MARJORIE LEE THORESON A/K/A ANNEKA DILORENZO, APPELLANT-RESPONDENT, v.
PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL, LTD. AND ROBERT C. GUCCIONE, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.
80 N.Y.2d 490, 606 N.E.2d 1369, 591 N.Y.S.2d 978 (1992).
December 21, 1992
1 No. 269
Decided December 21, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Murray Schwartz, for Appellant-respondent.
Bettina B. Plevan, for Respondents-appellants.
Women's Bar Association of the State of New York, et al.; Women's
Rights Litigation Clinic of Rutgers Law School-Newark et al.; and
Association of the Bar of the City of New York, amici curiae.
HANCOCK, J:
This appeal presents a question of statutory construction which we
have not addressed: whether a person aggrieved by a discriminatory
practice in violation of the Human Rights Law may recover punitive
damages in a court action brought pursuant to Executive Law § 297(9).
Based on our analysis of the statutory language and the relevant
legislative history, we conclude that such damages are not
recoverable.
I
Plaintiff -- alleging sexual harassment in violation of the Human
Rights Law -- brought an action in Supreme Court pursuant to Executive
Law § 297(9) against her former employer, Penthouse International,
Ltd., and its chairman and principal shareholder, Robert Guccione, the
publisher of Penthouse Magazine. After a non-jury trial, the Court
found that defendants had exploited plaintiff as an employee by, among
other things, coercing her, as an implicit condition of her
employment, into having sexual liaisons with two of Guccione's
business associates. The Court granted plaintiff $60,000 for
compensatory and $4,000,000 for punitive damages.
A majority at the Appellate Division found sufficient evidence in the
record to support the conclusion of Supreme Court that plaintiff was
the victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment and, with one justice
dissenting, affirmed the award of compensatory damages (see, Thoreson
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
This appeal presents a question of statutory construction which we have not addressed:
Plaintiff -- alleging sexual harassment in violation of the Human Rights Law -- brought an
After a non-jury trial, the Court found that defendants had exploited plaintiff as an
A majority at the Appellate Division found sufficient evidence in the record to support the
The Appellate Division, however, held unanimously that punitive damages were not recoverable
Based on our review of the record, we hold, as did the Appellate Division majority, "that the
For reasons which follow, we concur with the Appellate Division that such damages are not
When it enacted Executive Law § 297to provide a judicial remedy for discriminatory practices
It is settled that if an aggrieved person seeks administrative relief for discriminatory
The precise question before us, then, is: did the Legislature, in creating the cause of
Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice shall have a cause
Nothing in the statute indicates that the Legislature, in making legal remedies available in
the report of the Governor's Committee recommending the adoption of the 1968 amendment
No reason has been suggested as to why the Legislature would have intended this consequence;
|
