Opinion
April 2, 1985
Order and determination of the State Division of Human Rights, dated December 11, 1984, which found that there was no probable cause to believe that respondent New York City Transit Authority terminated petitioner as unfit for duty as a railroad clerk because of the disability of alcoholism, is annulled, on the law, to the extent of remanding the matter for further investigation, without costs or disbursements.
Petitioner contends that respondent New York City Transit Authority terminated him from his position as a railroad clerk despite his voluntary treatment and counseling, at respondent's request, for alcoholism and that this action constituted an unlawful discriminatory practice. In view of the insufficient proof presented by respondent and its failure to refute petitioner's allegations, as well as the paucity of any record in connection with the instant matter, it is evident that the State Division of Human Rights made an inadequate inquiry into petitioner's charges. There is also no indication that the Division ever considered whether petitioner's alcoholism is a "disability" within the meaning of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15) such as would preclude respondent from summarily dismissing him under the circumstances herein. Consequently, the administrative determination was not only unsupported by substantial evidence but constituted an arbitrary and capricious exercise of its discretion. ( Bachman v. State Div. of Human Rights, 104 A.D.2d 111; see also, Goldsmith v. New York Psychoanalytic Inst., 73 A.D.2d 16.) Further investigation is thus warranted.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Fein and Milonas, JJ.