Pascual v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pascual v. New York State Division of Human Rights

37 A.D.3d 215, 829 N.Y.S.2d 99

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 215 (Pascual 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

Pascual v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 37 A.D.3d 215, 829 N.Y.S.2d 99 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered October 19, 2005, which denied the petition seeking to annul respondent Human Rights Division’s determination of no probable cause to believe that respondent Union Community Health Center had engaged in an unlawful discriminatory employment practice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The determination under review had a rational basis in the record and was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of McFarland v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD2d 108 [1998]). Petitioner failed to meet her burden of showing that the nondiscriminatory reason offered by the Health Center for terminating her employment—namely, her refusal to teach nutrition classes in English when she clearly had the ability to [216]*216do so—was a pretext for discrimination based upon her national origin. Petitioner was not prevented from showing pretext by the Human Rights Division’s refusal to subpoena certain records in the possession of the Department of Health. The information supplied by the parties was sufficient for the Human Rights Division to make its determination, and the Department of Health records were unnecessary. The Human Rights Division has broad discretion in determining the method to be employed in investigating a claim, and its determination will not be overturned unless the record demonstrates that its investigation was abbreviated or one-sided. Here, petitioner had a full and fair opportunity, including a two-hour fact-finding conference, to rebut the agency’s case and to present her own case (see Matter of Bal v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 202 AD2d 236 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 805 [1994]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered October 19, 2005, which denied the petition seeking to annul respondent Human Rights Division’s determination of no probable cause to believe that respondent Union Community Health Center had engaged in an unlawful discriminatory employment practice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The determination under review had a rational basis in the record and was not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of McFarland v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD2d 108 [1998]). Petitioner failed to meet her burden of showing that the nondiscriminatory reason offered by the Health Center for terminating her employment—namely, her refusal to teach nutrition classes in English when she clearly had the ability to [216]*216do so—was a pretext for discrimination based upon her national origin. Petitioner was not prevented from showing pretext by the Human Rights Division’s refusal to subpoena certain records in the possession of the Department of Health. The information supplied by the parties was sufficient for the Human Rights Division to make its determination, and the Department of Health records were unnecessary. The Human Rights Division has broad discretion in determining the method to be employed in investigating a claim, and its determination will not be overturned unless the record demonstrates that its investigation was abbreviated or one-sided. Here, petitioner had a full and fair opportunity, including a two-hour fact-finding conference, to rebut the agency’s case and to present her own case (see Matter of Bal v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 202 AD2d 236 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 805 [1994]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 215, 829 N.Y.S.2d 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pascual-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack