Jainchill v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd.
| Citation | 442 N.Y.S.2d 595,83 A.D.2d 665 |
| Parties | , 35 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1403 In the Matter of Roberta JAINCHILL, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS APPEAL BOARD et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 02 July 1981 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Roberta Jainchill, pro se.
Harvey Randall, Albany, for New York State Dept. of Civil Service.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and SWEENEY, KANE, CASEY and HERLIHY, JJ.
Proceeding instituted in this court pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review a determination of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated February 17, 1981, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights dismissing petitioner's complaint of an unlawful discriminatory practice relating to employment for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights on November 5, 1979, alleging that the State Department of Civil Service had engaged in an unlawful discriminatory employment practice. Having failed a competitive examination for appointment to a position with a State agency, it was her contention that the department's examiners had improperly arrived at their decision based on her sex. The division dismissed her complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the ground she had previously commenced an administrative action relating to the same grievance (see Executive Law, § 297, subd. 9) and its determination was thereafter affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, thus prompting the instant proceeding for judicial review.
The record demonstrates, and the division now concedes, that petitioner's efforts to secure redress of her grievance through administrative channels terminated on October 16, 1979 when the State Civil Service Commission finally rejected her objections to the examination procedures and results. Since the statute provides that "person * * * 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 repect to the same grievance * * *" (Executive Law, § 297, subd. 9, emphasis added), the division presently maintains that it erred in dismissing her subsequently filed complaint. The Department of Civil Service asserts, however, that petitioner's decision to pursue administrative remedies should be given conclusive effect. We agree with the division and annul the determination of the State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. County of Nassau
...vacated, 756 F.2d 939 (2d Cir.1985); White v. Shull, 520 F.Supp. 11 (S.D.N.Y.1981); Jainchill v. N.Y.S. Human Rights Appeal Bd., 83 A.D.2d 665, 442 N.Y.S.2d 595 (3d Dept.1981); Crouse — Irving Memorial Hospital v. Axelrod, 82 A.D.2d 83, 442 N.Y.S.2d 338 (4th Dept.1981); Geherin v. Sylvester......
-
United States v. E. River Hous. Corp.
...City of New York, 561 F.Supp. 325, 327 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (citing N.Y. EXEC. LAW §§ 297(9), 300 ); Jainchill v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 83 A.D.2d 665, 442 N.Y.S.2d 595 (App.Div.1981) (“A permanent barrier to the filing of a complaint would have arisen only if petitioner had comm......
-
United States v. E. River Hous. Corp.
...of New York, 561 F. Supp. 325, 327 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (citing N.Y. EXEC. LAW §§ 297(9), 300); Jainchill v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 83 A.D.2d 665, 442 N.Y.S.2d 595 (App. Div. 1981) ("A permanent barrier to the filing of a complaint would have arisen only if petitioner had commen......
-
People of State of NY v. Holiday Inns, Inc., CIV-83-564E.
...in this Court while the resolution of the matters remained undecided by the agency. See Jainchill v. N.Y. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 83 A.D.2d 665, 442 N.Y.S.2d 595 (3d Dep't 1981); Rio v. Presbyterian Hosp. in City of New York, 561 F.Supp. 325, 327 (S.D.N. Y.1983); cf. Meschino v. Inte......