From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MATTER OF DRAMAN v. LAMAR ADVERTISING OF PA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

June 16, 2000.

Executive Law § 298 Exec. Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Glownia, J.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HAYES, WISNER AND KEHOE, JJ.


Determination unanimously annulled on the law without costs and matter remitted to respondent New York State Division of Human Rights for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: In this proceeding transferred to this Court pursuant to Executive Law § 298 Exec., petitioner seeks review of the determination of the Commissioner of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (Division) dismissing his complaint following a public hearing. The complaint alleges that petitioner was forced to resign from his employment because of his religious beliefs ( see, Executive Law § 296 Exec. [1] [a]). We conclude that the determination of the Commissioner is inconsistent because he concludes both that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that petitioner's employer "has presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of discrimination ". The presumption of discrimination arises only if the employee establishes a prima facie case of discrimination ( see, Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254). Additionally, we conclude that, in deciding whether petitioner established a prima facie case, the Commissioner improperly considered the reasons given by petitioner's employer for its actions ( see, Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 629). Finally, the Commissioner erred in failing to determine whether the reasons given by petitioner's employer for its actions were a pretext for discrimination. "Once the [employer] `responds to the [employee's] proof by offering evidence of the reason for the [employee's discharge], the factfinder must then decide' * * * `whether the [discharge] was discriminatory'" ( St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 518-519, quoting United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-715). We therefore annul the determination and remit the matter to the Division for a new determination with findings of fact.


Summaries of

MATTER OF DRAMAN v. LAMAR ADVERTISING OF PA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 16, 2000
273 A.D.2d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

MATTER OF DRAMAN v. LAMAR ADVERTISING OF PA

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF SHANE M. DRAMAN, PETITIONER, v. LAMAR ADVERTISING OF PENN, INC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 16, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 808 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
709 N.Y.S.2d 306

Citing Cases

Winkler v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights

We are unable to discern on the record before us whether, but for her erroneous reliance on the affirmative…

DRAMAN v. LAMAR ADV

According to petitioner, he was constructively discharged from his employment with respondent because of his…