New Yorkers should be disturbed by the disclosure last week that the state has settled a racial discrimination lawsuit that accused Gov. David Paterson of firing a state Senate photographer in 2003 because the photographer was white.

The photographer, who had worked for the Senate minority conference under previous leadership that had been ousted by Paterson, will receive $300,000 from the taxpayers of New York. He had sued for $1.5 million.

Paterson, who was Senate minority leader at the time of the photographer's firing, had been denying the discrimination charges ever since the case was filed in 2005.

He maintained that claim last week, saying that his attorney and the attorney general's office - which officially represents the state - recommended accepting the settlement.

But if Paterson and the state had a slam-dunk defense against these allegations, why would they agree to pay the plaintiff $300,000?

There is some troubling background to consider. The lawsuit only came about after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said there may indeed have been some violations. A federal judge had concluded there was enough questions of fact to warrant a trial, which would have started this week.

Even if there was no discrimination, the case is troubling.

People close to Paterson are suggesting the move to settle was made to avoid a potentially embarrassing and distracting trial in which the governor himself would have been called as a witness.

That's a shortsighted reason for settling a case such as this. What about other people the governor has fired during his political career? This move certainly will encourage some of them to file wrongful termination claims of their own, knowing now that the governor is willing to pay to avoid a trial.

One thing about this case has been clear - anything short of a victory at trial for the state is a bad reflection on this governor, and that's exactly what this is for Paterson.