Opinion
251 CA 22-00060
06-30-2023
In the Matter of Victor O. IBHAWA, Petitioner-Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and Diocese of Buffalo, Respondents-Appellants.
CAROLINE J. DOWNEY, GENERAL COUNSEL, BRONX (AARON M. WOSKOFF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, BUFFALO (ERIN S. TORCELLO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT DIOCESE OF BUFFALO. DONNA A. MILLING, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
CAROLINE J. DOWNEY, GENERAL COUNSEL, BRONX (AARON M. WOSKOFF OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, BUFFALO (ERIN S. TORCELLO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT DIOCESE OF BUFFALO.
DONNA A. MILLING, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CURRAN, BANNISTER, AND MONTOUR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is dismissed in its entirety, and the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights to the extent it dismissed the hostile work environment claim is reinstated.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 seeking to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) dismissing his administrative discrimination complaint against his former employer, respondent Diocese of Buffalo (Diocese), for lack of jurisdiction, based upon the ministerial exception to employment discrimination claims (see generally Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC , 565 U.S. 171, 188-189, 132 S.Ct. 694, 181 L.Ed.2d 650 [2012] ). Supreme Court granted the petition in part by annulling the determination insofar as it dismissed the claim of hostile work environment and remanding the matter to SDHR. Respondents each appeal from the order to the extent that it granted the petition and remanded the matter, and we reverse the order insofar as appealed from.
Respondents contend that the court applied an incorrect standard of review and failed to give the requisite deference to SDHR's determination. We agree. The standard of review here is whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law (see Matter of LeTray v. New York State Div. of Human Rights , 181 A.D.3d 1296, 1297-1298, 121 N.Y.S.3d 481 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 915, 2020 WL 6141412 [2020] ; Matter of Malcolm v. New York State Dept. of Labor , 122 A.D.3d 1318, 1319, 996 N.Y.S.2d 829 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 903, 2015 WL 1526170 [2015] ; Matter of Stoudymire v. New York State Div. of Human Rights , 36 Misc.3d 919, 920-921, 949 N.Y.S.2d 611 [Sup. Ct., Cayuga County 2012], affd for reasons stated 109 A.D.3d 1096, 971 N.Y.S.2d 713 [4th Dept. 2013] ). "The SDHR's determination is entitled to considerable deference given its expertise in evaluating discrimination claims" ( Matter of Meyer v. Foster , 187 A.D.3d 918, 919, 130 N.Y.S.3d 390 [2d Dept. 2020] ; see Matter of McDonald v. New York State Div. of Human Rights , 147 A.D.3d 1482, 1482, 47 N.Y.S.3d 194 [4th Dept. 2017] ).
Here, SDHR determined that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's complaint inasmuch as petitioner had been a priest serving as the pastor of a church and the ministerial exception barred his claims. Inasmuch as there is no controlling United States Supreme Court or New York precedent and the federal courts that have addressed the issue are divided on the extent to which the ministerial exception applies to claims of a hostile work environment (compare e.g. Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish, Calumet City , 3 F.4th 968, 979 [7th Cir. 2021] with e.g. Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church , 375 F.3d 951, 964 [9th Cir. 2004] ), we conclude that SDHR's determination with respect to the hostile work environment claim is not arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law (see generally LeTray , 181 A.D.3d at 1297-1298, 121 N.Y.S.3d 481 ).