IN RE: Catherine M. SULLIVAN (2025)

Final order of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), dated March 15, 2024, which adopted the recommended order of the Administrative Law Judge, dismissing petitioner's disability and age discrimination complaint, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Paul A. Goetz, J.], entered May 20, 2024) dismissed, without costs.

DHR's determination that Liberty Mutual did not engage in unlawful discrimination on the basis of age or disability is supported by substantial evidence (Executive Law § 298;  Matter of White v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 160 A.D.3d 448, 71 N.Y.S.3d 346 [1st Dept. 2018]).  The record provides ample evidence to support Liberty Mutual's proffered reason that petitioner's termination was due to work performance issues (see Bauman v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 181 A.D.3d 515, 120 N.Y.S.3d 332 [1st Dept. 2020];  see also Sicola v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 210 A.D.3d 449, 449–450, 178 N.Y.S.3d 14 [1st Dept. 2022], lv denied 39 N.Y.3d 916, 2023 WL 4003845 [2023]).  Petitioner failed to show that Liberty Mutual's legitimate reasons for terminating her employment were a pretext for discrimination (see Arifi v. Central Moving & Stor. Co., Inc., 147 A.D.3d 551, 46 N.Y.S.3d 784 [1st Dept. 2017]).  This Court may not substitute its judgment for DHR's, even if a contrary decision might have been reasonable (Matter of White, 160 A.D.3d at 448, 71 N.Y.S.3d 346).