Opinion
2021-04197 Index 450930/19
07-01-2021
In the Matter of State Division of Human Rights, Petitioner, v. Irene Austin et al., Respondents. Appeal No. 14156 Case No. 2020-00402
Caroline J. Downey, State Division of Human Rights, Bronx (Michael K. Swirsky of counsel), for petitioner.
Caroline J. Downey, State Division of Human Rights, Bronx (Michael K. Swirsky of counsel), for petitioner.
Before: Renwick, J.P., Gische, Oing, Mendez, JJ.
Application pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to enforce the order of petitioner State Division of Human Rights (DHR), dated January 17, 2018, which found that respondent Irene Austin subjected respondent Guadalupe Paleta to a hostile work environment in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, awarded Paleta $5,000 plus interest for mental anguish and humiliation, and assessed a $10,000 civil penalty, plus interest, against Austin due to intentional conduct (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Lynn R. Kotler, J.], entered on or about September 12, 2019), unanimously granted, without costs.
DHR's findings that Austin subjected Paleta to a hostile work environment on the basis of her race and national origin, which caused Paleta mental anguish, are supported by "sufficient evidence on the record considered as a whole" (Executive Law § 298; see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Bystricky, 30 N.Y.2d 322, 326 [1972]; see also Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 310 [2004]). Austin, who "defaulted in this proceeding, obviously failed to rebut a prima facie showing" of a hostile work environment (Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v Neighborhood Youth & Family Servs., 102 A.D.3d 491, 491 [1st Dept 2013]).
The award of damages for mental anguish was appropriate under the circumstances (Executive Law § 297[4][c][iii]; see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 78 N.Y.2d 207, 216-217 [1991]). Similarly, DHR providently exercised its discretion by setting the amount of the civil penalty at $10,000, after finding that Austin engaged in intentional harassing and demeaning conduct (Executive Law § 297[4][c][vi]; see Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v International Fin. Servs. Group, 162 A.D.3d 576 [1st Dept 2018]).