Smithtown Central School District v. Beller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smithtown Central School District v. Beller

120 A.D.2d 726, 502 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56852

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

DecidedMay 27, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 726 (Smithtown Central School District v. Beller) 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

Smithtown Central School District v. Beller, 120 A.D.2d 726, 502 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review an order of the State Division [727]*727of Human Rights dated March 8, 1985, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that the petitioner discriminated against the complainant in its employment practices on the basis of sex.

Order confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The division’s determination that the petitioner and its principal Harry Ortgies discriminated against the complainant on the basis of sex when they offered a full-time guidance counsellor position to a less-qualified male applicant, is supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179; Matter of Board of Educ. v State Div. of Human Rights, 109 AD2d 988). The complainant succeeded in proving that she had been the victim of sex discrimination by demonstrating that the explanation offered by the petitioner for the rejection of her application for employment was unworthy of credence (see, United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v Aikens, 460 US 711, 716; Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v Burdine, 450 US 248, 256).

We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rubin, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review an order of the State Division [727]*727of Human Rights dated March 8, 1985, which, after a hearing, inter alia, found that the petitioner discriminated against the complainant in its employment practices on the basis of sex.

Order confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The division’s determination that the petitioner and its principal Harry Ortgies discriminated against the complainant on the basis of sex when they offered a full-time guidance counsellor position to a less-qualified male applicant, is supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179; Matter of Board of Educ. v State Div. of Human Rights, 109 AD2d 988). The complainant succeeded in proving that she had been the victim of sex discrimination by demonstrating that the explanation offered by the petitioner for the rejection of her application for employment was unworthy of credence (see, United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v Aikens, 460 US 711, 716; Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v Burdine, 450 US 248, 256).

We have examined the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rubin, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 726, 502 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smithtown-central-school-district-v-beller-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack