Sontag v. Bronstein
| Decision Date | 15 November 1973 |
| Citation | 351 N.Y.S.2d 389,306 N.E.2d 405,33 N.Y.2d 197 |
| Parties | , 306 N.E.2d 405, 7 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 361, 7 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9046 In the Matter of Marilyn SONTAG, Appellant, v. Harry L. BRONSTEIN, Individually and as Director of the New York City Department of Personnel, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Eve Cary, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Paul G. Chevigny, New York City, and Andrea Stavin Hayman, for appellant.
Norman Redlich, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Bernard Burstein and Stanley Buchsbaum, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
In September, 1970, the petitioner, Marilyn Sontag, received a provisional civil service appointment as an audio-visual aid technician at Hunter College in the City of New York. In early 1972, she took and passed the written civil service examination for the position, but failed a portion of the physical test requiring a candidate 'by sheer muscular effort, to raise a 25-pound dumbbell with one hand and then a 20-pound dumbbell with the other from a stop position at the shoulder to full arm vertical extension.' As a result and in accordance with the job specifications for an audio-visual aid technician, Miss Sontag received a failing grade on the entire test and was subsequently released from her position at Hunter College. All male candidates taking the examination passed the dumbbell lift subtest, one of whom was ultimately hired to fill the vacancy created by Miss Sontag's departure. 1
A review proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 was then brought, seeking, on constitutional grounds, excision of the dumbbell lift subtest from the physical examination for the position of audio-visual aid technician and certification of petitioner for that position. Special Term denied the application and dismissed the petition without a hearing. The Appellate Division, by a divided court, affirmed and the petitioner appeals as of right.
On this appeal, petitioner urges that the dumbbell lift subtest bears no reasonable relationship to the performance of the duties of an audio-visual aid technician and that it discriminates invidiously on the basis of sex in violation of section 296 of the Executive Law, title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We conclude that it was error for Special Term to dismiss the petition without a hearing. Accordingly, there should be a reversal, the petition should be reinstated and the matter remanded for that purpose. A neutral hiring standard which in operation and effect adversely affects employment opportunity for a protected class of persons is not proscribed by the applicable statutes if it bears a rational relationship to job performance. Adjudication of petitioner's claim that the dumbbell lift subtest lacks such a rational relationship and, thus, discriminates invidiously on the basis of sex, turns on the relationship, if any, between the duties of the audio-visual aid technician and the handling, moving, carrying, etc., of heavy objects. In this regard, the record is insufficient and, accordingly, we remand for a hearing.
The governing principles may be briefly set out. Section 296 of the Executive Law prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. 2 It is equally true, however, that employers have wide discretion in developing hiring standards and related tests. (Matter of Pollak v. Conway, 276 App.Div. 435, 95 N.Y.S.2d 553, mot. for lv. to app. den. 301 N.Y. 816, 93 N.E.2d 81.) But when a hiring standard, although neutral on its face or even neutral in terms of intent, adversely affects equal employment opportunity for a protected class of persons, judicial scrutiny of that hiring criterion is warranted. (See New York State Div. of Human Rights v. New York-Pennsylvania Professional Baseball League, 36 A.D.2d 364, 320 N.Y.S.2d 788, affd. 29 N.Y.2d 921, 329 N.Y.S.2d 99, 279 N.E.2d 856; State Div. of Human Rights v. New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation, 38 A.D.2d 25, 26--28, 326 N.Y.S.2d 640, 641--642.) It is then incumbent upon the employer to show that the standard or test bears a rational relationship to and is a valid predictor of employee job performance, and that it does not create an arbitrary, artificial and unnecessary barrier to employment which operates invidiously to discriminate on the basis of an impermissible classification. (See New York State Div. of Human Rights v. New York-Pennsylvania Professional Baseball League, Supra; State Div. of Human Rights v. New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation, Supra; cf. Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 408 F.2d 228, 235--236 (5th Cir.).)
Turning to the record before us, it is deficient with regard to the critical question on which adjudication of the claim of sex-based discrimination turns, namely the relationship, if any, between the duties of the audio-visual aid technician and the handling, moving, carrying, etc., of heavy objects. For example, an addendum to a field audit report on the position of audio-visual aid technician lists the following as 'physically taxing jobs' performed:
'Lifts projectors weighing approximately 25 pounds.
'Carries projectors from storage area to car and from car into school at which he is working.
'Drives car in performance of duties.'
But the record is notably silent with regard to the manner of handling heavy equipment as it might bear on the reasonableness of a physical test such as the dumbbell lift subtest. For example, must the audiovisual aid technician remove and replace heavy equipment from and on storage shelves located...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byrd v. Long Island Lighting Co.
...N.Y.S.2d 603, 318 N.E.2d 770 (1974), appeal dismissed, 420 U.S. 915, 95 S.Ct. 1108, 43 L.Ed.2d 387 (1975); Sontag v. Bronstein, 33 N.Y.2d 197, 351 N.Y.S.2d 389, 306 N.E.2d 405 (1973). Indeed, the New York courts have on a few occasions required a showing of more than disparate impact based ......
-
Maine Human Rights Commission v. Local 1361, United Paperworkers Intern. Union AFL-CIO
...Minn. 178, 229 N.W.2d 3 (1975); Physicians Mut. Ins. Co. v. Duffy, 191 Neb. 233, 214 N.W.2d 471 (1974); Sontag v. Bronstein, 33 N.Y.2d 197, 351 N.Y.S.2d 389, 306 N.E.2d 405 (1973); Wis. Tel. Co. v. Dep't. of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 68 Wis.2d 345, 228 N.W.2d 649 (1975).17 The sincer......
-
State Division of Human Rights on Complaint of Freeman v. Xerox Corp.
...evidencing that a greater proportion of blacks are arrested than whites. As a consequence thereof, citing Matter of Sontag v. Bronstein, 33 N.Y.2d 197, 351 N.Y.S.2d 389, 306 N.E.2d 405, counsel contended that Xerox' policy of suspension in case of an employee's arrest was a racially discrim......
-
P., In re
...of Malpica-Orsini, 36 N.Y.2d 568 at 591, 370 N.Y.S.2d 511, at 533, 331 N.E.2d 486 at 502; Matter of Sontag v. Bronstein, 33 N.Y.2d 197, 201 n. 2, 351 N.Y.S.2d 389, 392, 306 N.E.2d 405, 405 (1971); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 36 L.Ed.2d 583 (1973) (Justices Brennan,......