State Division of Human Rights v. Haverling Central School District

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Division of Human Rights v. Haverling Central School District

112 A.D.2d 787, 492 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56031

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 12, 1985·Published

Opinion

Determination unanimously annulled, without costs, and matter remitted to State Division of Human Rights for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: In finding that petitioner has an impairment which is a disability within the meaning of the Human Rights Law, the Division thereby found that the disability did not interfere with petitioner’s ability to perform his job (Executive Law § 292 [21]). The Division’s finding that respondent implemented petitioner’s schedule change earlier than planned based on his disability is inconsistent with a finding of no probable cause. The Division’s determination of no probable cause is unsupported by the record and must be annulled, and the matter remitted for a hearing pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (4) (a). Whether respondent acted in good faith, based on the information available to it at the time, is [788]*788irrelevant (State Div. of Human Rights v LeRoy Cent. School Dist., 107 AD2d 153). (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously annulled, without costs, and matter remitted to State Division of Human Rights for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: In finding that petitioner has an impairment which is a disability within the meaning of the Human Rights Law, the Division thereby found that the disability did not interfere with petitioner’s ability to perform his job (Executive Law § 292 [21]). The Division’s finding that respondent implemented petitioner’s schedule change earlier than planned based on his disability is inconsistent with a finding of no probable cause. The Division’s determination of no probable cause is unsupported by the record and must be annulled, and the matter remitted for a hearing pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (4) (a). Whether respondent acted in good faith, based on the information available to it at the time, is [788]*788irrelevant (State Div. of Human Rights v LeRoy Cent. School Dist., 107 AD2d 153). (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

State Division of Human Rights v. Haverling Central School District, 112 A.D.2d 787, 492 N.Y.S.2d 285, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56031 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

112 A.D.2d 787 (State Division of Human Rights v. Haverling Central School District) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related