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.
IN RE: STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, et al., Petitioner, v. METROWIRELESS 167, INC., etc., et al., Respondents.
Application pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to enforce petitioner State Division of Human Rights' (DHR) order, dated December 9, 2021, which found respondent MetroWireless 167 Inc. liable for discriminating against Stephanie Martinez based on sex in violation of the Human Rights Law, directed it to compensate Martinez in the amount of $57,248.00 for lost wages and $15,000 in damages for mental anguish, and pay a civil penalty of $5,000 (transferred to this Court by order, Supreme Court, Bronx County [Veronica G. Hummel, J.], entered November 19, 2024), unanimously granted, without costs.
Substantial evidence supports DHR's determination that respondent MetroWireless unlawfully discriminated against Martinez by significantly reducing her work hours and effectively terminating her employment shortly after learning that she was pregnant (see State Div. of Human Rights v Demi Lass, 232 A.D.2d 335, 335–336 [1st Dept 1996]; Matter of Energy Expo v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 112 A.D.2d 302, 303 [2d Dept 1985] ). MetroWireless failed to appear at the hearing, and therefore did not rebut Martinez's prima facie showing (see Matter of Jacobs v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 131 AD3d 883, 884 [1st Dept 2015] ).
Substantial evidence also supports DHR's award of backpay and compensatory damages (see Mittl v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 307 A.D.2d 881, 882 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 701 [2004]; Matter of Goldberg v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 85 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2d Dept 2011]; see also Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v ARC XVI Inwood, Inc., 17 AD3d 239 [1st Dept 2005] ). In light of the circumstances of this case, as well as the deference that must be given to the Administrative Law Judge's findings, the civil penalty of $5,000 is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Boro Park Senior Living Community, LLC, 213 AD3d 671, 674 [2d Dept 2023] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 6379
Decided: April 16, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)