(DOWNLOAD) "Matter Richardson Employment Agency v. New York State Division Human Rights" by Supreme Court of New York # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Matter Richardson Employment Agency v. New York State Division Human Rights
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 06, 1972
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 80 KB
Description
[40 A.D.2d 585 Page 585] Memorandum: The New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) appeals from a judgment in an article 78 proceeding prohibiting
it from taking any further action upon the complaint of Archie Fabretti. para. In his complaint which was filed on July 23,
1970 Fabretti alleges that petitioner Richardson Employment Agency, in violation of section 296 of the Executive Law, retaliated
and discriminated against him because he opposed practices of petitioner which were forbidden thereby. Fabretti further alleges
that during his employment by petitioner he was directed to code mark employment applications of black men and women and to
inform employers of their race and that he opposed this stating to petitioner that such actions were illegal. He charges petitioner
with an unlawful discriminatory practice of retaliating against him because he opposed the practices forbidden under section
296. para. Section 296 (subd. 1, par. [e]) provides: "It shall be unlawful discriminatory practice * * * (e) For any * * *
employment agency to * * * discriminate against any person because he has opposed any practices forbidden under this article".
para. Section 296 (subd. 1, par. [e]) forbids an employment agency to discriminate against any individual because of his race
or color in classifying applications or in referring an applicant to an employer. para. On October 21, 1970, Fabretti filed
an affidavit which, with affidavits of five other former employees of petitioner, was considered in support of a complaint
against petitioner before the Industrial Commissioner, charging that petitioner violated sections 185, 186 and subdivision
(8) of section 187 of the General Business Law and Section 296 (subd. 1, par. [b]) of the Executive Law. The charges were
sustained and petitioner was fined $450 by the Industrial Commissioner who did not consider or pass upon the complaint that
petitioner had retaliated against Fabretti because he opposed petitioner's unlawful practices of discriminating against individuals
on account of race or color. para. In granting judgment that appellant refrain from further proceedings against petitioner
on the complaint of Fabretti, Special Term erroneously found that the allegations of Fabretti's complaint to appellant were
in substance the same as those submitted to the Industrial Commissioner. While some of the allegations were the same, the
issues were entirely different and the issue of petitioner's violation of section 296 (subd. 1, par. [e]) of the Executive
Law by retaliating against Fabretti was not presented to, considered by nor passed upon by the Industrial Commissioner. para.
Subdivision 9 of section 297 of the Executive Law provides: "No person who [40 A.D.2d 585 Page 586]