In the Matter of Laverack & Haines, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. New York
State Division of Human Rights, et al., Respondents.
88 N.Y.2d 734, 673 N.E.2d 586, 650 N.Y.S.2d 76 (1996).
October 15, 1996
4 No. 188 (1996 NY Int. 186)
Decided October 15, 1996
______________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
______________________________________________________________________
David W. Larrison, for appellants.
Michael K. Swirsky, for respondent State Division.
BELLACOSA, J.:
The State Division of Human Rights found former employer
Laverack & Haines, Inc., guilty of age discrimination based on its
elimination of employee George Burns' job. The Appellate Division
essentially upheld the SDHR age discrimination determination. One
Justice dissented and would have granted the petition to annul the
agency's ruling, and this Court granted leave to appeal.
We now reverse and grant the petition because, while the
threshold prima facie case of discrimination was satisfied, the
petitioners-appellants (the employer) met their burden of rebuttal by
presenting a nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual explanation for the
termination of employee-complainant Burns. The overall employment
downsizing was the result of business setbacks. The elimination of
his job and job title reflected no disparate treatment with respect to
the handling of comparable job titles in the Buffalo and Syracuse
offices. In sum, the employer was under no legal obligation to create
a new or additional job for the fired employee or to bump or displace
other employees to make room for him.
Laverack & Haines, Inc., was a company engaged in the
representation of self-insured employers in matters before the New
York State Workers' Compensation Board. In January 1978, it hired
complainant, George Burns, as the Claims Manager of its Syracuse, New
York, office. By 1982, Laverack started downsizing its operations
throughout the State based on severe economic downturns in its
business. It sold off several components of its business and
terminated several senior level employees. The reorganization
eliminated the equivalent Claims Manager position in the company's
Buffalo office; the person previously holding the position, Casimir
Wilbert, was dropped down to and retained as a Hearing
Representative. In January 1983, continuing its reorganization
struggle, Laverack transferred Jack Syracuse (age: early 30s), as a
SNIPPETS:
The State Division of Human Rights found former employer Laverack & Haines, Inc., guilty of
One Justice dissented and would have granted the petition to annul the agency's ruling, and
We now reverse and grant the petition because, while the threshold prima facie case of
Laverack & Haines, Inc., was a company engaged in the representation of self-insured
Laverack started downsizing its operations throughout the State based on severe economic
The reorganization eliminated the equivalent Claims Manager position in the company's Buffalo
Jack Syracuse's employment as Hearing Representative in the Syracuse office was also
In October 1983, Burns filed a discrimination complaint alleging that Laverack improperly
Close to ten years later in 1992, a SDHR Administrative Law Judge issued an opinion, decision
Eight months later in August 1994, the SDHR Commissioner, opting for the report of the ALJ,
The final determination reduced the back pay awarded to Burns to $27,378, plus interest
The Appellate Division unanimously agreed that a prima facie case of age discrimination was
The Appellate Division majority, however, further concluded that the SDHR properly rejected
in Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div.
of Human Rights, established the burdens of persuasion and production in an age
The Court concluded that satisfaction of the threshold prima facie component of an age
To satisfy this burden, the Appellate Division in Manning v Norton Co., harkening to Matter
In any event, as the Kipper court correctly noted, the fact that some of Burns'
|
