State Division of Human Rights v. Clarence Precision Machine & Tool

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Division of Human Rights v. Clarence Precision Machine & Tool

60 A.D.2d 977, 401 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10047

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 60 A.D.2d 977 (State Division of Human Rights v. Clarence Precision Machine & Tool) 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. Clarence Precision Machine & Tool, 60 A.D.2d 977, 401 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed, with costs, and petition dismissed; cross motion for order of enforcement granted. Memorandum: Petitioner seeks a review of an order of the Human Rights Appeal Board which affirmed a decision and order of the Commissioner of Human Rights finding that petitioner had engaged in unlawful discrimination against Betty Keehn and requiring payment to her of $500 in compensatory damages. In response to an ad in a local newspaper, Betty Keehn went to the office of petitioner to seek employment. She told the secretary-receptionist that she wanted production work and was applying for the job of automatic chucker operator. The receptionist, who is the daughter of the president of the corporation,

[978]*978told her that they did not have restroom facilities for women and that it was an all male shop. The complainant left and subsequently filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights. The commissioner found and the appeal board affirmed that on these facts petitioner had engaged in a discriminatory practice against complainant on the basis of her sex. Inasmuch as such finding is supported by sufficient evidence on the record as a whole, it is conclusive and we lack authority to disturb it. (City of Schenectady v State Div. of Human Rights, 37 NY2d 421, 424; see, also, Matter of Mize v State Div. of Human Rights, 33 NY2d 53; State Div. of Human Rights v County of Onondaga, 50 AD2d 716; Executive Law, § 298.) The award of compensatory damages was within the authority of the commissioner (Executive Law, § 297, subd 4, par c) and is consistent with the State’s strong antidiscrimination policy (see Batavia Lodge No. 196, Loyal Order of Moose v State Div. of Human Rights, 35 NY2d 143; State Div. of Human Rights v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 46 AD2d 1001, mot for lv to app den 36 NY2d 641). "We see no reason to disturb the award in the amount of $500 in compensatory damages for humiliation and mental suffering”. (State Div. of Human Rights v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., supra, p 1002). (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law, § 298.) Present— Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed, with costs, and petition dismissed; cross motion for order of enforcement granted. Memorandum: Petitioner seeks a review of an order of the Human Rights Appeal Board which affirmed a decision and order of the Commissioner of Human Rights finding that petitioner had engaged in unlawful discrimination against Betty Keehn and requiring payment to her of $500 in compensatory damages. In response to an ad in a local newspaper, Betty Keehn went to the office of petitioner to seek employment. She told the secretary-receptionist that she wanted production work and was applying for the job of automatic chucker operator. The receptionist, who is the daughter of the president of the corporation,

[978]*978told her that they did not have restroom facilities for women and that it was an all male shop. The complainant left and subsequently filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights. The commissioner found and the appeal board affirmed that on these facts petitioner had engaged in a discriminatory practice against complainant on the basis of her sex. Inasmuch as such finding is supported by sufficient evidence on the record as a whole, it is conclusive and we lack authority to disturb it. (City of Schenectady v State Div. of Human Rights, 37 NY2d 421, 424; see, also, Matter of Mize v State Div. of Human Rights, 33 NY2d 53; State Div. of Human Rights v County of Onondaga, 50 AD2d 716; Executive Law, § 298.) The award of compensatory damages was within the authority of the commissioner (Executive Law, § 297, subd 4, par c) and is consistent with the State’s strong antidiscrimination policy (see Batavia Lodge No. 196, Loyal Order of Moose v State Div. of Human Rights, 35 NY2d 143; State Div. of Human Rights v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 46 AD2d 1001, mot for lv to app den 36 NY2d 641). "We see no reason to disturb the award in the amount of $500 in compensatory damages for humiliation and mental suffering”. (State Div. of Human Rights v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., supra, p 1002). (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law, § 298.) Present— Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 977, 401 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-division-of-human-rights-v-clarence-precision-machine-tool-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack