85 N.Y.2d 125 (1995)
To establish a retaliation claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, a complainant must present evidence of a subjective retaliatory motive by the employer, and the mere absence of legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the adverse employment action is insufficient to prove such motive.
Summary
Pace University appealed a decision by the New York City Commission on Human Rights finding that Pace unlawfully retaliated against a former professor, Mittleman, for filing a sex discrimination complaint. Mittleman was initially denied tenure, offered an adjunct position, and later, after settlement negotiations failed, was not offered a renewal of her adjunct contract. The Commission found retaliation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Commission’s finding lacked substantial evidence and was based on an error of law. The Court emphasized that a retaliation claim requires proof of a retaliatory motive, which was absent in this case. The university presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not renewing the contract, which Mittleman failed to prove was pretextual.
Facts
Mittleman was hired as a full-time assistant professor at Pace University in 1981 and was denied tenure in 1986 for lacking a Ph.D. and sufficient scholarly publications. She was then offered a half-time adjunct lecturer position, which she accepted. After filing a sex discrimination complaint regarding the denial of tenure, she continued teaching as an adjunct. Settlement negotiations failed in 1989, and Pace informed her that her adjunct contract would not be renewed for the following year. Mittleman then filed a second complaint alleging retaliation for her initial sex discrimination claim.
Procedural History
Mittleman filed complaints with the New York City Commission on Human Rights. The Commission dismissed the sex discrimination claim but found that Pace unlawfully retaliated against Mittleman. Pace appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the Commission’s finding of retaliation. Pace then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that Pace University retaliated against Mittleman for filing a sex discrimination complaint, and whether the Commission erred in determining that the nonrenewal of Mittleman’s adjunct contract, absent legitimate non-retaliatory grounds, automatically constituted retaliation.
Holding
No, because the record lacked evidence of a subjective retaliatory motive on the part of Pace University for not renewing Mittleman’s adjunct contract. Additionally, the Commission erred in concluding that the absence of legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the nonrenewal automatically constituted retaliation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that a prima facie case of retaliation requires evidence of a subjective retaliatory motive. The court found no evidence of such motive in the record. Mittleman continued to teach for two and a half years after filing her initial complaint. The Court reasoned that Pace’s June 1989 letter, explaining the nonrenewal due to the failure to reach an agreement on adjunct contracts, was not direct evidence of retaliatory animus. The Court noted that the letter referred to Mittleman’s refusal to sign standard adjunct contracts, which were not contingent on withdrawing her discrimination claim. Furthermore, Pace presented a legitimate, independent, and non-discriminatory reason for the nonrenewal: the university concluded that Mittleman would not sign an adjunct contract short of full tenure, which was unacceptable. The Court cited Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 N.Y.2d 937, 939, emphasizing that even if a prima facie case of retaliation existed, the burden shifted to Mittleman to show that Pace’s stated reason was pretextual, which she failed to do. The court stated that “[t]he mere absence of evidence that Mittleman’s nonrenewal was based upon either of the two aforementioned reasons, standing alone, is insufficient to support a finding of retaliatory intent.”