In Warneke v. Bronx Cmty. Bd. 11, No. 2025–01037, 2026 WL 1026260 (N.Y. App. Div. Apr. 16, 2026), the court confirmed an Order of the New York State Division of Human Rights which adopted the recommendation of an Administrative Law Judge dismissing petitioner’s familial status discrimination and retaliation complaint.
From the decision:
DHR’s determination that petitioner did not experience a hostile work environment is supported by substantial evidence (see Sullivan v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 235 A.D.3d 549, 549, 226 N.Y.S.3d 231 [1st Dept 2025], lv denied 44 N.Y.3d 909, 2026 WL 59926 [2026] ). Although the record contains evidence that petitioner’s supervisor made negative comments about petitioner’s prioritization of childcare responsibilities over work, “[i]solated remarks or occasional episodes of harassment [do] not support a finding of a hostile or abusive work environment” under the pre–2019 standard (Ferrer v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 82 A.D.3d 431, 431, 918 N.Y.S.2d 405 [1st Dept 2011]; see Pichardo v. Carmine’s Broadway Feast Inc., 199 A.D.3d 593, 594, 159 N.Y.S.3d 12 [1st Dept 2021] ).
DHR’s dismissal of petitioner’s retaliation claim was rational. Petitioner’s employer, Bronx Community Board 11, did not take any adverse employment action against him following his discrimination complaint to the Bronx Borough President’s Office (see Pastor v. August Aichhorn Ctr. for Adolescent Residential Care, Inc., 238 A.D.3d 645, 645, 235 N.Y.S.3d 287 [1st Dept 2025]; Harrington v. City of New York, 157 A.D.3d 582, 585, 70 N.Y.S.3d 177 [1st Dept 2018] ). Indeed, in the nine months after petitioner filed his discrimination complaint, he received better evaluations than he had previously and received two raises.
Accordingly, the court dismissed petitioner’s Article 78 petition.