Lombardo v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of New York
| Decision Date | 30 December 1963 |
| Citation | 13 N.Y.2d 1097,196 N.E.2d 266,246 N.Y.S.2d 631 |
| Parties | , 196 N.E.2d 266, 9 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1221 In the Matter of Josef V. LOMBARDO et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Affirming order 18 A.D.2d 444, 240 N.Y.S.2d 119, which reversed 37 Misc.2d 436, 235 N.Y.S.2d 1010.
Edward D. Burns, New York City, for appellants.
Leo A. Larkin, Corp. Counsel (Mathias F. Correa, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Anthony Curreri, New York City, for Columbia Ass'n of the Bd. of Ed., amicus curiae.
Whitman Knapp, Robert M. Benjamin, Frank E. Karelsen and Fred N. Fishman, New York City, for Public Education Ass'n amicus curiae.
Edward J. McCann, Brooklyn, for Catholic Teachers Ass'n of the Diocese of Brooklyn, Inc., amicus curiae.
Foley & Grainger, New York City, for Bay Ridge Catholic Action Guild, Inc., amicus curiae.
Order affirmed, without costs.
This article 78 proceeding, involving charges of religious bias and prejudice with regard to promotions at a tax-supported college, is not, in my opinion, premature (see, e. g., Matter of Hughes v. Board of Higher Education, 309 N.Y. 319, 130 N.E.2d 638; Matter of O'Connor v. Emerson, 196 App.Div. 807, 810, 188 N.Y.S. 236, 238-239, affd. 232 N.Y. 561, 134 N.E. 572). The only question of substance here, as I see it, is whether petitioners have made a sufficient showing to warrant a jury trial.
In this day and age, bias and prejudice are not often expressly declared but, rather, concealed. Where they do exist they probably would be manifested by conduct and/or action. Thus a person claiming discrimination would normally be confronted with the problem of proving that certain conduct or acts are motivated by bias or prejudice. Certainly, as the Appellate Division suggests, a showing 'of systematic exclusion or restriction, or a generalized pattern' is one method of proving unlawful discrimination. It is not, however, the only method. Essentially, the issue is one of fact, to be determined on the basis of all the facts in each case (see, e. g., Matter of Holland v. Edwards, 282 App.Div. 353, 122 N.Y.S.2d 721, affd. 307 N.Y. 38, 119 N.E.2d 581). I am not suggesting that every bare charge of discrimination should be tested by a trial; however, in this case we are confronted by allegations of specific instances tending to show the existence of bias and prejudice. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lombardo v. Stoke
...over for promotion in 1961 solely because of anti-Catholic discrimination. (See Matter of Lombardo v. Board of Higher Education of City of New York, 13 N.Y.2d 1097, 246 N.Y.S.2d 631, 196 N.E.2d 266.) In the present action for libel, the defendants interposed the defense of absolute privileg......
-
Scott v. Board of Ed., Union Free School Dist. No. 17, Hicksville
...307 N.Y. 493, 121 N.E.2d 517; Matter of Lombardo v. Board of Higher Education, 18 A.D.2d 444, 240 N.Y.S.2d 119, aff'd 13 N.Y.2d 1097, 246 N.Y.S.2d 631, 196 N.E.2d 266; Matter of Buffalo Audio Center Arrolite Co. v. Union Free School District No. 1, 29 Misc.2d 871, 208 N.Y.S.2d 760, aff'd 15......
-
Board of Higher Ed. of City of New York v. Carter
...was adopted by the Board and later in an article 78 proceeding was reviewed and upheld in the courts (Lombardo v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of N. Y., 13 N.Y.2d 1097, 246 N.Y.S. 631). While the Board was thus engaged, sometime in September or October, 1958, it was announced in the public......
-
O'Connor v. Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 of Village of Ilion and Towns of German Flatts, et al.
... ... Board of Examiners of Board of Education of City of New York, 274 N.Y. 367, 374, 9 N.E.2d 12, 15 (1937); ter of Lombardo v. Board of Higher Education of the City of New York, 18 ... ...