Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

?Has the employee been treated less well than other employees because of his or her gender? test applied by OATH Administrative Law Judge

?Has the employee been treated less well than other employees because of his or her gender? test applied by OATH Administrative Law Judge
Commission on Human Rights ex rel. Zoleo v Weinstein Family Services of NY, OATH Index No. 623/09

In 2005, the City Council passed the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act, which provides that the City Human Rights law shall be liberally construed "regardless of whether federal or New York State civil and human rights laws ? have been so construed."*

In Williams v. N.Y.C. Housing Authority, 2009 NY Slip Op 00440, (1st Dep't January 17, 2009), the court announced that the federal standard for sexual harassment claims - in the absence of proof of tangible job detriment the complainant must show that she was subjected to "severe or pervasive" acts of harassment - does not apply to claims brought under the City Human Rights Law. The new test under Williams is "whether the plaintiff has proven ? that she has been treated less well than other employees because of her gender."

The Commission on Human Rights alleged that a funeral home discriminated against an administrative assistant on the basis of her age, national origin, and gender, in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Tynia Richard applied the Williams standard and found that the respondents yelled at and regularly criticized complainant in front of co-workers for the clothing she wore and for her gray hair, and demeaned her for her ethnic heritage. As none of the male employees were treated in a similar fashion, the Commission established the respondents treated the complainant less well than other employees because of her gender, and awarded $35,740 for lost income, $5,000 for mental anguish, and $36,400 in front pay.

* Local Law 85, §7, deleted the language in [brackets], and included the new language in italics, providing that: The provisions of this [chapter] title shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal or New York State civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions comparably-worded to provisions of this title, have been so construed.

The text of the Appellate Division?s decision in Williams is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_00440.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on May 12, 2009 (boomark / email).