2 No. 47
In the Matter of Carol Aurecchione,
Appellant,
v.
New York State Division of Human Rights, et al.,
Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
2002 NY Int. 41
April 25, 2002
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Edward Cherney, for appellant.
Michael K. Swirsky, for respondent State Division.
Martin Gringer, for respondents Classic Coach, et al.
_________________________________________________________________
CIPARICK, J.:
Petitioner Carol Aurecchione prevailed in a Human Rights employment
discrimination claim she filed against her former employer,
respondents Classic Coach, Schoolman Transportation System, Inc. and
Bill Schoolman. Following a finding of discrimination, the State
Division of Human Rights ("Division") awarded her back pay. The
Division refused, however, to award "pre-determination interest" --
interest accruing from the date of discrimination. The sole issue on
this appeal is whether victims of employment discrimination are
entitled to pre-determination interest on back pay awards. We hold
that, under the facts presented, the denial of pre- determination
interest was an abuse of discretion.
In April 1986, respondent Classic -- a charter bus service provider --
hired Aurecchione as a charter reservationist, and eight months later
promoted her to the position of office manager. Shortly thereafter, in
February 1987, she began to function as a general manager. Her
responsibilities were expanded, yet her salary (at most $350 a week)
remained well below that of male office managers (who earned up to
$700 a week). In October 1987, following a change of personnel,
Classic eliminated Aurecchione's position as manager, and offered her
a position as a reservationist, which paid considerably less.
Aurecchione refused to accept the position and ultimately requested a
termination letter.
SNIPPETS:
New York State Division of Human Rights, et al., Respondents.
Petitioner Carol Aurecchione prevailed in a Human Rights employment discrimination claim she
The sole issue on this appeal is whether victims of employment discrimination are entitled to
In April 1986, respondent Classic -- a charter bus service provider --hired Aurecchione as a
On February 23, 1988, Aurecchione filed a formal complaint with the Division of Human Rights
In September 1998, the case was reassigned to a second Administrative Law Judge who
Additionally, the Commissioner ordered that interest be added to the back pay award at the
The Appellate Division confirmed the determination, noting simply that the "Commissioner of
The Human Rights Law, Executive Law Article 15, affords employees the opportunity to "obtain
The Human Rights Law, while unique in many respects, seeks to remedy the same type of
We have acknowledged the similarities and attempted to resolve Federal and State employment
In Loeffler v Frank ), the United States Supreme Court, in the context of a Title VII claim,
The Court noted that the "back pay award authorized by § 706of Title VII * * * is a
Despite the lack of reference to prejudgment interest in the text of the statute, "rejudgment
Indeed, the Second Circuit has consistently held that "o the extent * * * that the damages
Pre-determination interest awards are consistent with such concerns
This is so because "an award of interest is often appropriate from the time at which a party
We reject petitioner's argument, however, that pre- determination interest must in every case
Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the
|
