Childs v. New York Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Childs v. New York Division of Human Rights

57 A.D.3d 1457, 869 N.Y.2d 818

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 31, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 1457 (Childs v. New York Division of Human Rights) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Childs v. New York Division of Human Rights, 57 A.D.3d 1457, 869 N.Y.2d 818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights that respondent Buffalo Police Department (Department) did not unlawfully discriminate against her on the basis of gender or retaliate against her is supported by substantial evidence (see generally Rainer N. Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 NY2d 326, 331 [1458]*1458[2003]). Even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner established a prima facie case of sex discrimination or retaliation (see Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]; [7]; see generally Rainer N. Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C., 100 NY2d at 330), we conclude that the Department came forward with “legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision^]” (Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 NY2d 937, 938 [1985]; see generally Matter of Laverack & Haines v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 NY2d 734, 738-739 [1996]; Bockino v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 224 AD2d 471, 472 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 805 [1996]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights that respondent Buffalo Police Department (Department) did not unlawfully discriminate against her on the basis of gender or retaliate against her is supported by substantial evidence (see generally Rainer N. Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 NY2d 326, 331 [1458]*1458[2003]). Even assuming, arguendo, that petitioner established a prima facie case of sex discrimination or retaliation (see Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]; [7]; see generally Rainer N. Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C., 100 NY2d at 330), we conclude that the Department came forward with “legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision^]” (Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 NY2d 937, 938 [1985]; see generally Matter of Laverack & Haines v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 NY2d 734, 738-739 [1996]; Bockino v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 224 AD2d 471, 472 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 805 [1996]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 1457, 869 N.Y.2d 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/childs-v-new-york-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack