Morse v. County of Schenectady Employment & Training Administration (SETA)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morse v. County of Schenectady Employment & Training Administration (SETA)

110 A.D.2d 943

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

DecidedApril 18, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.2d 943 (Morse v. County of Schenectady Employment & Training Administration (SETA)) 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

Morse v. County of Schenectady Employment & Training Administration (SETA), 110 A.D.2d 943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Mahoney, P. J.

Petitioner filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights charging that she was demoted in her employment because of her race, color and sex. After a hearing, the Division dismissed the complaint. Petitioner instituted this proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 claiming that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

The reason given by respondents for demoting petitioner was that her job performance was unsatisfactory. At the hearing, [944]*944petitioner attempted to prove that her job performance was not. unsatisfactory. However, petitioner failed to offer evidence that the demotion was based on her race, color or sex. Petitioner’s contention that her job performance was not unsatisfactory, even if correct, does not, standing alone, constitute an unlawful discriminatory practice (see, Matter of Boice v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 73 AD2d 711).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

— Mahoney, P. J.

Petitioner filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights charging that she was demoted in her employment because of her race, color and sex. After a hearing, the Division dismissed the complaint. Petitioner instituted this proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 claiming that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

The reason given by respondents for demoting petitioner was that her job performance was unsatisfactory. At the hearing, [944]*944petitioner attempted to prove that her job performance was not. unsatisfactory. However, petitioner failed to offer evidence that the demotion was based on her race, color or sex. Petitioner’s contention that her job performance was not unsatisfactory, even if correct, does not, standing alone, constitute an unlawful discriminatory practice (see, Matter of Boice v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 73 AD2d 711).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morse-v-county-of-schenectady-employment-training-administration-seta-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack