Mittl v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 N.Y.2d 326 (2003)
An employer can be held liable for pregnancy discrimination when the decision to terminate an employee is influenced by the discriminatory bias of a third party, even if the employer claims to have acted to avoid marital problems.
Summary
An ophthalmologist terminated his secretary after his wife became jealous and made accusations about the secretary’s pregnancy. The secretary filed a complaint with the Division of Human Rights (DHR), alleging unlawful termination based on pregnancy. The DHR found in favor of the secretary. The employer sought to annul the DHR’s order, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding no sex discrimination. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that substantial evidence supported the DHR’s determination that the termination was discriminatory. The court emphasized that it is irrelevant if the record could also support the employer’s explanation that he discharged the employee to save his marriage.
Facts
An ophthalmologist hired a secretary. Approximately a year later, the secretary informed the ophthalmologist she was pregnant. The ophthalmologist told the secretary his wife suspected the secretary was carrying his child and that her pregnancy was “becoming a problem” in the office. The secretary requested two days off for doctor’s appointments. Minutes after the ophthalmologist granted the time off, his wife called the secretary and made accusatory and threatening statements. Shortly after the phone call, the ophthalmologist terminated the secretary, stating, “it’s going to cause a lot of problems if you stay.”
Procedural History
The secretary filed a complaint with the Division of Human Rights (DHR). The DHR Commissioner ruled in favor of the secretary. The employer sought to annul the DHR’s order in the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division granted the petition and annulled the DHR’s determination. The secretary cross-petitioned for enforcement of the order. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for consideration of damages.
Issue(s)
Whether substantial evidence supported the DHR Commissioner’s determination that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee based on her pregnancy.
Holding
Yes, because the employer’s remark that the employee’s pregnancy was “becoming a problem,” followed by the wife’s objections and the subsequent discharge, constituted sufficient evidence to support the DHR’s finding of a prima facie case of discrimination, and the employer’s proffered reasons for the termination were found to be incredible and unsubstantiated.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that judicial review of the DHR’s determination is limited to whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s decision. Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). The court emphasized that it cannot weigh the evidence or reject the DHR’s choice where the evidence is conflicting. The court found that the employer’s remark about the pregnancy becoming a problem, the wife’s objections, and the termination were sufficient to support a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden then shifted to the employer to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination. The court noted the DHR found the employer’s proffered reasons to be unsubstantiated. DHR’s rejection of the employer’s reason that the wife terminated the secretary because they did not get along was supported by evidence that the wife had no supervisory authority over the secretary. DHR’s rejection of the employer’s claim of a time and attendance problem was supported by the employer’s own admission that he was satisfied with the secretary’s job performance and the absence of any documentation of attendance issues. The court stated, “the issue of whether substantial evidence supports an agency determination is solely a question of law.” The court distinguished this case from cases involving consensual sexual relationships, noting that no such relationship was alleged here. The court stated that the Appellate Division misapplied the relevant standards and that its conclusion was, therefore, erroneous.