Opinion
15260, 100035/14
05-28-2015
In re LAW OFFICES OF OLIVER ZHOU, PLLC, et al., Petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, etc., et al., Respondents.
Oliver Zhou, New York, for petitioners. Caroline J. Downey, Bronx (Michael K. Swirsky of counsel), for respondents.
Oliver Zhou, New York, for petitioners.
Caroline J. Downey, Bronx (Michael K. Swirsky of counsel), for respondents.
ANDRIAS, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, DEGRASSE, GISCHE, KAPNICK, JJ.
Opinion 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, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [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 A.D.3d 1138, 839 N.Y.S.2d 558 [3d Dept.2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 706, 857 N.Y.S.2d 39, 886 N.E.2d 804 [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, 573 N.Y.S.2d 49, 577 N.E.2d 40 [1991] ).
We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.