The state Division of Human Rights has ruled in favor of Chautauqua County and several of its employees in a discrimination case.

Leanne Luka-Conley is petitioning Chautauqua County Supreme Court to overturn the order that found no probable cause to believe unlawful conduct occurred. She alleges she was kept from meetings and proper communications with her department while out on maternity leave through the machinations of male co-workers, Carmelo Hernandez and John Sedota.

Luka-Conley subsequently filed an internal complaint against the county in July 2023 after she and others discovered a social media post by Hernandez denigrating women. “Respondents’ discriminatory conduct towards (her) was amplified after her internal complaint,” the petition alleges.

Hernandez’s post, which was reported by The Post-Journal and OBSERVER, stated that “men must begin fighting back against feminism.” It noted that 60% of marriages end in divorce; 80% are initiated by women; and 93% of single women live off welfare. Another portion of the post stated, “Women can literally beat a man then fall under the cover of the court safety net. Zero accountability. … Men must begin fighting back against feminism so our children are instilled with values that bring marriage back to greatness.”

Luka-Conley filed a complaint with the state alleging sex discrimination, but the Division of Human Rights turned her down. The state filed its order without a hearing, stating that no adverse employment action was taken against Luka-Conley and she “did not point to any negative remarks about or references to her sex to support her claim regarding the respondent’s conduct.”

The order states in its concluding paragraph that “other than making conclusory allegations, the complainant failed to produce any evidence to support this claim.”

The petition to Chautauqua County Supreme Court seeks that the case get referred back to the state for a formal hearing. The petition states that the conclusion about not providing any negative remarks or sexual references was erroneous, offering an exhibit as evidence.