Matter of Law Offs. of Oliver Zhou, PLLC v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Law Offs. of Oliver Zhou, PLLC v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

128 A.D.3d 618, 10 N.Y.S.3d 211

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

DecidedMay 28, 2015

Docket15260 100035/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 618 (Matter of Law Offs. of Oliver Zhou, PLLC v. New York State Div. 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

Matter of Law Offs. of Oliver Zhou, PLLC v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 128 A.D.3d 618, 10 N.Y.S.3d 211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), dated November 26, 2013, which found that petitioners violated the State Human Rights Law by retaliating against the complainant who was engaging in a protected activity, and, directed petitioners to pay complainant back pay in the principal amount of $5,811 and compensatory damages for mental anguish in the principal amount of *619 $10,000, and to pay a civil fine of $1,000, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Cynthia S. Kern, J.], entered Feb. 18, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, DHR had jurisdiction over this matter as the record shows that petitioner employer had at least four employees (see Executive Law § 292 [5]).

DHR’s findings are supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). The evidence establishes that the complainant was terminated immediately after she showed her employer a sexual harassment complaint that she filed with DHR, and that, while petitioners claimed there were various nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination, the complainant showed that the reasons were merely a pretext for illegal retaliation (see Matter of Board of Educ. of New Paltz Cent. School Dist. v Donaldson, 41 AD3d 1138 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 706 [2008]).

The awards of back pay and compensatory damages, and the assessment of the civil fine are proper (see Executive Law § 297 [4] [c]; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 78 NY2d 207 [1991]).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.R, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), dated November 26, 2013, which found that petitioners violated the State Human Rights Law by retaliating against the complainant who was engaging in a protected activity, and, directed petitioners to pay complainant back pay in the principal amount of $5,811 and compensatory damages for mental anguish in the principal amount of *619 $10,000, and to pay a civil fine of $1,000, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Cynthia S. Kern, J.], entered Feb. 18, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, DHR had jurisdiction over this matter as the record shows that petitioner employer had at least four employees (see Executive Law § 292 [5]).

DHR’s findings are supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). The evidence establishes that the complainant was terminated immediately after she showed her employer a sexual harassment complaint that she filed with DHR, and that, while petitioners claimed there were various nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination, the complainant showed that the reasons were merely a pretext for illegal retaliation (see Matter of Board of Educ. of New Paltz Cent. School Dist. v Donaldson, 41 AD3d 1138 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 706 [2008]).

The awards of back pay and compensatory damages, and the assessment of the civil fine are proper (see Executive Law § 297 [4] [c]; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 78 NY2d 207 [1991]).

We have considered petitioners’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.R, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 618, 10 N.Y.S.3d 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-law-offs-of-oliver-zhou-pllc-v-new-york-state-div-of-human-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack