Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of Shane M. DRAMAN, Petitioner, v. LAMAR ADVERTISING OF PENN, INC., and New York State Division of Human Rights, Respondents.
In this proceeding transferred to this Court pursuant to Executive Law § 298, petitioner seeks review of the determination of the Commissioner of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (Division) dismissing his complaint following a public hearing. The complaint alleges that petitioner was forced to resign from his employment because of his religious beliefs (see, Executive Law § 296[1][a] ). We conclude that the determination of the Commissioner is inconsistent because he concludes both that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that petitioner's employer “has presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of discrimination”. The presumption of discrimination arises only if the employee establishes a prima facie case of discrimination (see, Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207). Additionally, we conclude that, in deciding whether petitioner established a prima facie case, the Commissioner improperly considered the reasons given by petitioner's employer for its actions (see, Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 629, 665 N.Y.S.2d 25, 687 N.E.2d 1308). Finally, the Commissioner erred in failing to determine whether the reasons given by petitioner's employer for its actions were a pretext for discrimination. “Once the [employer] ‘responds to the [employee's] proof by offering evidence of the reason for the [employee's discharge], the factfinder must then decide’ * * * ‘whether the [discharge] was discriminatory’ ” (St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 518-519, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407, quoting United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-715, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403). We therefore annul the determination and remit the matter to the Division for a new determination with findings of fact.
Determination unanimously annulled on the law without costs and matter remitted to respondent New York State Division of Human Rights for further proceedings.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 16, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)