State Com'n for Human Rights v. Farrell, 28

• Decision Date: 01 June 1967
• Docket Number: No. 28,28
• Citation: 228 N.E.2d 691,19 N.Y.2d 974,281 N.Y.S.2d 521
• Parties: , 228 N.E.2d 691, 9 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1239 In the Matter of STATE COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, Respondent, v. Mell FARRELL, Individually and as President of Local Unionof Sheet Metal Workers' International Association of Greater New York et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 521

281 N.Y.S.2d 521

19 N.Y.2d 974, 228 N.E.2d 691, 9 Fair

Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1239

In the Matter of STATE COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, Respondent, v. Mell FARRELL, Individually and as President of Local Union No. 28 of Sheet Metal Workers' International Association of Greater New York et al. Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 1, 1967.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 27 A.D.2d 327, 278 N.Y.S.2d 982.

Sol Bogen, for appellants.

William M. Miles and Henry Spitz, New York City, for petitioner-respondent.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., (George D. Zuckerman, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, Lloyd G. Milliken and Maria L. Marcus, New York City, of counsel).

Robert L. Carter and Lewis M. Steel, New York City, for National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People, amicus curiae.

Proceeding on application by State Commission for Human Rights to enjoin union and union officials from invalidating any of the test scores obtained by 147 applicants who had participated in an aptitude test administered on November 12, 1966 by the Testing and Advisement Center of New York University to qualify such applicants for admission into a sheet metal apprenticeship training program and to direct union and officials to make appointments to the next sheet metal apprenticeship training class from among the 147 applicants in order of rank, to be determined in accordance with standards annexed to an order of Special Term dated November 6, 1964. That order provided for the selection of sheet metal apprentices on basis of aptitude tests in order to eliminate discrimination found to have previously existed in their selection. The union and officials had sought to invalidate results of the test and to require the participants therein to take a new test on the ground that the results of the test had not accurately established the relative aptitude of the participants for the apprenticeship training program.

The Supreme Court at Special Term, William C. Hecht, Jr., J., 52 Misc.2d 936, 277 N.Y.S.2d 287, entered an order which enjoined the invalidation of the test scores and directed the appointment to the next training class from the 147 applicants in order of rank, and the union officials and union appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed, and appeal was by permission of the Court of Appeals.

Order affirmed, with cost, upon the opinion at the Appellate Division.

FULD, C.J., and BURKE, BERGAN, KEATING and BREITEL, JJ., concur.

VAN VOORHIS, J., concurs in the following opinion in which SCILEPPI, J., concurs.

VAN VOORHIS, Judge (concurring).

The affidavit of the director of the Testing and Advisement Center of New York University, under the auspices of which this examination was authorized to be administered by the Supreme Court order of November 6, 1964, the affidavit of the president of the Psychological Corporation, and those of the psychologist employed in behalf of successful candidates for the apprenticeship program, and of the tutor-co-ordinator of the Defense League, all of whom appear to have acted in good faith, do cast doubt upon the dependability of the kind of aptitude test administered to these applicants under the order of November 6, 1964. The very fact that the same examinations were given to applicants for apprenticeships in three successive classes, in the apparent belief that foreknowledge of the questions to be asked could not materially affect the scores--a belief which was dispelled by the outcome of the third examination in November, 1966--lends no special confidence to this examining...