State Division of Human Rights v. Dom's Wholesale & Retail Center, Inc.

18 A.D.3d 335, 795 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 19, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 335 (State Division of Human Rights v. Dom's Wholesale & Retail Center, Inc.) 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. Dom's Wholesale & Retail Center, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 335, 795 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

[336]*336Application pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to enforce petitioner’s order, dated June 3, 1999, as revised by its order dated August 26, 2003, finding that the complainant suffered mental anguish and humiliation as a result of a hostile work environment caused and allowed to exist by respondents, and awarding the complainant $20,000 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Harold B. Beeler, J.], entered January 28, 2004), unanimously granted, without costs.

The record, based on the complainant’s unrefuted allegations, evinces sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment created by same-sex harassment (see Oncale v Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 US 75 [1998]), amounting to constructive termination of employment (Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v ARC XVI Inwood, Inc., 17 AD3d 239 [2005]). The matter is distinguishable from Yukoweic v International Bus. Machs. (228 AD2d 775 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 816 [1996]) in that here the purportedly crude humor or horseplay targeted the complainant and was gender-specific. The complainant was a member of a protected class, a hostile work environment was created by respondent coworker’s harassment, and respondent owner failed, upon notification, to take corrective action, and indeed acquiesced in the offending conduct (see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v St. Elizabeth’s Hosp., 66 NY2d 684 [1985]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Alshami v. City Univ. of N.Y.
162 N.Y.S.3d 720 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. Steve's Pier One, Inc.
123 A.D.3d 728 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Eastport Associates, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights
71 A.D.3d 890 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
State Division of Human Rights v. Stoute
36 A.D.3d 257 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
455 F. Supp. 2d 157 (E.D. New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 A.D.3d 335, 795 N.Y.S.2d 537, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-division-of-human-rights-v-doms-wholesale-retail-center-inc-nyappdiv-2005.