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: Application of C. Claire EDINBORO, Petitioner, For a Judgment, etc., v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, et al., Respondents.
Determination of respondent Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights, dated April 6, 2000, which dismissed petitioner's claims under the New York State Human Rights Law against respondent Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Alice Schlesinger, J.], entered September 29, 2000), dismissed, without costs.
Contrary to respondent Metropolitan Life's contention, the petition was timely. Nonetheless, the petition should be dismissed since our review of the record discloses that the Commissioner's findings, that petitioner was not subjected to sexual harassment and that respondent met its burden to demonstrate non-discriminatory reasons for petitioner's termination, were supported by substantial evidence (see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181-182, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183). There is no basis to disturb the administrative tribunal's determination rejecting petitioner's testimony respecting sexual comments by her co-workers (see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193). The Commissioner's finding that respondent Metropolitan Life met its burden to demonstrate non-discriminatory reasons for petitioner's termination was supported by testimony and documentation establishing that petitioner was terminated for insubordination, inability to get along with her co-workers and lateness (see, Budzanoski v. Pfizer, Inc., 245 A.D.2d 72, 664 N.Y.S.2d 796).
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.
Decided: December 18, 2001
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)