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: Albert Dawson, petitioner, v. New York State Division of Human Rights, et al., respondents.
Submitted—September 16, 2011
DECISION & JUDGMENT
Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 and CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights dated October 1, 2008, which adopted the recommendations and findings of an administrative law judge dated August 19, 2008, made after a hearing, finding that the petitioner failed to establish that Greenman–Pedersen, Inc., discriminated against him in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment on the basis of his age.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
“The determination of the State Commissioner of Human Rights must be confirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 N.Y.2d 411, 417 [citation omitted]; see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179–180). Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d at 179–180). Here, the conclusion of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the Commissioner) that the respondent Greenman–Pedersen, Inc. (hereinafter GP), did not discriminate against the petitioner on the basis of his age is supported by substantial evidence. While the petitioner established a prima facie case of age discrimination, GP credibly provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating the petitioner's employment, and the petitioner failed to show that GP's proffered reasons constituted a pretext for discrimination (see Stephenson v Hotel Empls. & Rest. Empls. Union Local 100 of AFL–CIO, 6 NY3d 265, 271; Matter of McDonald v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 AD3d 668, 668; Matter of Sauer v. Donaldson, 49 AD3d 656, 656–657). Accordingly, the Commissioner's determination must be confirmed.
SKELOS, J.P., DICKERSON, LEVENTHAL and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2009–07139 (Index No. 43151 /08)
Decided: October 04, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)