Ibhawa v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights & Diocese of Buffalo

• Docket Number: 251 CA 22-00060
• Decision Date: 30 June 2023
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF VICTOR O. IBHAWA, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIOCESE OF BUFFALO, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2023 NY Slip Op 03585

IN THE MATTER OF VICTOR O. IBHAWA, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DIOCESE OF BUFFALO, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

No. 251 CA 22-00060

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

June 30, 2023

CAROLINE J. DOWNEY, GENERAL COUNSEL, BRONX (AARON M. WOSKOFF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

BOND SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, BUFFALO (ERIN S. TORCELLO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT DIOCESE OF BUFFALO.

DONNA A. MILLING, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (E. Jeannette Ogden, J.), entered November 23, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted the petition in part.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is dismissed in its entirety, and the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights to the extent it dismissed the hostile work environment claim is reinstated.

Memorandum Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 seeking to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) dismissing his administrative discrimination complaint against his former employer, respondent Diocese of Buffalo (Diocese), for lack of jurisdiction, based upon the ministerial exception to employment discrimination claims (see generally Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 188-189 [2012]). Supreme Court granted the petition in part by annulling the determination insofar as it dismissed the claim of hostile work environment and remanding the matter to SDHR. Respondents each appeal from the order to the extent that it granted the petition and remanded the matter, and we reverse the order insofar as appealed from.

Respondents contend that the court applied an incorrect standard of review and failed to give the requisite deference to SDHR's determination. We agree. The standard of review here is whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law (see Matter of LeTray v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 181 A.D.3d 1296, 1297-1298 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 915 [2020]; Matter of Malcolm v New York State Dept. of Labor, 122 A.D.3d 1318, 1319 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 903 [2015]; Matter of Stoudymire v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 36 Misc.3d 919 920-921 [Sup Ct, Cayuga County 2012], affd for reasons stated 109 A.D.3d 1096 [4th Dept 2013]). "The SDHR's determination is entitled to considerable deference given its expertise in evaluating discrimination claims" (...