Board of Ed. of Syracuse City School Dist. v. State Division of Human Rights
| Decision Date | 17 February 1972 |
| Citation | 328 N.Y.S.2d 732,38 A.D.2d 245 |
| Parties | , 4 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 627, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7761 Application of the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent, v. The STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and The Members of Same: Robert J. Mangum as Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
On April 7, 1969 appellants Marilyn J. Patrick and Carolyn S. Bratt, teachers employed by the respondent Board of Education of the Syracuse City School District (Board), filed complaints pursuant to the grievance procedures contained in the collective bargaining agreement between the Board and the Syracuse Teachers Association. Both teachers sought payment of salaries for coaching the Eastwood Junior High School girls' extramural basketball team. Prior to the completion of the grievance procedures thus set in motion, the teachers filed complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging 'that the Board was engaging in unlawful discriminatory employment practices'. Specifically, the teachers charged that while male teachers were compensated for coaching basketball, female teachers were not. The Division determined that it had jurisdiction and set the matter down for a hearing.
Thereafter this proceeding was commenced in Supreme Court to restrain the Division from proceeding with the hearing. The court, 65 Misc.2d 679, 318 N.Y.S.2d 633, concluded that the commencement of grievance procedures by the teachers constituted an election of remedies under section 297, subd. 9 and section 300 of the Executive Law and prohibited the Division from conducting any further proceedings relating to the complaints. The Division and the teachers appeal.
The Board, a public employer, is subject generally to the investigatory and enforcement powers of the State Division of Human Rights (Matter of Board of Higher Education of City of New York v. Carter, 14 N.Y.2d 138, 152--153, 250 N.Y.S.2d 33, 40--41, 199 N.E.2d 141). The only question is whether by commencing a grievance procedure the teachers are barred either permanently or pending the completion of the grievance procedures from filing a complaint with the Division. The pertinent statutory provisions are as follows:
Nothing contained in this article shall be deemed to repeal any of the provisions of the Civil rights law or any other law of this state relating to discrimination . . . but, as to acts declared unlawful by section two hundred ninety-six of this article, the procedure herein provided shall, while pending, be exclusive; and the final determination therein shall exclude any other action, civil or criminal based on the same grievance of the individual concerned. If such individual institutes any action based on such grievance without resorting to the procedure provided in this article, he may not subsequently resort to the procedure herein. L.1945, c. 118, § 1. (Emphasis supplied.)
Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice shall have a cause of action in any court of appropriate jurisdiction for damages . . . unless such person had filed a complaint hereunder or with any local commission on human rights. . . . No person who has initiated any action in a court of competent jurisdiction or who has an action pending before any administrative agency Under any other law of the state based upon an act which would be an unlawful discriminatory practice under this article, May file a complaint with respect to the same grievance under this section. L.1968, c. 958, § 6. (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 300 thus provides that the prior institution of 'any action' will operate to bar resort to the Division. Section 297, subd. 9 differentiates between a prior action in a court of competent jurisdiction (which will permanently bar the filing of a complaint with the Division) and 'an action pending before any administrative agency under any other law of the state' (which while pending bars the filing of a complaint with the Division). We agree with appellants that neither section applies to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Free School Dist. No. 6 of Towns of Islip and Smithtown v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd.
...Labor Relations Bd. v. Holland Laundry, 294 N.Y. 480, 495, 63 N.E.2d 68, 75; Matter of Board of Educ. of Syracuse City School Dist. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 38 A.D.2d 245, 248, 328 N.Y.S.2d 732, 734, affd., 33 N.Y.2d 946, 353 N.Y.S.2d 730, 309 N.E.2d 130, Supra). It is true, of course......
-
Tessy Plastics Corp. v. State Div. of Human Rights
...A.D.2d 153, 357 N.Y.S.2d 171, affd. 36 N.Y.2d 985, 374 N.Y.S.2d 603, 337 N.E.2d 119; Matter of Board of Educ. of Syracuse City School Dist. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 38 A.D.2d 245, 328 N.Y.S.2d 732, affd. 33 N.Y.2d 946, 353 N.Y.S.2d 730, 309 N.E.2d 130; Matter of Liverpool Cent. School......
-
Board of Ed. of Union Free School Dist. No. 2, East Williston, Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County v. New York State Division of Human Rights
...Educ. of City of N.Y. v. Carter, 14 N.Y.2d 138, 250 N.Y.S.2d 33, 199 N.E.2d 141; Matter of Board of Educ. of Syracuse City School Dist. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 38 A.D.2d 245, 328 N.Y.S.2d 732; cf. Board of Educ. of Tuxedo Union Free School Dist. No. 3 v. Div. of Human Rights, 68 Misc......
-
Mahoney v. Brockbank
...should be regarded as significant (see generally Matter of Board of Educ. of Syracuse City School Dist. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 38 A.D.2d 245, 248, 328 N.Y.S.2d 732, affd. 33 N.Y.2d 946, 353 N.Y.S.2d 730, 309 N.E.2d 130 ).While the plaintiff recognizes that a stipulation is not a “ve......