State Division of Human Rights v. Union Carbide Corp.

• Decision Date: 23 April 1970
• Citation: 34 A.D.2d 636,310 N.Y.S.2d 396
• Parties: , 2 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 708, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,257 Application of the STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Petitioner, for an order pursuant to Section 298 of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law, Article 15) v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Robert C. Saunders and J. Goffe Benson, Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 396

310 N.Y.S.2d 396

34 A.D.2d 636, 2 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 708,

2 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,257

Application of the STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS,

Petitioner, for an order pursuant to Section 298

of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law, Article 15) v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Robert C. Saunders and J. Goffe

Benson, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 23, 1970.

H. Spitz, New York City, for petitioner.

R. P. Lawlor, New York City, for respondents.

Before STEVENS, P.J., and McNALLY, STEUER and TILZER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Petition of the State Division of Human Rights pursuant to section 298, Executive Law, for an order of enforcement is unanimously granted, in the exercise of discretion and in the interests of justice, to the extent of remanding the matter to the Division to make a record of the claimed non-compliance and appropriate findings thereon, without prejudice to the making of a new application upon the completion of such record and findings, if so advised, and otherwise the petition is denied without costs and without disbursements.

Petitioner seeks an order enforcing an order of the Division, dated September 23, 1969, entered upon a conciliation agreement made pursuant to section 297, subd. 3, Executive Law. It is alleged that respondents have not complied with the order of the Division in that they have failed to offer to the complainant a non-routine administrative position. It is undisputed that respondents did offer two positions to the complainant, but complainant found each of them unacceptable. The petition alleges that the positions rejected by complainant did not satisfy the provisions of the Division order of September 23, 1969.

Proper court procedures for implementation of Article 15 (Human Rights Law) of the Executive Law are in the formative stage. Section 298 provides that the Division may obtain an order 'for the enforcement of any order of the commissioner which has not been appealed to the board' in a proceeding in the Appellate Division. No criteria are set forth in that section which shall serve as a guide or basis for an enforcement order. In State Div. of Human Rights v. Employers Commercial Union Insurance Group, 33 A.D.2d 273 307 N.Y.S.2d 232, appeal denied, Court of Appeals, Feb. 26, 1970, 26 N.Y.2d 611, 309 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 258 N.E.2d 104, this Court held that the language of section 298 was not mandatory, and that this Court was vested with a measure of discretion in determining whether an enforcement order should issue. In that case, however, the Division admitted that the respondents had not violated the directives of the Division, but sought the enforcement order to assure continued compliance. An enforcement order was denied.

In the instant proceeding, there is a conflict in the papers as to whether...