IN THE MATTER OF THE TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, RESPONDENT, v. NEW YORK STATE
DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, APPELLANT, AND CHARLES REED, COMPLAINANT.
82 N.Y.2d 783, 624 N.E.2d 678, 604 N.Y.S.2d 541 (1993).
October 14, 1993
2 No. 180 (1993 NY Int. 195)
Decided October 14, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Sara Toll East, for Appellant.
Thomas C. Greble, for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs and
the judgment of Supreme Court reinstated.
The extraordinary writ of prohibition does not lie to prevent the
Division of Human Rights from considering an individual's complaint of
racial discrimination.
In March, 1986 Petitioner Town of Huntington (hereafter "Town") hired
respondent Charles Reed, an African American male, as a sign
inspector, which is a competitive class civil service title. In April,
1987, Reed was suspended pending an investigation into charges of
incompetence and misconduct. By notice, pursuant to Civil Service Law
§ 75, he was charged with, inter alia, incompetence, misconduct,
insubordination and improper use of equipment. Reed denied these
charges.
At a Section 75 hearing, Reed responded affirmatively to the question
whether he believed the charges against him were racially motivated.
Reed stated that he was harassed and his director used racial epithets
in reference to him. The hearing officer, Thomas Mazzola, concluded
that Reed was guilty of several of the charges but recommended a
lenient penalty. Mazzola found no substantial evidence or testimony to
validate Reed's claim of racial discrimination, notwithstanding a
witness' claim that he heard the director use racial epithets in
describing Reed.
Two Town officials, John O'Neill and Lisa M. Baisley, subsequently
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF THE TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, RESPONDENT, v.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The extraordinary writ of prohibition does not lie to prevent the Division of Human Rights
In March, 1986 Petitioner Town of Huntington hired respondent Charles Reed, an African
In April, 1987, Reed was suspended pending an investigation into charges of incompetence and
Reed commenced a successful article 78 proceeding annulling O'Neill's determination because
The Town Board then appointed Baisley to review the records and her decision dismissing Reed
Reed filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights on August 12, 1987, charging
The Town commenced an article 78 proceeding on November 20, 1989, by writ of prohibition,
Supreme Court denied the Town's stay request for prohibition, holding that the writ was not
The Appellate Division reversed, granted the petition, prohibited the Division from
The extraordinary writ of prohibition is available to address "whether body or officer
"Prohibition may be maintained solely to prevent or control a body or officer acting in a
The Town will suffer no irreparable harm, however, by waiting to challenge the Division's
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Bellacosa and Smith concur.
|
