General
In the Matter of Albert Dawson, Petitioner, v. New York State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents
88 A.D.3d 705930 N.Y.S.2d 467·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2011·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
In the Matter of Albert Dawson, Petitioner, v New York State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.
[930 NYS2d 467]
[MAJORITY]
“The determination of the State Commissioner of Human Rights must be confirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 NY2d 411, 417 [1991] [citation omitted]; see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180 [1978]). Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 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 [2006]; Matter of McDonald v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 AD3d 668 [2010]; Matter of Sauer v Donaldson, 49 AD3d 656, 656-657 [2008]). Accordingly, the Commissioner’s determination must be confirmed. Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.