Rosenblum-Wertheim v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenblum-Wertheim v. New York State Division of Human Rights

228 A.D.2d 237, 643 N.Y.2d 117, 643 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6532

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

DecidedJune 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 237 (Rosenblum-Wertheim 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

Rosenblum-Wertheim v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 228 A.D.2d 237, 643 N.Y.2d 117, 643 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[238]*238Substantial evidence supports the Division’s finding, essentially one of credibility, that the reasons given for her termination were not pretexts for discriminating against her because she was pregnant (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). It is certainly believable that the employer might have expected petitioner, as an attorney, to disclose her family’s interest in businesses regulated by the employer, and there was ample evidence that respondent had used her employer’s computer system to access information about her family’s business competitors. Notwithstanding the close temporal proximity between petitioner’s announcement of her pregnancy and her termination after a very brief period of employment, it is clear that the reasons given for the discharge were not pretextual.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

[238]*238Substantial evidence supports the Division’s finding, essentially one of credibility, that the reasons given for her termination were not pretexts for discriminating against her because she was pregnant (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). It is certainly believable that the employer might have expected petitioner, as an attorney, to disclose her family’s interest in businesses regulated by the employer, and there was ample evidence that respondent had used her employer’s computer system to access information about her family’s business competitors. Notwithstanding the close temporal proximity between petitioner’s announcement of her pregnancy and her termination after a very brief period of employment, it is clear that the reasons given for the discharge were not pretextual.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 237, 643 N.Y.2d 117, 643 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenblum-wertheim-v-new-york-state-division-of-human-rights-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack