border and the mayor suspending by executive order parts of the city's right-to-shelter policy, specifically on the right to receive a bed within a certain timeframe. It would also allow the city to avoid fulfilling a requirement that families have units with access to a bathroom, refrigerator, and kitchen, as reported by Gothamist.

Longer term it would be great if there were more beds, more permanent housing too, but the mayor says he's doing more than any other city in America for the asylum seekers, and he's for helping the asylum seekers, but he can't create so much supply instantly out of thin air. He's got to tweak the rules to some degree for the moment. Do you disagree?

Councilmember Abreu: I think the mayor is presented with an unprecedented situation. I believe that, yes, this city has done more for asylum seekers than anyone else. That said, I think it's very critical that we stand by our right-to-shelter law. It's super important, but the truth is that our shelter system is failing to handle an emergency because of this housing crisis that we're in. We need to really double down on housing and investments. I respectfully disagree with the mayor here, but I also appreciate that he's in an unprecedented situation.

Brian Lehrer: City Councilmember Shaun Abreu from Manhattan. Thank you so much for sharing your bill with us. Looks like that's going to pass today on height and weight discrimination, a historic day in the city for that reason, and also for talking about the Jordan Neely-Daniel Penny case and the migrants and right to shelter. Thank you for joining us.

Councilmember Abreu: Thank you for having me, Brian.

 

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.