Summary
evaluating sex discrimination claim under Human Rights Law by looking to federal standards
Summary of this case from Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch AirlinesOpinion
March 16, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.).
As petitioner's claims are only supported by bald conclusory statements, she has failed to establish a prima facie case of either quid pro quo sexual harassment (Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 909 [11th Cir 1982]), or harassment based on the existence of a hostile work environment (Fair v. Guiding Eyes for the Blind, 742 F. Supp. 151 ([S.D.N.Y. 1990]). The record reflects that petitioner was terminated due to her excessive absences, her inability to get along with her subordinates and fellow managers and poor job performance. (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792). Hence, her termination was not arbitrary and capricious (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222).
We also note that the Referee's report was based on incorrect evidentiary rulings regarding, inter alia, authentication of certain documents and exclusion of documents prepared in the ordinary course of business.
We have considered petitioner's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rubin, J.P., Ross, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.