State Division of Human Rights v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Division of Human Rights v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.

110 A.D.2d 1080, 489 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48967

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

DecidedApril 5, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 1080 (State Division of Human Rights v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co.) 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

State Division of Human Rights v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 110 A.D.2d 1080, 489 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48967 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: On a review of the record we conclude, as did the Appeal Board, that the finding [1081]*1081that complainant was terminated from his position as methods specialist because of his age in violation of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15) is supported by substantial evidence (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). We do not find that the Commissioner was arbitrary and capricious in the award of back pay and in the direction that complainant be offered reinstatement in his position as methods specialist or “a position with an equivalent title discharging, in substantial part, the duties formerly performed by complainant” (see, Executive Law § 297 [4] [c] [ii]; Matter of Imperial Diner v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 52 NY2d 72, 79). That respondent has reorganized its factory operations since 1975, when it wrongfully fired complainant, or that almost eight years have elapsed between the firing and the Appeal Board order (due in part to an appeal by the employer from a finding of probable cause) should not prevent the Commissioner from granting this remedy. (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Memorandum: On a review of the record we conclude, as did the Appeal Board, that the finding [1081]*1081that complainant was terminated from his position as methods specialist because of his age in violation of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15) is supported by substantial evidence (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). We do not find that the Commissioner was arbitrary and capricious in the award of back pay and in the direction that complainant be offered reinstatement in his position as methods specialist or “a position with an equivalent title discharging, in substantial part, the duties formerly performed by complainant” (see, Executive Law § 297 [4] [c] [ii]; Matter of Imperial Diner v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 52 NY2d 72, 79). That respondent has reorganized its factory operations since 1975, when it wrongfully fired complainant, or that almost eight years have elapsed between the firing and the Appeal Board order (due in part to an appeal by the employer from a finding of probable cause) should not prevent the Commissioner from granting this remedy. (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 1080, 489 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-division-of-human-rights-v-chicago-pneumatic-tool-co-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack