National Organization for Women v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 406 (1976)
A newspaper that publishes classified advertisements under separate “Male” and “Female” headings aids and abets sex discrimination, violating state human rights laws.
Summary
The National Organization for Women (NOW) sued Gannett, a newspaper publisher, alleging that maintaining separate “Male” and “Female” columns in classified advertising violated New York’s anti-discrimination laws. The New York Court of Appeals held that Gannett aided and abetted sex discrimination by publishing these separate listings, reinforcing discriminatory practices even though the newspaper itself wasn’t directly discriminating nor was it an “employer” or “employment agency”. The court emphasized that such practices perpetuate wage disparities and limit opportunities based on gender stereotypes.
Facts
Gannett Publishing Co., Inc. published a newspaper with classified advertisement sections. These sections included separate columns labeled “Help Wanted – Male” and “Help Wanted – Female.” NOW filed a complaint alleging this practice violated New York State’s anti-discrimination laws, arguing it aided and abetted sex discrimination.
Procedural History
The State Division of Human Rights initially determined the separate listings were discriminatory, but this was overruled by the Division itself, dismissing the complaint. The State Human Rights Appeal Board upheld the dismissal. The Appellate Division confirmed the Division’s determination. The New York Court of Appeals granted permission for further appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether NOW has standing to bring suit as a representative organization.
2. Whether a newspaper aids and abets sex discrimination by publishing classified advertisements under separate “Male” and “Female” headings, in violation of Executive Law § 296(6).
Holding
1. Yes, NOW has standing because it is a bona fide organization dedicated to eliminating discriminatory practices against women.
2. Yes, Gannett aided and abetted sex discrimination because designating separate want ad column listings as “Help Wanted – Male” and/or “Help Wanted – Female” reinforces discriminatory practices.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that unlawful discrimination against women is widespread and often subtle. Although Gannett argued the separate listings were for the convenience of readers, the court found that such a practice perpetuates sex discrimination. The court highlighted that jobs listed in the “female” column often have lower pay than those in the “male” column, reinforcing wage disparities. The court cited Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Comm., noting similar findings of wage disparities between male and female job listings. Although Gannett was not directly discriminating as an employer or employment agency, it was culpable for aiding and abetting discrimination under Executive Law § 296(6). The court stated, “We hold only that to designate separate want ad column listings as ‘Help Wanted – Male’ and/or ‘Help Wanted – Female’ reinforces the very discriminatory practices which the Federal and State antidiscrimination laws were meant to eliminate.” The court emphasized that the separate listings reinforce discriminatory practices that the law seeks to eliminate and rejected the argument that such listings are merely for reader convenience, stating that such policies can become self-fulfilling prophecies that perpetuate gender stereotypes in employment opportunities.