The New York State Division of Human Rights [SDHR] found that Petitioners discriminated against a former employee [Employee] "based upon her familial status, gender and disability by failing to provide her reasonable accommodations and concluded that [Employee] was constructively discharged from her employment." SDHR imposed a civil fine against Petitioners and awarded Employee monetary damages for mental anguish, humiliation and lost wages. SDHR also awarded Employee counsel fees.
Petitioners thereafter commenced a number of proceedings pursuant to Executive Law §298 seeking annulment of SDHR's determination. SDHR and Employee separately cross-petitioned for, among other things, enforcement of SDHR's determination.
Here Petitioners challenge SDHR's finding that they constructively discharged Employee, arguing that Employee never alleged or proceeded with a theory of constructive discharge and, therefore, their due process rights were violated because they could not adequately defend against a claim of which they had no notice. Citing Block v. Ambach, 73 NY2d 323, the Appellate Division observed that "In the administrative forum, the charges need only be reasonably specific, in light of all the relevant circumstances, to apprise the party whose rights are being determined of the charges against [it] and to allow for the preparation of an adequate defense".
The court explained that while "the complaint may not have explicitly alleged that [employee] was discharged, it did apprise [Petitioners] that they took adverse action against her in the form of her termination of employment". The complaint also noted that Petitioner denied Employee an accommodation, and the circumstances leading to her discharge, whether active or constructive, were explored during the administrative hearing. The court the opined that Petitioners' "due process rights were not violated."
"Constructive discharge," said the Appellate Division, "occurs when the employer, rather than acting directly, deliberately makes an employee's working conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced into an involuntary resignation".*
In the words of the Appellate Division, "Under certain circumstances, the denial of an accommodation can support the finding that working conditions became so intolerable to a reasonable person so as to lead that person to involuntarily resign ... [c]ourts may not weigh the evidence or reject [SDHR's] determination where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists." Thus, in view of SDHR's expertise in assessing discrimination claims, "SDHR's determinations are entitled to deference."
Turning to the issue of damages, the Appellate Division, noting that SDHR awarded Employee $20,000 for mental anguish and humiliation and $45,280 in lost wages, observed that SDHR also imposed a $10,000 civil fine against Petitioners and awarded Employee counsel fees in the amount of $38,548.62, decided that as "SDHR's award for mental anguish and humiliation was reasonably related to the wrongdoing, was supported by substantial evidence and is similar to other awards, it will not be disturbed" and there is no basis exists to disturb the civil fine, the award for lost wages or counsel fees.
* See Morris v Schroder Capital Mgt. Intl., 7 NY3d 616.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.