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: Law Offices of Oliver Zhou, PLLC, et al., Petitioners, v. New York State Division of Human Rights, etc., et al., Respondents.
_
Determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), dated November 26, 2013, which found that petitioners violated the State Human Rights Law by retaliating against the complainant who was engaging in a protected activity, and, directed petitioners to pay complainant back pay in the principal amount of $5,811 and compensatory damages for mental anguish in the principal amount of $10,000, and to pay a civil fine of $1,000, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Cynthia S. Kern, J.], entered February 18, 2014), dismissed, without costs.
Contrary to petitioners' contention, DHR had jurisdiction over this matter as the record shows that petitioner employer had at least four employees (see Executive Law § 292[5] ).
DHR's findings are supported by substantial evidence (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180–181 [1978] ). The evidence establishes that the complainant was terminated immediately after she showed her employer a sexual harassment complaint that she filed with DHR, and that, while petitioners claimed there were various nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination, the complainant showed that the reasons were merely a pretext for illegal retaliation (see Matter of Board of Educ. of New Paltz Cent. School Dist. v Donaldson, 41 AD3d 1138 [3d Dept 2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 706 [2008] ).
The awards of back pay and compensatory damages, and the assessment of the civil fine are proper (see Executive Law § 297[4][c]; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 78 N.Y.2d 207 [1991] ).
We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
_
CLERK
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: 1526 0
Decided: May 28, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)