In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirmed the dismissal of a discrimination complaint filed by Alroy Richards against his former employer, Allied Universal Security, and Hillside Manor Rehabilitation and Extended Care Facility. The court's decision, issued on July 29, 2026, confirms that the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) acted properly in dismissing Richards' claims of unlawful discrimination.
This ruling matters because it sets a precedent for how discrimination complaints are handled in New York. It emphasizes the importance of following proper procedures when filing such complaints and highlights the DHR's authority in determining probable cause in discrimination cases.
Alroy Richards, a resident of Valley Stream, New York, filed an administrative complaint with the DHR on March 15, 2018. He alleged that Allied Universal Security, where he was employed, discriminated against him unlawfully. After investigating the complaint, the DHR issued a determination on September 26, 2018, finding no probable cause to support Richards' claims. Consequently, the DHR dismissed the complaint.
Richards was dissatisfied with the DHR's decision and sought to challenge it by filing a proceeding under Executive Law § 298. He named the DHR, Allied Universal Security, and Hillside Manor Rehabilitation as respondents in his appeal. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court in Queens County, where it was presided over by Judge Ulysses B. Leverett.
In the lower court, Allied Universal Security moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Richards failed to demonstrate that the DHR's determination was arbitrary and capricious. Hillside Manor also filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that it had not been a party to the administrative proceeding. On January 4, 2023, the Supreme Court granted both motions, denied Richards' petition, and dismissed the proceeding.
The Appellate Division's ruling upheld the lower court's decision. The court noted that the DHR's investigation into Richards' complaint was thorough and that he had a full opportunity to present his claims. The judges emphasized that the DHR has broad discretion in its investigations and that its determinations are entitled to considerable deference.
The court ruled, "The determination of no probable cause made by the DHR was not arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis in the record."
The judges in this case included Hector D. Lasalle, Helen Voutsinas, Laurence L. Love, and Phillip Hom. They concurred in affirming the Supreme Court's decision, which found that Hillside Manor was not a proper respondent since it did not participate in the administrative proceeding.
This ruling has significant implications for individuals filing discrimination complaints in New York. It reinforces the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements when seeking to challenge a DHR determination. The court's decision also underscores the importance of the DHR's role in investigating and resolving discrimination claims.
Moving forward, this case may discourage individuals from filing complaints without proper grounds or without following the necessary procedures. It highlights the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding discrimination claims and the potential consequences of failing to comply with these requirements.
As for the possibility of an appeal, details were not available in the court filing. However, it is common for parties to seek further review in higher courts, depending on the circumstances. There may also be related cases pending that could address similar issues in the future.