A New York court has ruled that D. Auxilly NYC LLC discriminated against a complainant based on her sexual orientation. The court's decision, made on October 22, 2026, confirmed an earlier ruling by the New York State Division of Human Rights. This ruling awarded the complainant $5,000 for emotional distress and imposed a $20,000 civil penalty against the business. This case highlights the ongoing legal battles surrounding discrimination based on sexual orientation and the rights of individuals in commercial transactions.
The case began when a Missouri resident reached out to D. Auxilly, a New York-based company that produces and sells attire, including bridal outfits. The complainant inquired about purchasing a bridal jumpsuit for her upcoming wedding. However, the owner of D. Auxilly, Dominique Galbraith, responded that she could not make the garment for a same-sex wedding due to her religious beliefs. This response prompted the complainant to file a discrimination complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights.
The Division conducted a public hearing where the complainant testified about the emotional pain she experienced due to D. Auxilly's refusal to sell her the garment. D. Auxilly did not present any witnesses or evidence during the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended that the complaint be sustained, and the Division's final order adopted this recommendation, finding that D. Auxilly discriminated against the complainant based on her sexual orientation.
The court's ruling confirmed that D. Auxilly's actions violated the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The court stated, "D. Auxilly's discriminatory conduct based upon complainant's sexual orientation deprived complainant of an opportunity to engage in commercial activity here." The ruling emphasized that the Division had jurisdiction over the matter because the discriminatory conduct occurred in New York, and its impact was felt within the state.
The court also addressed D. Auxilly's claim that enforcing the NYSHRL would violate its First Amendment rights. The court found that the NYSHRL is generally applicable and neutral, stating, "the statute is neutral, both on its face and due to a lack of evidence that it targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment." The ruling clarified that D. Auxilly's refusal to sell the garment did not constitute an expressive statement protected by the First Amendment.
The court upheld the awards of compensatory damages and civil penalties. The $5,000 awarded to the complainant was deemed reasonable and supported by evidence presented during the hearing. The $20,000 civil penalty was also found to be appropriate, as it was neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to the conscience.
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation in New York. It sends a clear message to businesses that they cannot refuse service based on a customer's sexual orientation, even if the owner cites religious beliefs as a reason. The decision aligns with previous court rulings that have upheld the rights of individuals to engage in commercial transactions without facing discrimination.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the parties involved. It serves as a reminder to businesses that they must comply with anti-discrimination laws and treat all customers equally, regardless of their sexual orientation. This case may also influence future legal battles as more individuals seek to challenge discriminatory practices in various sectors.
Looking ahead, D. Auxilly may have the option to appeal the ruling. However, the court's decision is a strong affirmation of the rights protected under the NYSHRL. There may also be related cases pending that could further explore the intersection of discrimination laws and First Amendment rights.