Herbert v. Kirkland

90 A.D.3d 927, 934 N.Y.2d 819
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 20, 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Even had the petitioner established a prima facie case of discrimination (see Matter of McEniry v Landi, 84 NY2d 554, 558 [1994]; Koester v New York Blood Ctr., 55 AD3d 447, 448 [928] [2008]), substantial evidence supports the determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights that the petitioner’s employer, New York Institute of Technology, had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the petitioner from its employ, and that he did not show that this reason was a pretext for discrimination (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; Matter of Sauer v Donaldson, 49 AD3d 656, 657 [2008]; Genesky v Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, CSEA, 287 AD2d 594, 595 [2001]). Mastro, A.EJ., Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Herbert v. Kirkland, 90 A.D.3d 927, 934 N.Y.2d 819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

90 A.D.3d 927 (Herbert v. Kirkland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Briggs v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
142 A.D.3d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)