Matter of Maloff v. City Commission on Human Rights, 38 N.Y.2d 329 (1975)

Human rights agencies, both city and state, have jurisdiction to review claims of discrimination in teacher ratings, even though teacher evaluations are within the competence of the Board of Education; such reviews must be conducted with caution and restraint.

Summary

This case concerns whether the New York City Commission on Human Rights has jurisdiction to hear a teacher’s complaint that her performance was rated unsatisfactory in retaliation for a prior sexual discrimination complaint. The petitioners, including the Board of Education, argued the commission lacked jurisdiction, asserting the Board’s exclusive authority over educational matters and teacher evaluations. The Court of Appeals held that both city and state human rights agencies have concurrent jurisdiction to review discrimination claims related to teacher ratings, emphasizing the need for caution and restraint in such reviews. This decision clarifies that while educational expertise lies with the Board, discrimination claims trigger the purview of human rights agencies.

Facts

A New York City teacher filed a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights, alleging that her performance rating was lowered in retaliation for a previous complaint of sexual discrimination within the school system. The Board of Education, along with other petitioners, sought to prohibit the Commission from proceeding with the case, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding seeking to prevent the New York City Commission on Human Rights from hearing the teacher’s complaint. The Appellate Division’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the New York City Commission on Human Rights has jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of discrimination involving the Board of Education of the City of New York, given the Board’s status as a state agency.
2. Whether a human rights agency (city or state) can entertain a complaint concerning a teacher’s rating, even when discrimination is alleged, considering the Board of Education’s exclusive competence to evaluate teacher performance.

Holding

1. Yes, because the Administrative Code defines a city agency to include entities funded by the city treasury, which encompasses the Board of Education. The jurisdiction of the New York City Commission on Human Rights is concurrent with the New York State Division of Human Rights.
2. Yes, because discrimination in the rating process impacts a teacher’s employment, salary, and advancement, and denying human rights agencies the power to review such claims would frustrate legislative policy aimed at eliminating discrimination in employment. However, such review should be conducted with caution and restraint.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the Board of Education, while a state agency, is still subject to municipal control in matters not strictly educational or pedagogic. Discrimination, even within the context of teacher ratings, falls outside the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction because it impacts employment and promotion. The Court emphasized that the city commission’s jurisdiction is concurrent with that of the State Division of Human Rights, as provided by Section 239-s of the General Municipal Law. While acknowledging the Board’s expertise in evaluating teacher performance, the Court underscored the importance of addressing discrimination in the rating process to effectively combat discrimination in employment. The court cited Matter of Pace Col. v Commission on Human Rights of City of N. Y., 38 NY2d 28, 38, noting that “[n]either the commission nor the courts should invade, and only rarely assume academic oversight, except with the greatest caution and restraint, in such sensitive areas as faculty appointment, promotion, and tenure”. This highlights the need for a balanced approach, respecting the Board’s educational judgments while safeguarding against discriminatory practices.