State Division of Human Rights v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 31 October 1975 |
| Citation | 375 N.Y.S.2d 497,49 A.D.2d 1026 |
| Parties | , 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,951 STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS et al., Respondents, v. Charles J. HENDERSON, Lieutenant, Petitioner. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Eugene D. Ulterino, Rochester, for petitioner.
Henry Spitz, Alan Sak, New York City, for State Div. of Human Rights.
Seth Towse, Albany, for respondents Nacca and Masco.
Before MARSH, P.J., and MOULE, CARDAMONE, SIMONS and DEL VECCHIO, JJ.
Petitioner was the superior officer of the respondents Masco and Nacca, Sergeants in the New York State Police. Respondents charged him and various other officials of the State Police with unlawful discrimination in the terms and conditions of their employment. After a hearing, the State Division dismissed the complaints of Masco and Nacca. On appeal to the Human Rights Appeal Board that determination was modified. The Board affirmed the Division's decision dismissing the complaint against the State Police Superintendent William E. Kirwan and Troop Commander Major Charles J. Bukowski but it found petitioner Henderson guilty of unlawful discrimination because he admittedly used offensive racial slurs on several occasions. The Appeal Board held that the use of these ethnic slurs in itself constituted an unlawful discriminatory act.
The Human Rights Law (Executive Law, § 296, subd. 1) prohibits discrimination in the compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of race, creed, color or national origin. The statute, by its terms, applies to employers.
The Division and the Appeal Board found that Sergeants Masco and Nacca were not discriminated against by their employer because of their ancestry. The only subject for our consideration is whether the use of ethnic slurs and insults by a coworker or superior without the knowledge or acquiescence of the employer (the use of such language obviously was not a policy of the employer) is an unlawful discriminatory practice reached by the statute. We hold that it is not (see Corne v. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., D.C., 390 F.Supp. 161; Howard v. National Cash Register, D.C., 388 F.Supp. 603).
Respondents' motion to dismiss the petition is denied. The petition was timely (see General Construction Law, § 25--a; Cyens v. Town of Roxbury, 40 A.D.2d 915, 337 N.Y.S.2d 732) and in proper form (Executive Law, § 298).
The petition is granted and the determination of the Human...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leslie v. BancTec Service Corp., 95 Civ. 9382 (DAB).
...904, 905 (4th Dep't 1980), aff'd, 54 N.Y.2d 905, 445 N.Y.S.2d 150, 429 N.E.2d 829 (1981); State Div. of Human Rts. v. Henderson, 49 A.D.2d 1026, 375 N.Y.S.2d 497, 498 (4th Dep't 1975). Finally, Plaintiff feels he was discriminated against when the engineer-in-charge, Morris Yukovich, made a......
-
Vanscoy v. Namic USA Corp.
...Rights Appeal Bd., 81 A.D.2d 688, 438 N.Y.S.2d 643, affd. 55 N.Y.2d 896, 449 N.Y.S.2d 29, 433 N.E.2d 1277; State Div. of Human Rights v. Henderson, 49 A.D.2d 1026, 375 N.Y.S.2d 497), we agree with Supreme Court that these allegations are wholly unsupported and conclusory. Lacking factual sp......
-
Hart v. Sullivan
...that the employer had knowledge or acquiesced in the discriminatory conduct of a supervisor or co-worker (State Div. of Human Rights v. Henderson, 49 A.D.2d 1026, 375 N.Y.S.2d 497). Here, no such allegations are made in the second cause of action. Needless to say, the husband's derivative a......
-
Joslyn v. Santaella
...proved, constitute an unlawful discriminatory practice within the meaning of Executive Law § 296 (but see, State Div. of Human Rights v. Henderson, 49 A.D.2d 1026, 375 N.Y.S.2d 497), since the respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (hereinafter the Division) properly determined ......