Matter of Maloff v. City Comm'n on Human Rights
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hazeldine v. Beverage Media, Ltd. (District Court, S.D. New York 1997)
- Lugo v. Milford Management Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1997)
- Rudow v. City of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 1986)
- J. W. Mays, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- North Shore University Hospital v. Rosa (N.Y. 1995)
- Pace v. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMN. (N.Y. 1995)
- Pace University v. New York City Commission on Human Rights (N.Y. 1995)
- Fugardi v. Angus (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Gagliardi v. Trapp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- MATTER OF MCENIRY v. Landi (N.Y. 1994)
- Hall v. Paladino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Card v. Sielaff (New York Supreme Court 1992)
- State Division of Human Rights v. Oneida County Sheriff's Department (N.Y. 1988)
- State University Agricultural & Technical College at Farmingdalel v. State Division of Human Rights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- National Basketball Ass'n v. New York State Division of Human Rights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Western Union International, Inc. v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1985)
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. New York City Human Rights Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- State Division of Human Rights v. North Queensview Homes, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- Maloff v. City Commission On Human Rights (N.Y. 1979)
- Axel v. Duffy-Mott Co. (N.Y. 1979)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, with directions to remand to the New York City Commission on Human Rights for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
The commission could reasonably conclude that a prima facie case of retaliation had been established in view of the fact that one of the reasons stated for the complainant’s discharge was her prior complaint of discrimination which had been dismissed by the commission. The commission erred however in concluding that it need not consider whether there is any substance to the other reasons stated by the petitioners as legitimate nonretaliatory grounds for the dismissal. The standard is not, as the commission suggests, that a discriminatory reason "fatally taints” the discharge; nor is the standard, as the petitioners suggest, that the employee must show that the discriminatory ground was the "sole reason” for the discharge.
Once the prima facie showing of discrimination had been made, the burden shifted to the petitioners to show that "the employee was terminated for some independent legitimate reason which was neither a pretext for discrimination nor was substantially influenced by impermissible discrimination” (Matter of Pace Coll, v Commission on Human Rights, 38 NY2d 28, 40; see, also, Matter of Maloff v Commission on Human Rights, 38 NY2d 329). Thus upon remittal, the commission should "weigh the evidence, make the permissible *911 inferences, and * * * come to conclusions supported by the evidence” as to whether the unsatisfactory rating was, in this instance, based on legitimate nondiscriminatory grounds or whether those grounds were used as a pretext or were substantially influenced by discrimination (Matter of Pace Coll, v Commission on Human Rights, supra, p 40).
As to the appropriateness of the remittal to fix damages see Matter of Maloff v City Comm. on Human Rights (Schriber) (46 NY2d 902 [decided herewith]).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.