300).
{**41 NY3d at 333}Having rejected the per se rule, our review of DHR's analysis concerning whether CityVision and Renner satisfied the adverse action element is limited. When reviewing DHR's "findings on the presence of unlawful discrimination," this Court "may not weigh the evidence or reject" DHR's "choice where the evidence is conflicting and room for a choice exists" (Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v County of Onondaga Sheriff's Dept., 71 NY2d 623, 631 [1988] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Rainer N. Mittl, Ophthalmologist, P.C. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 100 NY2d 326, 331 [2003]). Instead, "the judicial function is concluded when it is determined that" DHR's "determination is supported by substantial evidence on the record" (County of Onondaga Sheriff's Dept., 71 NY2d at 631; see Executive Law § 298). "Put a bit differently, the reviewing court should review the whole record to determine whether there is a rational basis in it for the findings of fact supporting the agency's decision" (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 182 [1978] [internal quotation marks omitted]). On judicial review, DHR's determinations are "accorded substantial deference when" it "acts within [its] area of expertness," and we have recognized that "identifying discriminatory acts . . . requires expertness" (County of Onondaga Sheriff's Dept., 71 NY2d at 630; see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc., 45 NY2d at 183).