Dawson v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dawson v. New York State Division of Human Rights

88 A.D.3d 705, 930 N.Y.2d 467

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 A.D.3d 705 (Dawson v. New York State 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

Dawson v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 88 A.D.3d 705, 930 N.Y.2d 467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

“The determination of the State Commissioner of Human Rights must be confirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 NY2d 411, 417 [1991] [citation omitted]; see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180 [1978]). Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d at 179-180). Here, the conclusion of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the Commissioner) that the respondent Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (hereinafter GP), did not discriminate against the petitioner on the basis of his age is supported by substantial evidence. While the petitioner established a prima facie case of age discrimination, GP credibly provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating the petitioner’s employment, and the petitioner failed to show that GP’s proffered reasons constituted a pretext for discrimination (see Stephenson v Hotel Empls. & Rest. Empls. Union Local 100 of AFL-CIO, 6 NY3d 265, 271 [2006]; Matter of McDonald v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 AD3d 668 [2010]; Matter of Sauer v Donaldson, 49 AD3d 656, 656-657 [2008]). Accordingly, the Commissioner’s determination must be confirmed. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

“The determination of the State Commissioner of Human Rights must be confirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 NY2d 411, 417 [1991] [citation omitted]; see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180 [1978]). Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d at 179-180). Here, the conclusion of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the Commissioner) that the respondent Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (hereinafter GP), did not discriminate against the petitioner on the basis of his age is supported by substantial evidence. While the petitioner established a prima facie case of age discrimination, GP credibly provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating the petitioner’s employment, and the petitioner failed to show that GP’s proffered reasons constituted a pretext for discrimination (see Stephenson v Hotel Empls. & Rest. Empls. Union Local 100 of AFL-CIO, 6 NY3d 265, 271 [2006]; Matter of McDonald v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 AD3d 668 [2010]; Matter of Sauer v Donaldson, 49 AD3d 656, 656-657 [2008]). Accordingly, the Commissioner’s determination must be confirmed. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.3d 705, 930 N.Y.2d 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawson-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack