Medina v. State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Medina v. State Division of Human Rights

73 A.D.2d 870, 423 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9771

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 A.D.2d 870 (Medina v. 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

Medina v. State Division of Human Rights, 73 A.D.2d 870, 423 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Human Rights Appeal Board, entered September 13, 1979, which affirmed as amended an order of the Commission of the State Division of Human Rights entered December 4, 1978, unanimously annulled, on the law, and the petition granted, without costs or disbursements. The record is clear that petitioner did not provide paid sick leave because complainant was terminating her position with petitioner. The evidence establishes that this was petitioner’s uniform practice for female and male employees alike who were employed by him. Only when an employee expected to return to work did he or she receive fully paid sick leave. It therefore follows that complainant was not discriminated against on the basis of her sex and that the decision under review was not supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Garrow [Levine], 52 AD2d 708). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.

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

Order of the Human Rights Appeal Board, entered September 13, 1979, which affirmed as amended an order of the Commission of the State Division of Human Rights entered December 4, 1978, unanimously annulled, on the law, and the petition granted, without costs or disbursements. The record is clear that petitioner did not provide paid sick leave because complainant was terminating her position with petitioner. The evidence establishes that this was petitioner’s uniform practice for female and male employees alike who were employed by him. Only when an employee expected to return to work did he or she receive fully paid sick leave. It therefore follows that complainant was not discriminated against on the basis of her sex and that the decision under review was not supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Garrow [Levine], 52 AD2d 708). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Fein, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 870, 423 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medina-v-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack