ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

March 28, 2017

Dismissing a human rights complaint for "administrative convenience" and "dismissal of a human rights complaint on the merit" distinguished


Dismissing a human rights complaint for "administrative convenience" and "dismissal of a human rights complaint on the merit" distinguished
Vetro v Hampton Bays Union Free School Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 01910, Appellate Division, Second Department

In an action seeking to recover damages for his alleged wrongful termination of employment by the Hampton Bays Union Free School District, Frank J. Vetro appealed an order of the Supreme Court that denied his motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granted Hampton Bay's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court's ruling explaining that in this instance the "doctrine of election of remedies" barred Vetro from bringing an action in Supreme Court alleging the same discriminatory acts the he had advanced in his complaint filed with the New York State Division of Human [Division] in his complaint.

Executive Law §297(9) provides that in the event the Division has dismissed a complaint filed with it for "administrative convenience" the complainant is able to "maintain all rights to bring suit as if no complaint had been filed with the [Division]." In contrast, in the event the Division had dismissed the complaint or complaints on the merits and not for mere administrative convenience, recourse to Supreme Court alleging the same acts or omissions is not available to the complainant.

In particular, §297(9) provides that at  any  time  prior  to  a   hearing  before a hearing examiner, a person who has a complaint pending at the division may request that the division dismiss the complaint  and   annul his or her election of remedies so that the human rights law claim   may  be  pursued  in  court,  and  the  division may, upon such request,   dismiss the complaint on the grounds that such person's election  of  an   administrative  remedy  is  annulled.*

In this instance, said the Appellate Division, the Division of Human Rights dismissed Vetro's complaints on the "merits and not for mere administrative convenience." Thus, said the court, Supreme Court properly granted the school district's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that this action is barred by the election of remedies doctrine.

* N.B. A complaint filed by the Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission to comply with the requirements of 42 USC 2000e-5(c)and 42 USC 12117(a) and29 USC 633(b) does not constitute the filing of a complaint within the meaning of §297(9) of New York State's Executive Law.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_01910.htm

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com