Gilinsky v. Columbia University, 42 N.Y.2d 614 (1977)
The State Human Rights Appeal Board’s review of a Commissioner’s determination of discrimination is limited to whether the order is supported by substantial evidence, and the Board cannot substitute its judgment for the Commissioner’s when the evidence is conflicting.
Summary
Dr. Alberta Gilinsky, a tenured professor, alleged sex discrimination after Columbia University rejected her application for a faculty position. The Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights found no discrimination, but the State Human Rights Appeal Board reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Board’s decision, holding that the Board exceeded its statutory authority by substituting its own judgment for the Commissioner’s when substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s finding of no discrimination. The court emphasized that neither the Board nor the courts should invade academic oversight in faculty appointments absent clear evidence of discrimination.
Facts
Dr. Gilinsky, a tenured professor at the University of Bridgeport, applied for a faculty position in the Department of Psychology at Columbia University in February 1972. She was informed that her application was rejected due to a lack of vacancies in her area of specialization. Dr. Gilinsky then filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex discrimination by Columbia University.
Procedural History
The Chief Hearing Examiner of the State Division held hearings. The Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights determined that Columbia University did not discriminate against Dr. Gilinsky based on her sex. The State Human Rights Appeal Board reversed the Commissioner’s determination. Columbia University appealed the Board’s decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s order. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, annulling the Board’s determination.
Issue(s)
Whether the State Human Rights Appeal Board exceeded its statutory authority by setting aside the Commissioner’s determination that Columbia University did not discriminate against Dr. Gilinsky, when the Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Holding
Yes, because the State Human Rights Appeal Board is not empowered to find new facts or take a different view of the weight of the evidence if the Commissioner’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the State Human Rights Appeal Board’s review is limited to whether the Commissioner’s order is supported by substantial evidence, and the Board cannot substitute its judgment for the Commissioner’s when the evidence is conflicting. The court found that the Commissioner’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, including evidence that Columbia University had no need for an additional faculty member in Dr. Gilinsky’s area of specialization and that the university had imposed restrictions on new faculty appointments due to operating deficits. The court emphasized that the Board improperly substituted its own view of the evidence for the Commissioner’s determination, particularly regarding Dr. Gilinsky’s area of expertise and the university’s budgetary constraints. The court also noted the danger of relying solely on statistical evidence of gender imbalance in faculty positions without considering the pool of qualified candidates and budgetary limitations. Quoting Matter of Pace Coll. v Commission on Human Rights of City of N.Y., the court cautioned 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, especially in institutions of higher learning.”