Here, DHR concluded that Pentkowski's letter threatened litigation and that such threats could have dissuaded a reasonable person from bringing the original discrimination charge. Initially, DHR rationally concluded that the letter threatened litigation. The letter specifically stated that Pine Ridge was looking to CityVision and Renner for damages and warned that Pine Ridge would proceed as necessary to obtain such damages.
Further, the record established that Pentkowski's letter "shocked" CityVision's employees and forced CityVision to expend resources and "scramble . . . to locate counsel" to address the threat. In the circumstances presented, it was rational for DHR to conclude that the threatening letter caused CityVision to divert resources and could have dissuaded a person from pursuing a discrimination claim to protect their rights under the Human Rights Law. Indeed, a potential plaintiff might be chilled from filing a discrimination complaint when weighing the harm caused by the threat of retaliatory litigation, let alone the injury potentially occasioned by actual retaliatory{**41 NY3d at 334} litigation. DHR's determination that the litigation threat amounted to adverse action in this case was rational and, thus, supported by substantial evidence.