George Sideris v. Autofair Ford

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0473, George Sideris v. Autofair Ford, the
court on April 10, 2023, issued the following order:

The request in the brief of the plaintiff, George Sideris, that we obtain “all
of the evidence” in this matter, including his “witnesses’ statements,
documents, and actual video and audio recordings of the hearing and interview
of [him]” is denied. (Capitalization omitted.) The request in the brief of the
defendant, Autofair Ford Limited Partnership of New Hampshire, to strike the
plaintiff’s brief and dismiss the appeal is also denied. The court has reviewed
the written arguments and the record submitted on appeal, and has
determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The
plaintiff appeals an order of the Superior Court (Kissinger, J.) upholding the
determination by the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights (the
Commission) that there was no probable cause to find that the defendant
regarded the plaintiff as having an impairment that was substantially limiting
or to find that his termination from employment was retaliatory. See RSA 354-
A:21, II(a) (2022). We affirm.

Under RSA 354-A:21, II(a), after a complaint alleging unlawful
discrimination is filed, one of the commissioners is designated to investigate
the complaint promptly. Id. “When,” as in this case, “the investigating
commissioner finds no probable cause to credit the allegations in the
complaint, the complaint shall be dismissed, subject to a right of appeal to
superior court.” Id. “To prevail on appeal, the moving party,” here, the
plaintiff, had to “establish by a clear preponderance of the evidence” that the
Commission’s decision was “unlawful or unreasonable.” Id. By statute, the
superior court must uphold the factual findings of the investigating
commissioner “as long as the record contains credible evidence to support
them.” Id.

In this case, based upon its review of the certified record, the superior
court found “scant evidence” to suggest that the defendant perceived the
plaintiff to have a disability. The court, therefore, upheld the investigating
commissioner’s determination that there was no probable cause to find that the
defendant regarded the plaintiff as disabled.

The court, likewise, found “no evidence” in the certified record that the
plaintiff had “voiced concerns to anyone” at his job “that he was being
discriminated against because of a perceived disability of any kind” or that he
was terminated because he had voiced concerns about his supervisor’s
comments. The court, therefore, upheld the investigating commissioner’s
determination that there was no probable cause to find that the defendant
retaliated against the plaintiff. Based upon our review of the written
arguments, the relevant law, the record on appeal, and the trial court’s
thorough and well-reasoned decision, we find the plaintiff’s arguments
unpersuasive, and we affirm the trial court’s decision.

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ.,
concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2