wski retaliated against them for filing the first discrimination complaint. CityVision and Renner claimed that Pine Ridge and Pentkowski sent the letter to intimidate them and, thus, interfere with their protected rights.
A public hearing ensued before an administrative law judge (ALJ). A CityVision employee testified that CityVision's staff was "shocked" when they received Pentkowski's letter, and "had to scramble around . . . to locate counsel," thereby diverting resources in response to the letter. The ALJ recommended a finding of unlawful retaliation, a damages award payable to CityVision, and a civil fine. Concerning the first element of the retaliation claim, the ALJ placed the burden on Pine Ridge and Pentkowski to show that CityVision's initial discrimination complaint was "made in bad faith," and concluded that they failed to meet that burden. The ALJ further determined that Pentkowski's letter was retaliatory and threatening because it sought damages from CityVision and Renner for filing the initial complaint. DHR adopted the ALJ's recommendation as its final order, amending it only to award CityVision attorney's fees.
Pine Ridge and Pentkowski then commenced this Executive Law § 298 proceeding to annul DHR's determination. DHR cross-petitioned to enforce its determination and to transfer the matter to the Appellate Division.