TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Board of Education v. State Division of Human Rights

In the Matter of Board of Education of the City of New York v. State Division of Human Rights, on the Complaint of Deborah Plotz-Pierce

Bd. of Educ. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 42 A.D.2d 854 (1973)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
August 13, 1973
Citations
42 A.D.2d 854346 N.Y.S.2d 8431973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 36326 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 877710 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 424

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Proceeding under section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Division of Human Rights Appeal Board, dated February 15, 1973, which affirmed an order of the State Division of Human Rights, dated October 29, 1971, finding that petitioner had engaged in discriminatory practices; and cross motion by the State Division for enforcement of the order of the Appeal Board. Order of the Appeal Board modified, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the petitioner Board of Education of the City of New York for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. As so modified, the order is otherwise confirmed. We are of the opinion that the determination- that petitioner is guilty of discriminatory practices in its maternity leave policies has been established and that a pregnant teacher who goes on maternity leave should be permitted to use sick leave and sabbatical leave to the same extent as other teachers suffering *855 from a temporary physical disability for the duration of such disability (see Board ¡of Ed/uc. of Union Eree School Bist. No. ¡2, ¡East WUliston, Town of North Hempstead V. New York State Div. of Human Bights, 42 A D 2d 49'). The complainant in this proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights commenced maternity and child care leave on April 15, 1969, and gave birth on April 28, 1969. It was not, however, established when her disability ended and, accordingly, the matter must be remitted for such a finding. On the argument of this appeal it was conceded that petitioner shall determine when the period of disability ended, after the date of birth.. Munder, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Grulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1975: 11976: 31978: 21981: 11983: 119752026peak 1976 · 3

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list