Wilson v Classic Media

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Wilson v Classic Media 2009 NY Slip Op 33267(U) July 21, 2009 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 403131/08 Judge: Joan A. Madden Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 7/23/2009 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NET YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY JOAN A. MADIDEN HON. PART 11 Justice PRESENT: , / ---------~ LJ~ l.5o tV r /07 if&'« At) if d 31 3' lor; "V I 1 ' JlhCi"r INDEX NO. : Plaintiff, MOTION DATE:. LJ. '1 -J '3- 87 MOTION SEQ. NO.: v-'\.lJr''', t-}- cwd MOTION CAL. NO.: [)Qfemtant. bf~#J The following papers, numbered 1 to _ _ were read on this motion to/for_ _~_-----,,-__ PAPERS NUM13I:RI'::D Notice orMotion! Order to Show Cause Answering Affidavits - Affidavits - Exhibits ---,-_ _ Exhibits Replying Affidavits Cross-Motion: --------1_ _ [J Yes ~No Upon the fore~oing papers, it is ordered that this Jft&t.i.on 'Pr" c.<-<..J11-v1 7J bA.J ('"" r;. (wrtlCt~-u... V I~ --tl<... Ut ~'h ~ Vv\ L- ftv w/,;..v~ J)e-cf, IfW ~iNJ 'tJf J..v- + J ~ Jj I-wfi~-. f"hla Judgment and notice of, obta'n ~try, appear In pe U1B).. . by'the County ef...-c cannQt be ,erved baed hereon. To una.1 or 8uthOrtzed I'8prI8Gntatlv, mUit n at the Judgment Clerk's Deak (Room not lleen . _ u I Check one: FINAL DISPOSITION J.S.C. [ 1NON-FINAL DISPOSITION gv [* 2] ... SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: lAS PART 11 --------------------------------------------------------------------~)( ANDRELLA E. WILSON, Index No. 403131/08 Petitioner, -against- rhl.l.~ FIt anti -vrnent h,.. not _ oJ N notice of em.... n entered b ~/!!.!!!...~ ..... ~ CClnnot be Be )' the County C'4tf1\ CLASSIC MEDIA and NEW YORK STAT~~~oun.elor authortzZ:d based hereon.. 'fo OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 141e). ~~C:~,~~JUdgment ~re::.ave IhUst ~~~4~~~\~~ k(R~ &lj&..d.lo."""...- Respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------){ JOAN A. MADDEN, J.: Adrella Wilson ("Petitioner"), appearing UIQ se, brings this Article 78 petition, which the Court converts to a petition for review under N.Y. Executive Law § 298, to (1) annul the detcnnination issued by the New York State Division of Human Rights ("NYSDHR"), which concluded that no probable cause existed to believe that Classic Media, Inc. ("Classic") discriminated or retaliated against Petitioner; (2) find that such probable cause exists; and (3) provide monetary or other such relief as the Court deems appropriate. Respondents Classic and NYSDHR oppose the petition, is denied and dismissed for the reasons below. Background Petitioner worked for Classic from August 23,2005, to December 4,2006, as an Accounts Payable Clerk. On November 8,2006, Petitioner sent an email to Classic's Human Resources Coordinator Laurie Ohlsson alleging that Classic was subjecting her to a hostile work environment, that her co-workers were harassing her, and that management was not taking any action to resolve the matter (Ruzich Affid. Ex. B). In 1 _.... 1La«.. [* 3] I the subsequent investigation, Petitioner alleged inter alia that her co-workers sabotaged , her work by manipulating the accounts-payable system (see,~, O'Keefe Affirmation in Opposition to Petitioner's Article 78 Petition ("O'Keefe Affirm.") Ex. F, Sub-Exhibits CIC, CID), preventing Petitioner from accessing Classic's accounting system on one occasion (Ruzich Affid. Ex. B), and somehow eliminating her emails (O'Keefe Affirm. Ex. F, Sub-Exhibits CIH, C/I). In one incident, Petitioner claimed a co-worker asked her "accusatory questions" regarding where his missing laptop was (O'Keefe Affirm. Ex. P, I Sub-Exhibit C at 3). Petitioner claims that Classic and its employees corhmitted these and many other alleged acts out of prejudice against her religion, race, and national origin (Ver. Complaint to NYSDHR), although the parties dispute whether Petitioner raised the allegations of prejudice during her work for Classic (compafe id. (stating that Petitioner raised the issue of racial bias with Human Resources and the Chief Financial Officer), with Ruzich Affid. ~ 10 (stating that Petitioner never did so)). Classic concluded the investigation by determining that Petitioner was not subject to any kind of discrimination or harassment, although communication issues caused significant personal friction between Petitioner and her co-workers (Ruzich Affid. ~~ 17, 18). Classic terminated Petitioner after she allegedly continued to provoke her co-workers and allegedly neglected her job duties (lQ.., at ~~ 19, 20). On July 9,2007, Petitioner filed a Verified Complaint with the NYSDHR, which claimed that in addition to the alleged harassment, Classic retaliated against her because she constantly objected to allegedly discriminatory practices (O'Keefe Affirm. Ex. F, Sub-Exhibit A). This retaliation involved a possible conspiracy between Classic and one 2 [* 4] I I of Peti ti oncr' s pri or employers, against whom Petitioner hi filed a previous NYSDHR complaint (O'Keefe Affirm. Ex. F, Sub-Exhibit Cat 4). Ti evince this conspiracy, Petitioner cited Classic's decision in January of2006, shortly after it hired her, to include the question, "Did you ever file a claim against a previous employer," in its I questionnaires to new hires (Id.). After Classic submitted iis Position Statement responding to Petitioner's Complaint, the NYSDHR asked ~etitioner to submit a rebuttal, which she did on September 14,2007 (O'Keefe Affirm. Exl D). I On November 15, 2007, the NYSDHR issued a Det~nnination and Order After Investigation ("the Determination"), which dismissed the c<:Jmplaint on the ground that the NYSDHR's investigation was unable to establish a cau1al relationship between Classic's treatment of Petitioner and the alleged prejudice (6'Keefe Affirm. Ex. E). The NYSDHR wrote that "[w]hile the record suggests that [peti~iOner] had personality conflicts with several of her co-workers, .... [tlhe record 19 gests that [Classic] I terminated her employment for the non-discriminatory reasbns that they considered many I of her interactions with co-workers to be inappropriate and ~ecause they believed that she , I had neglected her job duties" (Id.). Thus, the NYSDHR's '~investigation failed to I I substantiate" Petitioner's conspiracy allegations (Id.). The Determination concluded: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any party to this proceeding may appeal the Determination to the New York State Supreme Court in the County wherein the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice took place by filing directly with such court a Notice of Petition and Petition within sixty (60) days after service of this Determination. (Id.) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner filed an Article 78 petition appealing the Determination in the Supreme Court, Bronx County on January 14, 2008 (Ver. Pet.). Petitioner served Classic her Request for Judicial Intervention, Notice of Petition, and Verified Petition on March 27, 3 [* 5] 2008 (O'Keefe Affinn. Ex. F). On July 8, 2008, Classic se ed Petitioner with a Demand I for a Change of Place of Trial pursuant to CPLR Sll(b) de O'Keefe Affinn. "iI12), and filed a Motion to Change the Place of Trial with this CoUl~ n July 21,2008 (llL at "illS). I This Court granted the motion by decision and order dated ctober 3, 2008. Petitioner argues that more than sufficient eVidencb exists to support a finding of I was corrupt (Ver. Pet. ~r probable cause, and also expressed concern that the NYSp I 3). Petitioner alleges the NYSDHR "attempted to changei[ er] address without proper consent ... ," and expresses suspicion that Classic and the YSDHR "are co- conspirators to obstruct Justice ... because of racial discri ination and or retaliation" (Id.). Classic argues that the Petition is untimely since, der N.V. Executive Law § 298, a "party seeking review of a detennination of the Di~i ion of Human Rights has I I sixty (60) days after service of the order to file a petition W'th the Supreme Court in the " J county in which the determination and order was issued. I Classic further asserts that although Petitioner se a Notice of Petition on it, I the Supreme Court, Bronx County has no record that Peti~ ner filed that document, and I that while the record before this court contains the original etition and the original , I . Request for Judicial Intervention, each bearing the stamp ofthe Bronx County Clerk's cr I Office, it does not contain a stamped Notice of Petition. l ssic argues that as Petitioner never properly filed her Notice of Petition, the Court shoul dismiss the petition as untimely or, in the alternative, on the grounds that the dete ination is neither arbitrary or capricious. The NYSDHR files an Answer opposing the petitio and attaches a copy of its Original Certified Record. I i I 4 [* 6] In her reply, Petitioner does not deny that she failetl1to file a Notice of Petition, I but asserts that respondent Classic is acting with malicious ntent and maintains that her , "claim clearly states grounds for rehefto be granted" (Rep1 Affd. ~ 6). She also , requests, for the first time, that the Court "postpon[e] this ~ tion until [her] [fJederal [c]ase is resolved ...." 1 which the Court construes as a r~ uest to stay this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 2201. Discussion Parties who have submitted complaints to the NY HR may appeal the ~he New York Executive Law NYSDHR's determinations via judicial review pursuant t § 298, which provides in pertinent part: 1 Such proceeding shall be initiated by the filing of ti of etition and petition in sueh court.... Upon the filing of a notib~ of petition and petition, the court shall have jurisdiction of the prdcbeding and of the questions determined therein. . . . A proceeding J,tler this section when instituted by any complainant, respondent or otherl~erson aggrieved must be instituted within sixty days after the service of stich order. (emphasis added). The standard for review ofNYSDHR's I I probable-~lusedetennination is whether it is arbitrary and capricious, or lacking a rational basis. Diy. QfHuman Rights, 241 A.D,2d 108 (1st Dep't ~tFar1and v. New York State 1998)(L~ationomitted), see Holland v. ~ 38 (1954). In this case, Petitioner's extensive documentary SU~bissions fail to provide evidence of discrimination by Classic. At best, some Oft~J emails arguably show that Edwards 282 A.D. 353, 359 (1st Dep't 1953), affd, 307 ! I In her Reply Affidavit, Petitioner also asserts that classj, to Petitioner "was not filed timely with the courts" (Repl~ although Classic filed on July 22,2008, an Order to Show was due since its Motion to Change the Place of Tria! was an Answer on August 11,2008, which was before the retd that Petitioner had placed on the Notice of Petition which'S 5 I Amended Verified Answer ffid. at 1). However, ause to stay when its Answer ending, it nonetheless filed date of August 14,2008, e sent them. [* 7] ,. Classic may not have been managing its own accounts pa lIes optimally. Other submissions show that Classic had technological problem, but fail to evince that these problems were even negligent, and certainly do not demoJ rate that Classic had a~ainst Petitioner. Other intentionally orchestrated these prohlems to discriminate submissions while suggesting that management did not qJi kly address Petitioner's concerns in a way that she wanted, do not show any discri inatory intent. Thus, the submissions fail to establish that racial discrimination mo i ated Classic's treatment of Petitioner. Accordingly, it cannot be said that NYSDHR' etennination was irrationaL Based on this determination, the court need not re the Statute of Limitation's ~UCh as that NYSDHR was argument raised by Classic. Petitioner's other allegations I ' corrupt. are unavailing as they lack any ostensible factual ~ounding. tJa~ Petitioner seeks to stay this I Finally, to the extent that it appears in her Reply I I proceeding under CPLR 2201 pending the resolution of he~ federal action, such relief is II denied. I Conclusion I In view of the above, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is ~+ied and dismissed. I ----,-I+--?'-+- Dated: July! 2009 'I' 11 to ~n enWred bY erved bdlltO \,tl\.l ¢ of entrY cannot be ~_ent~ and notte oun'" or auti'O_ ...... C ~ haS nO ':ued otJtaln en~. G on at the JudGlI....... ~pear ~ 41.). 6 'n pets .... , ~ ' ~ '-'--- ~ ,, . .I _

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.