*432 OPINION OF THE COURT
Plаintiff insurance agent brought a discrimination claim against defendant insurance company for termination of her agency contract allegedly on the basis of her gender, age and marital status. The question before us is whether the suit may be predicated on Executive Law § 296 (1) (a), which prohibits discrimination in employment, or under section 296 (13), which prohibits discrimination in commerce or trade. For the following reasons, we affirm the holdings of the courts below that plaintiff could not avail herself of the protections of either sectiоn under the circumstances of this case.
Defendant G. James Blatt runs a "general agency” through which he markets the insurance products of defendant Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company. In 1981, defendant Blatt hired plaintiff Marilyn Scott as an insurance agent under a career contract. In 1987, plaintiff became a district manager responsible for running a separate agency for defendant at a new location and for recruiting insurance agents to expand the company’s markets. The agreement containеd in the career contract executed by the parties in 1981 stated that "[njothing in this contract shall be construed as creating the relationship of employer and employee between” defendants and plaintiff. Both the career contract and the district manager contract were terminable at will by either party.
Defendant Blatt terminated plaintiff’s career contract and series 6 license to sell certain mutual funds and annuities in June 1992. Plaintiff then commenced this action in December 1992 against both defendants pursuаnt to New York State’s Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 290 et seq.). Plaintiff alleged that defendant Blatt discriminated against her in employment by refusing to promote her, and by terminating her agency contract and her series 6 license, on the basis of her gender, age and marital status, and that defendant Massachusetts Mutual is liable as Blatt’s employer for his acts, which it ratified. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that, as an independent contractor, plaintiff was not entitled to bring a claim under the Human Rights Law. In response, plaintiff contendеd that she was defendants’ employee, and could proceed pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (1) (a), and alternatively that Executive Law § 296 (13) covers discrimination against independent contractors in these circumstances.
*433 Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint. The court concluded that plaintiff was an independent contractor not eligible for protection under Executive Law § 296 (1) (a) and had failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning her claimed status as an "employеe.” The court also rejected plaintiffs claim that the suit could be brought pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (13), holding that "that subdivision * * * is aimed at curbing discrimination in a wide range of commercial activity, such as commercial boycotts and blacklisting.” The Appellate Division affirmed, without opinion. We granted plaintiffs motion for leave to appeal, and now affirm.
Plaintiff first seeks to pursue her discrimination claim under Executive Law § 296 (1) (a). That section provides that "[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice * * * [f|or an employer * * * because of the age, race, creed, color, national origin, sex, or disability, or marital status of any individual, to refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions оr privileges of employment.”
Proceeding from the position that this section governs discrimination only in traditional employer/employee relationships, and not in the employment of independent contractors, plaintiff contends only that dismissal of her claim pursuant to Executive Law § 296 (1) (a) on summary judgment was improper because she has raised a triable issue concerning whether she was, in fact, defendant Massachusetts Mutual’s employee rather than an independent contractor. We disagree.
It is by now well settled that "a determination that an employer-employee relationship exists may rest upon evidence that the employer exercises either control over the results produced or over the means used to achieve the results”
(Matter of Ted Is Back Corp. [Roberts],
Here, the parties’ submissions on defendants’ summary judgment motion establish that рlaintiff was responsible for financing her own operating expenses and support staff, was paid by performance rather than a salary, did not have Federal, State or local taxes withheld from her pay, could sell *434 competitors’ products and had agreed by contract to operate as an independent contractor. Although plaintiff alleges that she was required to recruit and train agents according to defendant Massachusetts Mutual’s guidelines, that was true only for agents whose hiring was financed by defendаnt and not by plaintiff, and, in any event, reflects only minimal control over plaintiff’s own work. Additionally, the facts that plaintiff was compelled to attend regular company meetings and was asked to draw up a job description for her position are not inconsistent with hеr status as an independent contractor. Rather, the submissions establish, at most, that defendants exercised minimal control over plaintiff’s own daily work product.
The only conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that plaintiff operated her office with a high degreе of independence not found in a traditional employer/employee relationship
(see, Matter of 12 Cornelia St. [Ross],
Plaintiff alternatively argues that, even assuming she was an independent contractor, her discrimination claim may proceed under Executive Law § 296 (13). Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that bring her claim within this provision.
Executive Law § 296 (13) provides, in full, that "[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice (i) for any person to discriminate against, boycott or blacklist, or to refuse to buy from, sell to or trade with, any person, because of the race, creed, color, nаtional origin or sex of such person, or of such person’s partners, members, stockholders, directors, officers, managers, superintendents, agents, employees, business associates, suppliers or customers, or (ii) for any person willfully to do any act or refrаin from doing any act which enables any such person to take such action. This subdivision shall not apply to: (a) Boycotts connected with labor disputes; or (b) Boycotts to protest unlawful discriminatory practices” (emphasis added).
Apparently unable to allеge that defendants engaged in a formal boycott or blacklisting of females or persons of plaintiff’s age or marital status, plaintiff instead submits that her *435 claim, which alleges general discrimination by defendants against her, falls within the conduct covered by section 296 (13) when the statutory language italicized above is isolated from the remainder of the section’s terms. This contention does not withstand scrutiny.
Under settled precepts of statutory construction, the italicized language should not be read in isolation, but within the context of the entire statute, giving relative meaning and effect to each of the section’s remaining terms
(see,
McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 98). The statute’s specific reference to boycotts, blacklisting and refusals to deal indicates that this subdivision of the Human Rights Law is directed at curbing, in pаrticular, types of business practices that involve the concerted use of economic means to disadvantage the trade or commercial activities of a member of a targeted group
(see,
Black’s Law Dictionary [6th ed], definitions of boycott and blacklist;
see also, Holly v Pennysaver Corp.,
Indeed, were we to accept plaintiffs approaсh and conclude that the statute outlaws general discrimination by “any person” against "any person,” there would be no need for the numerous remaining subdivisions of the statute, which prohibit particular discriminatory practices in certain well-defined areas, such as in residential rental leases (see, e.g., Executive Law § 296 [2-a]), in places of public accommodation or amusement (id., § 296 [2] [a]), in defining membership on a real estate board (id., § 296 [5] [d]) or in referral services provided to applicants by an employment agency (see, id., §296 [1] [b]). Accordingly, wе decline to adopt an interpretation of the intended scope of section 296 (13) which would render the statute’s remaining provisions mere surplusage.
In any event, any ambiguity in the scope of conduct prohibited by the statute is quickly dissipated by reference to its legislative history, which reveals the single-minded purpose of the new law. Enacted in 1975, and commonly referred to as the "Arab Boycott Law”
(see, Mehtani v New York Life Ins. Co.,
While the enactment found its impetus in the Arab boycott of Jewish businesses, it was drafted more broadly to prohibit not only boycotts imposed by foreign entities, but any business tactics, utilized in New York State or against a New York resident or corporation, which are driven by "religious or racial bigotry” (Governor Carey’s Mem of Apрroval, 1975, NY Legis Ann, at 442, 443) or other prohibited discriminatory animus
(see, Holly v Pennysaver Corp.,
Importantly, the absence of evidence of a formal boycott or blacklisting campaign will not be fatal to a discrimination claim under section 296 (13). For example, evidence establishing that a defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct that commercially disadvantaged only members of a protected class may be sufficient to defeat a summary judgement motion
(see, e.g, Harvey v NYRAC, Inc.,
Applying those principles to this case, we conclude that plaintiff’s discrimination claim under Executive Law § 296 (13) was properly dismissed. Assuming that the termination of
*437
plaintiffs agency contract qualifies as business conduct or, more specifically, a refusal to trade within the statute’s scope, plaintiff has otherwise failed tо submit sufficient proof to establish that the contract termination was propelled by or a result of defendants’ desire to collectively discriminate against a protected class that includes plaintiff
(see, West v Mohawk Commercial Carpets,
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed, with costs.