From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of N. Orchard v. St. Div. of H.R

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 3, 1990
161 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

May 3, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Clinton County.


Following a hearing, respondent's Commissioner made a determination that complainant, Po Ye Mace, was discharged from her employment in petitioner's apple-packing facility as the result of sex discrimination and awarded her back pay and $25,000 damages for "hurt, humiliation and mental anguish". In this proceeding, petitioner challenges the Commissioner's finding of discrimination and the award of damages for mental anguish.

Initially, we reject the contention that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that petitioner discriminated against complainant based upon sex. Although sharply contradicted, complainant's testimony at the hearing provided a factual basis for the finding that Richard Frenyea, one of petitioner's foremen, exposed himself and made sexual overtures to her. Furthermore, petitioner's president acknowledged that complainant's accusations against Frenyea were the ultimate cause for her discharge and conceded that complainant had been fired before she was given an opportunity to state her version of the events. Therefore, the record supports a finding that conduct directly attributable to the employer formed the basis for the discriminatory acts (see, Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. County of Onondaga Sheriff's Dept., 71 N.Y.2d 623, 633; cf., Matter of Totem Taxi v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 65 N.Y.2d 300, 305).

Turning to the award of damages, we agree with petitioner that there is no factual support in the record for the award for "hurt, humiliation and mental anguish". Although an award for mental anguish may be based solely on the complainant's testimony (see, Cullen v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 53 N.Y.2d 492, 497), damage may not be presumed because of the nature of the discrimination itself (supra). Since "sensitivity or stoicism, as the case may be, is as variable and individualistic in its existence and in its degree as are human beings" (supra, at 497), there must be evidence of the effect of the discrimination upon complainant, the nature and duration of her condition and its severity or consequences (see, Matter of Cosmos Forms v. State Div. of Human Rights, 150 A.D.2d 442).

Therefore, a complainant's conclusory testimony that he "felt discriminated against" and "felt very distressed" without "indication of the length of time these consequences were suffered or the frequency thereof" will not support an award of damages for mental anguish (State Div. of Human Rights v Goodwill Indus., 129 A.D.2d 995, lv dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 1001). To be contrasted are those cases where a complainant testified as to the nature and consequences of the condition caused by the discrimination. Thus, testimony that she was "hurt and upset" (Moore v. State Div. of Human Rights, 154 A.D.2d 823, 824 [award of $2,500]), "suffered from headaches" (Matter of Almeter v State Div. of Human Rights, 133 A.D.2d 530 [award of $1,500]), had "difficulty sleeping" and "serious migraine headaches" (Matter of Board of Educ. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 109 A.D.2d 988, 990 [award of $5,000]), or suffered from "nausea, insomnia, stomach cramps and tension headaches" (Catalina Beach Club v State Div. of Human Rights, 95 A.D.2d 766, 767 [award of $1,500]) has supported an award of damages for mental anguish.

Here, with the exception of testimony that she was "shocked" to see Frenyea's exposed genitals, which we take as evidence of nothing more than momentary surprise, complainant offered no evidence as to the effect which Frenyea's acts or her subsequent discharge had upon her. Under the circumstances, the award of damages for mental anguish may not stand (see, Cullen v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., supra; State Div. of Human Rights v Goodwill Indus., supra).

We have examined petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Determination modified, without costs, by annulling the award of $25,000 damages for hurt, humiliation and mental anguish, and, as so modified, confirmed. Mahoney, P.J., Kane, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of N. Orchard v. St. Div. of H.R

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 3, 1990
161 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of N. Orchard v. St. Div. of H.R

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of NORTHERN ORCHARD COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. STATE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: May 3, 1990

Citations

161 A.D.2d 846 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
555 N.Y.S.2d 892

Citing Cases

Tanzini v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.

Such testimony, while probative of discrimination itself, does not itself prove emotional damages. See, e.g.,…

Retardation v. Human Rights

It strikes us that the award of appointment with back pay falls squarely within the wide latitude enjoyed by…