Decisions and Orders


After the trial, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issues a Report and Recommendation, which may include findings of fact, decisions of law, and recommendations on damages and civil penalties. The Commission's Office of General Counsel gathers the Report and Recommendation, along with any post-trial comments and/or objections submitted by the parties, and provides the information to the Office of the Chair (OC) for a final Decision and Order. The OC reviews the matter, including the trial transcripts, evidence presented at trial, ALJ's Report and Recommendation and any post-trial comments or objections de novo, and then issues its Decision and Order, adopting or rejecting – in whole or in part – the ALJ's Report and Recommendation.

Click on the case to see the full text of the decision and order.

2017 Decisions and Orders

Commission on Human Rights ex rel. Martinez v. Musso, 09/29/17:  Respondents were held liable for gender discrimination, in the form of sexual harassment, and retaliation after the individual respondent fired the Complainant for protesting his sexual harassment. The Complainant was awarded $38,448, comprising $22,277 in back pay, $4,170 in pre-determination interest, and $12,000 in emotional distress damages. The Commission also imposed a fine of $18,000 and required the Respondents to undergo training and post a notice of rights on their worksites.

Commission on Human Rights v. Ayhan Aksoy, 06/21/17:  The Commission held that the evidence in did not support a finding that the Respondent was an employer covered by the NYCHRL or an employee or agent of a covered employer. The claims against the Respondent were therefore dismissed.

Commission on Human Rights v. Sebastian Rozario, 06/21/17:  Respondent was fined $500 for gender discrimination after placing a job posting on Craigslist seeking a “waitress” for a small, unidentified restaurant in Brooklyn.

Commission on Human Rights v. Shalom Bombay 2 LLC, et al, 06/21/17:  Respondents placed a discriminatory job posting on Craigslist, seeking an “Indian” waiter or waitress, thereby expressing a limitation based on race and national origin. The Commission imposed a fine $1,000.

Blue v. Jovic, 05/26/17:  Respondent landlord refused for three years to provide a bathtub that a tenant with disabilities could safely use. The landlord also engaged in a campaign of harassment against the child with disabilities and her mother by making false complaints to the police and fire department and by filing an unwarranted eviction proceeding against them. The Respondent was held liable for disability discrimination and failing to provide a reasonable accommodation. The Commission awarded $45,000 in emotional distress damages to the child with disabilities, $50,000 to the child’s mother, and imposed a $60,000 penalty, which could be discounted to $10,000 if the Respondent made the ordered reasonable accommodation promptly. Respondent was also ordered to undergo training and to post a notice of rights at the building.

Agosto v. American Construction Associates, LLC, et al, 04/05/17:  Respondents turned away a prospective renter who attempted to cover her rental security with a government-issued security voucher. The Commission held that Respondents discriminated against the Complainant based on her lawful source of income, causing her to be street homeless for a period of approximately two months. The Commission awarded the Complainant $13,000 in emotional distress damages and imposed a civil penalty of $20,000. Respondents were also ordered to undergo training and to post a notice of rights at their building.

Commission on Human Rights v. A Nanny on the Net LLC, 02/10/2017:  An online employment agency and its owner were held liable for discriminating against NYC job applicants based on disability and criminal history. The Respondents targeted and solicited job applicants in NYC and required them to answer discriminatory questions related to their disabilities (such as requiring that applicants explain their “physical/mental restrictions or impairments or congenital defects” and indicate whether they would consent to a physical exam or an HIV test as a condition of employment) and state whether they have ever been arrested, on the online application form. The Commission determined that financial penalties were not warranted because of the Respondents’ small size, limited amount of business within NYC, and the fact that their violations had not been willful and they had already taken steps remedy their violations. Instead, Respondents were required to educate themselves about the Commission’s Legal Enforcement Guidance on the Fair Chance Act and post notices of rights on their website.


2016 Decisions and Orders

Jordan v. Raza, 06/07/2016

Spitzer v. Dahbi, 06/07/2016

Stamm v. E&E Bagels, Inc., 04/20/2016

Howe v. Best Apartments, 03/14/2016

Cardenas v. Automatic Meter Reading Corp, 10/28/2015

Commission on Human Rights v. CU 29 Copper Restaurant & Bar, 10/28/2015

Commission on Human Rights v. Crazy Asylum LLC, 10/28/2015