State Division of Human Rights v. Burroughs Corp.
| Decision Date | 14 December 1979 |
| Citation | 423 N.Y.S.2d 725,73 A.D.2d 801 |
| Parties | STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (Fannie J. Williams), Respondents, v. BURROUGHS CORPORATION, Petitioner. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Nixon, Hargrave, Devans & Doyle, Rochester, by William McKnight, Rochester, for petitioner.
Ann Thacher Anderson, New York City, for State Division of Human Rights.
Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, for N.Y. Telephone Co., amicus curiae.
Before HANCOCK, J. P., and SCHNEPP, CALLAHAN, DOERR and MOULE, JJ.
In August 1974 following complainant's six-month absence from work due to pregnancy, petitioner denied complainant disability benefits for the period of her absence. On May 4, 1977 complainant filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights alleging that petitioner's refusal to pay for her 1973 pregnancy-related disability constituted unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law, art. 15). The Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights found that unlawful sex discrimination did exist and directed petitioner to cease treating pregnancy-related disabilities differently from other disabilities, to compensate complainant for her 1973 pregnancy-related disability, and to compensate any other employees who had pregnancy-connected disabilities at any time since one year prior to the filing of complainant's complaint. The Commissioner's determination was affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board.
A complaint made upon a violation of the Human Rights Law must be filed within one year of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice (Executive Law, § 297(5)). Where, however, an unlawful discriminatory practice is of a continuing nature, the date of its occurrence is deemed to be any date subsequent to its inception up to the date of its cessation (9 NYCRR 465.3(e)). Here, though petitioner had a general practice of denying disability benefits for pregnancy-related disabilities through the time the complaint was filed, that discriminatory practice did not have a continuing impact on complainant. Complainant alleged a single act of discrimination: petitioner's denial of her application for disability benefits in August 1974. Since complainant was not the victim of discrimination of a continuing nature, the one-year limitations period began to run in August 1974 when complainant's application for disability benefits was denied (see Matter of Queensborough...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Lumberland v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
...on the complainant is unavailing (see, e.g., Tiffany & Co. v. Smith, 224 A.D.2d 332, 638 N.Y.S.2d 454; State Div. of Human Rights v. Burroughs Corp., 73 A.D.2d 801, 423 N.Y.S.2d 725, affd. 52 N.Y.2d 748, 436 N.Y.S.2d 276, 417 N.E.2d 570), especially in light of this court's holding that a c......
-
Bhagalia v. State
...of New York, 116 A.D.2d 875, 877, 498 N.Y.S.2d 196, affd 68 N.Y.2d 777, 506 N.Y.S.2d 673, 498 N.E.2d 146; State Div. of Human Rights v. Burroughs Corp., 73 A.D.2d 801, 423 N.Y.S.2d 725, affd 52 N.Y.2d 748, 436 N.Y.S.2d 276, 417 N.E.2d 570) and is thus barred by the 90-day Statute of Limitat......
-
Carrington v. N.Y.S. Office for People With Developmental Disabilities
...three-year statute of limitations for the Human Rights Law began to run on that date (see State Div. of Human Rights v. Burroughs Corp., 73 A.D.2d 801, 801, 423 N.Y.S.2d 725 [4th Dept. 1979], affd 52 N.Y.2d 748, 436 N.Y.S.2d 276, 417 N.E.2d 570 [1980] ; New York State Div. of Human Rights v......
-
Hillcrest General Hosp.-GHI v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., HOSPITAL--GH
...from her employer's insurer that her claim for disability by reason of pregnancy had been denied (see State Div. of Human Rights v. Burroughs Corp., 73 A.D.2d 801, 423 N.Y.S.2d 725, affd. 52 N.Y.2d 748, 436 N.Y.S.2d 276, 417 N.E.2d 570). The petitioner's contention that the Statute of Limit......