Summary
In Hitter v. Paris Int'l Corp., 267 AD2d 223, 699 N.Y.S.2d 490 (2d Dept. 1999), the Second Department ruled that the Supreme Court erred in denying that the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to dismissal of the action where, as here, the plaintiff failed to present evidence that defendant's president knew of her pregnancy before he terminated her employment.
Summary of this case from LeFort v. Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr.Opinion
Argued November 5, 1999
December 6, 1999
In an action pursuant to Executive Law § 296 to recover damages for unlawful termination of employment, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Connell, J.), dated August 27, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Reisman, Peirez, Reisman Calica, LLP, Garden City, N Y (Seymour J. Reisman and Susan T. Kluewer of counsel), for appellant.
Rosen, Leff, Hempstead, N.Y. (Howard B. Leff and Delvis Melendez of counsel), for respondent.
SONDRA MILLER, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, demonstrating that the plaintiff had not been subjected to employment discrimination based upon her pregnancy (see, Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 66 N.Y.2d 937 ). In opposition to the motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. There was no evidence that the defendant's president, Stuart Paris, knew of her pregnancy before he terminated her employment. At the same time, there was undisputed evidence that Paris was negotiating with a third party to be the plaintiff's replacement before he learned of her pregnancy.
In any event, the defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff's dismissal did not occur under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (see, Sogg v. American Airlines, 193 A.D.2d 153 ). The defendant accommodated the needs of pregnant employees, and there was no support in the record for the plaintiff's allegation that she was fired because she was pregnant (see, Anthony v. Nemec, 225 A.D.2d 883 ).
S. MILLER, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.