Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Eric A. GARRISON, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, et al., Respondents.

Decided: April 28, 1997

Before MILLER, J.P., and JOY, GOLDSTEIN and FLORIO, JJ. John W. Whittlesey, Chappaqua, for petitioners. Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, IL (James W. Gladden, Jr., and Angela K. Dorn, of counsel), and Judith Janssen, Fairfax, VA, for respondent Mobil Administrative Services Company, Inc. (one brief filed).

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights, dated November 15, 1995, which, after a hearing, found that certain claims were time-barred and that the respondent corporation did not discriminate against the petitioners on the basis of their age.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

 Because the complaints were filed more than one year after the allegedly discriminatory discharges from employment occurred, the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights properly determined that the petitioners' discriminatory discharge claims were time-barred (see, Executive Law § 297 [5];  Matter of Patel v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 216 A.D.2d 469, 628 N.Y.S.2d 379;  Brownwood v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 73 A.D.2d 660, 423 N.Y.S.2d 196;  State Div. of Human Rights v. Westmoreland Cent. School Dist., 56 A.D.2d 205, 392 N.Y.S.2d 149).

 The petitioners' claims that they were discriminated against when the respondent Mobil Administrative Services Company, Inc., declined to hire them for new positions after they had been discharged does not convert the discharge claims into one for a continuing violation such that the limitations period would be tolled (see, Miller v. International Tel. & Telegraph Co., 755 F.2d 20, 24;  Yokum v. St. Johnsbury Trucking Co., 595 F.Supp. 1532, 1533;  see also, Matter of Patel v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, supra).

The determination that the failure to rehire the petitioners was not discriminatory is supported by substantial evidence.


Copied to clipboard