Valdemarsen v. Genesee Hospital, 43 N.Y.2d 112 (1977)

An agency head, like the State Commissioner of Human Rights, retains the authority to review and alter a determination made by a subordinate, such as a regional director, prior to the issuance of a hearing notice, provided this power is established by agency regulation and does not contravene the enabling statute.

Summary

Valdemarsen, a blind woman, filed a complaint with the Division of Human Rights alleging discrimination by Genesee Hospital based on age and disability. A regional director found probable cause for disability discrimination but not age discrimination. The Commissioner of Human Rights, acting on a recommendation, reopened the case and vacated the probable cause finding. The Human Rights Appeal Board reversed, arguing the commissioner lacked authority to overturn the regional director’s finding once probable cause was established. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the commissioner’s actions were within the agency’s regulatory authority and did not conflict with the Executive Law.

Facts

Ms. Valdemarsen, a 62-year-old blind medical transcriber, filed a complaint against Genesee Hospital with the Division of Human Rights, alleging unlawful discrimination based on age and disability.

Procedural History

The regional director initially found probable cause for disability discrimination but not age discrimination. The Commissioner of Human Rights, upon review, vacated the probable cause finding and directed further investigation. After the reopening, the regional director found no probable cause of unlawful discrimination. Valdemarsen appealed to the Human Rights Appeal Board, which reversed, holding the commissioner’s reopening violated Executive Law § 297. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Human Rights Division order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a regulation of the Division of Human Rights (9 NYCRR 465.18), which grants the State Commissioner of Human Rights the authority to reopen a proceeding and alter a decision of a regional director, conflicts with Section 297 of the Executive Law.

Holding

1. No, because Section 297 of the Executive Law requires a hearing unless the complaint is dismissed but does not specify who within the agency determines whether dismissal is appropriate. Therefore, a regulation empowering the commissioner to review the dismissal process does not conflict with the statute.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that while Executive Law § 297(4)(a) mandates a public hearing unless a complaint is dismissed or conciliated, it doesn’t specify which agency official decides on dismissal. The court stated, “Although section 297 (subd 4, par a) specifies that a public hearing be held unless the complaint is dismissed or conciliated, nowhere does it prescribe which official of the agency is to determine whether the dismissal is in order.” The Division of Human Rights possesses the power to dismiss unfounded complaints, and the regulation at issue merely establishes a procedure for probable cause determinations, designating the regional director for initial evaluation and the commissioner for review. The court emphasized the agency’s authority to “establish rules of practice to govern, expedite and effectuate” the procedures of the law. Allowing the commissioner to review a regional director’s findings prior to a hearing notice complements the statutory scheme by filling in procedural gaps. The court further noted that a contrary view would deny the division the authority to qualify the power conferred upon regional directors. In conclusion, the court found no infirmity in the commissioner’s order to reopen the proceeding for further investigation, emphasizing that the agency’s regulations “merely fill in interstices in the regulatory scheme”.