Stay up-to-date on the companies, people and issues that impact businesses in Syracuse, Central New York and beyond.
Genius NY program selects 11 semifinalists for this year’s competition
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — Five companies from the U.S., five from Europe, and one from South America are among the 11 semifinalists chosen for this year’s
SRC to deliver counter-UAS technologies to Qatar in $1B agreement with federal government
CICERO, N.Y. — SRC, Inc. says it will deliver a suite of its advanced counter-unmanned aircraft systems (C-UAS) technologies to international buyers as a part
Ithaca seeks project proposals in advance of DRI application
ITHACA, N.Y. — The City of Ithaca is applying for the New York State Downtown Revitalization Initiative’s (DRI) ninth round of funding. If selected, Ithaca
ALBANY, N.Y. — Hunters harvested an estimated 223,304 deer during the 2024-25 hunting season, up 6.4 percent from 209,781 deer in the 2023-24 hunting season,
State Parks releases newly redesigned park and historic site system map
ALBANY, N.Y. — The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) on June 16 announced the release of an updated New
VIEWPOINT: Supreme Court Sets Legal Standard for Students Claiming Disability Discrimination
The Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous decision in A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279 that changes the standard for students pursuing disability-discrimination claims against schools under Section 504. The case was initiated by the parents of a teenager with epilepsy that caused her to be unable to attend
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
The Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous decision in A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279 that changes the standard for students pursuing disability-discrimination claims against schools under Section 504.
The case was initiated by the parents of a teenager with epilepsy that caused her to be unable to attend school before noon. The student’s parents requested the school district provide the student with evening instruction to compensate for her inability to attend a full school day. The district denied this request. The parents prevailed at special education due process and subsequent federal appeals as the district was unable to demonstrate it offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when the student was educated for 4.25 hours per day compared to the 6.5-hour day of her general education peers. The district was ordered to provide several hundred hours of compensatory education and at-home instruction on the student’s individualized education program (IEP) from 4:30-6 p.m. each school day.
The parents then initiated another action under Section 504 and requested a permanent injunction, reimbursement for costs and compensatory damages. This action was dismissed based on a previous federal standard that required a plaintiff to prove the conduct by school officials rose to the level of bad faith or gross misjudgment. The lower court held that a “school district’s simple failure to provide a reasonable accommodation is not enough to trigger liability” under Section 504.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts’ opinions and ruled the standard for a student’s Section 504 claim should be the same as discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act. Such claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act do not require the plaintiff to prove intentional discrimination through bad faith or gross misjudgment as was previously required by some federal courts for Section 504. Rather, to be entitled to compensatory damages, such claims are subject to the “deliberate indifference” standard — which only requires demonstrating the “defendant disregarded a strong likelihood that the challenged action violated federally protected rights.”
The Supreme Court found it was not equitable to impose a higher standard for students alleging discrimination under Section 504 when compared with general discrimination claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The court therefore remanded the student’s claim for further consideration under the deliberate indifference standard.
Students with qualifying disabilities who attend schools that receive federal funding are protected against disability discrimination under Section 504. This includes students with IEPs, Section 504 Plans (due to having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities) and those who have a record of a 504 impairment or are regarded as having such an impairment.
Therefore, this ruling from the Supreme Court has made it easier for students with disabilities to obtain compensatory damages from their schools when such schools are found to have disregarded a strong likelihood that their actions violated a student’s federal rights. In practice, such cases are rare. Regardless, this case highlights the importance of federally funded schools addressing the needs of students with disabilities in a manner that is consistent with the law.
Anne M. McGinnis, Ph.D., is a member (partner) in the Rochester office of Syracuse–based Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC. Contact her at amcginnis@bsk.com. Jeffrey J. Weiss is a member (partner) in Bond’s Buffalo office. Contact him at jweiss@bsk.com. This article was drawn and edited from the law firm’s website.
Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital’s pediatrics office opens in Clay
CLAY — Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital is now operating a new pediatrics medical office at 8687 Carling Road in the town of Clay, which it formally opened back in early May. The space is located near the Wegmans Great Northern store along Route 31. The move to the new facility represents a relocation of Upstate
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
CLAY — Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital is now operating a new pediatrics medical office at 8687 Carling Road in the town of Clay, which it formally opened back in early May.
The space is located near the Wegmans Great Northern store along Route 31.
The move to the new facility represents a relocation of Upstate Pediatrics from the Baldwinsville area, per the announcement. The relocation is necessary as Upstate had outgrown the Baldwinsville space.
The move also consolidates Upstate practices — including PMR and Patient Blood Draw Service Center — into one location.
A new physical medicine and rehabilitation (PMR) site opened in the same Carling Road location in May 2024, Upstate noted.
The new site more than doubles the size of the practice from 5,600 square feet and 12 exam rooms to 12,133 square feet and 20 exam rooms with a special room to monitor behavioral-health concerns.
Upstate Pediatrics at Upstate Medical Clay includes six physicians, one behavioral health licensed social worker, and a part-time behavioral health nurse practitioner.
“We’re poised for growth and expansion of services in this location,” Dr. Gregory Conners, executive director of Upstate Golisano Children’s Hospital and professor and chair of pediatrics, said in the Upstate announcement. “The desire for our pediatric services is growing and we need to accommodate patients and families in a top-tier setting, which we have today.”
The location includes a child-friendly waiting room and a color-coded way finding system to direct patients to the right exam room, as well as colorful murals in each exam room, Upstate said.
Parson-McKenna Construction Co. of Salina and Argus Engineering of DeWitt helped work on the renovation effort, while King + King Architects of Syracuse was the project designer, Upstate said.
Officials also look at the larger facility as a way to accommodate the population growth expected in the area in the next several years due to the impact of the Micron Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: MU) project.
Prior to Upstate services moving into the building, the space was previously occupied by Bryant and Stratton College, which moved out in 2020.
Ask Rusty: Can My Husband Work Part Time and Collect SS?
Dear Rusty: I am writing to you on behalf of my husband. His intentions are to go part time as of Jan. 1, 2026, working 30 hours a week and take Social Security (SS) benefits as supplemental income. How can we determine what his SS benefit would be with him still working part time? He
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
Dear Rusty: I am writing to you on behalf of my husband. His intentions are to go part time as of Jan. 1, 2026, working 30 hours a week and take Social Security (SS) benefits as supplemental income. How can we determine what his SS benefit would be with him still working part time? He will be 63 years and 7 months old next January and has not yet applied for benefits.
Signed: Anxious for Information
Dear Anxious: If he claims SS at age 63 and 7 months, your husband’s benefit will be about 78 percent of what it would be if he waited until age 67 to claim. And, since your husband will not yet have reached his SS full retirement age (FRA), he will be subject to Social Security’s Annual Earning Test (AET), which limits how much he can earn while working and collecting early Social Security retirement benefits. The amount he can earn without paying a penalty changes yearly but, for reference, the earnings limit for 2025 is $23,400 per year. If his work earnings exceed the annual limit, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will take away some of his benefits. Using the 2025 limit as an example, if your husband’s annual 2025 earnings were $40,000, then he would owe about $8,300 (half of the amount he exceeded the limit by). The SSA would withhold his monthly benefits for enough months to recover what he owes for exceeding the earnings limit (how many months it withholds would be determined by his monthly SS benefit amount).
FYI, the earnings test lasts until your husband reaches his full retirement age (his FRA is age 67), but in the year he attains his FRA the penalty for exceeding the limit is less — $1 for every $3 over the limit — and the limit is much higher. The annual earnings test no longer applies once your husband reaches his FRA.
When your husband applies for his SS retirement benefit, the SSA will ask about his work plans and how much he expects to earn each year. Based upon that information, if he expects to exceed the annual limit the SSA will pay his benefits for some months of the year (depending on his projected earnings) and withhold his benefits for the remaining months. It will also monitor his annual earnings as reported to the IRS and make any appropriate benefit adjustment afterwards.
If SS benefits are withheld because your husband exceeded the annual earnings limit, when he reaches his FRA of 67, the SSA will give him time-credit for all months that benefits were withheld. Essentially, it will advance his actual claim date by the number of months benefits were withheld, which will make his monthly benefit higher at his FRA. The higher amount he receives after reaching his FRA will help him recover some of the money withheld as a result of exceeding the earnings limit before his FRA.
Please note that it is always best to inform the SSA up front if your husband plans to work and earn (even part time) prior to reaching his FRA. The IRS will provide the SSA with your husband’s earnings information, and SSA will (if his projected earnings weren’t disclosed when he applied) issue an Overpayment Notice if he earns more than allowed. He will then be required to repay the SSA everything owed, or have his benefits withheld until the SSA recovers what he owes.
One final point: by claiming his benefits in January 2026, your husband’s monthly amount will be reduced by about 22 percent (from the amount he would get at his FRA of 67). Claiming early (before FRA) always results in a benefit reduction, whereas waiting longer than FRA to claim always results in a higher monthly amount (maximum benefit is reached at age 70).
Russell Gloor is a national Social Security advisor at the AMAC Foundation, the nonprofit arm of the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC). The 2.4-million-member AMAC says it is a senior advocacy organization. Send your questions to: ssadvisor@amacfoundation.org.
Author’s note: This article is intended for information purposes only and does not represent legal or financial guidance. It presents the opinions and interpretations of the AMAC Foundation’s staff, trained, and accredited by the National Social Security Association (NSSA). The NSSA and the AMAC Foundation and its staff are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Social Security Administration or any other governmental entity.
OPINION: Modest Steps, Major Gaps in New York Legislative Session
As is often the case in New York state, a broken legislative process paired with misguided priorities yielded little of merit during this legislative session. It seems the 2025 session will likely be remembered more for an obvious lack of productivity and missed opportunities than anything else. New Yorkers deserve thoughtful action but were instead
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
As is often the case in New York state, a broken legislative process paired with misguided priorities yielded little of merit during this legislative session. It seems the 2025 session will likely be remembered more for an obvious lack of productivity and missed opportunities than anything else. New Yorkers deserve thoughtful action but were instead met with political theater and half-measures.
The state legislature again failed to fix New York’s floundering economy and sky-high cost of living, and in many ways, the $254 billion budget passed earlier this year will add to, not mitigate, the substantial costs burdening taxpayers. While it was promising to see legislation enabling the state to improve our public-assistance programs (A.2497), a measure to allow individuals to register for the Donate Life Registry through personal income-tax electronic filings (A.7011-A) and the “Alexander John Smullen Traffic Safety Memorial Law,” which will establish a traffic safety sign program to memorialize the victims of fatal vehicle collisions, pass the legislature, not enough was done to truly make life better for our state’s residents.
We needed aggressive, targeted cost-reducing policies paired with a real plan to retain and add jobs in New York. This year’s agenda felt more like strategic procrastination than an honest effort to address the many issues plaguing taxpayers and residents.
New York has been on the wrong track for years. Residents continue to flee thanks to a toxic tax and business climate, we’ve committed to an unworkable and wildly expensive green-energy agenda that will make our grid less reliable, and our criminal-justice system remains broken and inadequate. What will it take for real progress? How much more expensive and dangerous is New York going to have to get before something is done?
I was deeply disappointed to see things like doctor-assisted suicide and the blatant manipulation of judicial-district composition take priority over the state’s affordability crisis. The recently passed collection of correctional-services legislation omitted critical fixes like ending the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act, and the voices of our front-line officers were practically ignored in the legislative process.
And despite resounding opposition from those it will impact most, school districts were only given the option to apply for a waiver that would delay the zero-emission school-bus mandate for up to four years, but the policy itself ultimately remains in place. These are huge failures.
The Assembly Minority Conference has proposed numerous fixes to the problems hitting New Yorkers the hardest, like creating a commission to identify wasteful spending and conducting a cost-benefit analysis of the state’s climate agenda — which were each ignored. We had bills to audit the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, require valid identification to ensure fair elections, and prohibit local governments from hindering immigration enforcement rebuked as well.
The fact is Gov. Kathy Hochul and her legislative allies again passed up the chance to address our state’s prohibitive cost of living, regulatory burdens, rampant antisemitism and unrealistic climate agenda. There was simply not enough substantive policy passed in the first half of 2025. It is too expensive to live in New York, and until the legislature and governor confront that reality head-on, I suspect more of the same in the coming months and years.
William (Will) A. Barclay, 56, Republican, is the New York Assembly minority leader and represents the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses all of Oswego County, as well as parts of Jefferson and Cayuga counties.
OPINION: The U.S. benefits from international students
More than 1.1 million international students are enrolled at American colleges and universities. They contribute greatly to our nation’s economic and intellectual well-being. Their presence confirms that our higher-education system is the envy of the world. It’s worrisome to see our leaders pursuing policies that will make it harder for international students to study here.
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
More than 1.1 million international students are enrolled at American colleges and universities. They contribute greatly to our nation’s economic and intellectual well-being. Their presence confirms that our higher-education system is the envy of the world.
It’s worrisome to see our leaders pursuing policies that will make it harder for international students to study here. A crackdown on international students, including students from China, is profoundly misguided and will hurt our country.
With my office on a university campus, I see the vibrancy that international students contribute. Those I meet are serious about academics, engaged in their work, and eager to take part in civic life. They appreciate the education they’re getting and the opportunities that come with studying in the United States.
Nationally, 56 percent of international students are in the STEM fields, primarily math, computer science, and engineering. About half are graduate students, and many are engaged in research and teaching. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, a majority of U.S. graduate students in key technical subjects are international. Without them, our colleges couldn’t offer such an array of programs, especially in STEM.
International students contribute
$43.8 billion to the U.S. economy and support more than 378,000 jobs, according to NAFSA: Association of International Educators. In Indiana, where I live, nearly 30,000 international students add almost $1 billion to the state’s economy. Their spending props up the economy in college towns.
Many international students choose to stay and work in the U.S. after college, helping meet demands for skilled workers. Some become entrepreneurs and start businesses in emerging fields like artificial intelligence.
Their presence also benefits U.S. resident students, exposing them to the larger world. As the number of international students in the U.S. has increased, so has the number of American students studying abroad; it’s now nearly 300,000. These students find that international travel broadens our horizons and makes the world smaller.
Unfortunately, international education is in the crosshairs of Trump administration priorities, including opposition to immigration and targeting of elite colleges. This spring, the government began revoking visas for some students who had protested the war in Gaza. More recently, it has focused on China, the No. 2 source of international students after India. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, citing security concerns, said the U.S. would “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students.”
It’s certainly important to protect ourselves from activities that might involve espionage or intellectual property theft, including in university research labs. But we shouldn’t overreact and forget the many benefits of international education.
Not that long ago, there were no Chinese students studying here. Then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping proposed sending several thousand students to the U.S., and President Jimmy Carter welcomed the idea. The first group, 52 students, arrived in late 1978. Eventually, Chinese students became the most numerous international students on American campuses. Today, 277,000 Chinese students are about one-fourth of all international students in the U.S. As Li Yuan writes in the New York Times, “The United States gained access to a vast market and talent pool, while China found a model and a partner for transforming its economy.”
There’s no question that China does a lot of things that we don’t like, but U.S.-China relations improved dramatically from the era when Mao Zedong ruled a hostile and isolated China. College students were vital to that change.
And international students, not just from China but from many other countries, boost America’s standing in the world. As they study and travel in the U.S. and interact with other students, faculty and neighbors, they learn about our society and our system of government. When they return home, they take that understanding and appreciation back with them. That’s something we, as Americans, should welcome.
Lee Hamilton, 94, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.
Stay up-to-date on the companies, people and issues that impact businesses in Syracuse, Central New York and beyond.