State Division of Human Rights v. General Electric, HMED

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Division of Human Rights v. General Electric, HMED

106 A.D.2d 896, 483 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21808

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.2d 896 (State Division of Human Rights v. General Electric, HMED) 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. General Electric, HMED, 106 A.D.2d 896, 483 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, seeks review of the Appeal Board’s order affirming the dismissal after a hearing of his complaint filed with the State Division of Human Rights, charging respondent with discrimination on the basis of age and marital status. The Commissioner found that petitioner had failed to prove by credible evidence that respondent had engaged in a practice of discriminatory layoffs and that respondent applied legitimate, [897]*897job-related criteria in making its determination to terminate petitioner’s employment. After reviewing the record, we agree with the Appeal Board that the findings of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). (Executive Law, § 298.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Green, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, seeks review of the Appeal Board’s order affirming the dismissal after a hearing of his complaint filed with the State Division of Human Rights, charging respondent with discrimination on the basis of age and marital status. The Commissioner found that petitioner had failed to prove by credible evidence that respondent had engaged in a practice of discriminatory layoffs and that respondent applied legitimate, [897]*897job-related criteria in making its determination to terminate petitioner’s employment. After reviewing the record, we agree with the Appeal Board that the findings of the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). (Executive Law, § 298.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Green, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 896, 483 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-division-of-human-rights-v-general-electric-hmed-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack