Bazile v. Acinapura
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*765The Supreme Court properly concluded that the petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving that the independent, legitimate, and nondiscriminatory reasons proffered by her employer for discharging her were not the employer’s true reasons, but a pretext for discrimination (see, Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 NY2d 937; Matter of Talt v State Div. of Human Rights, 156 AD2d 569). Further, the Division of Human Rights’ investigation of the petitioner’s complaint was not abbreviated or one sided. Moreover, the evidence did not present inconsistencies or unresolved…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miller Brewing Co. v. State Division of Human RightsNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- State Office of Drug Abuse Services v. State Human Rights Appeal BoardNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Giles v. State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
- Sidoti v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Bruno v. Pembrook Management, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Orosz v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Camp v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Rauch v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Cornelius v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Pathak v. New York State Division of Human RightsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.