In Matter of Donyale Bell v. William Long, No. 147, 2026 WL 849778 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 27, 2026), the court, inter alia, held that the dismissal of the petitioner’s sexual harassment claims was warranted.
From the decision:
Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we conclude that the determination to dismiss her claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment was supported by substantial evidence (see generally Matter of Jones v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 122 AD3d 1387, 1388 [4th Dept 2014]). Such a claim arises where unwelcome sexual conduct was used, “either explicitly or implicitly, as the basis for employment decisions affecting compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of the complainant’s employment” (Matter of Father Belle Community Ctr. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 221 AD2d 44, 50 [4th Dept 1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 809 [1997]). Although the testimony at the hearing established the existence of a sexual relationship between petitioner and respondent William Long, the ALJ concluded, based on his assessment of various witnesses and their credibility, that the relationship predated petitioner’s complaint by a number of years, that it was entirely consensual, and that it was unrelated to petitioner’s employment. We will not disturb the ALJ’s determination that the testimony of certain witnesses was more credible than that of petitioner (see Jones, 122 AD3d at 1388; Matter of Bowler v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 AD3d 1380, 1381 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 709 [2011]). Deferring again to the credibility determinations of the ALJ, who declined to credit petitioner’s testimony that the sexual relationship was nonconsensual or that Long subjected her to other workplace harassment, we similarly reject petitioner’s contention that the determination to dismiss her claim of hostile work environment was not supported by substantial evidence.
The court also found that there was substantial evidence to support the determination dismissing petitioner’s claim for retaliation.