Board of Education of City of New York v. State Division of Human Rights, 42 N.Y.2d 812 (1977)
A determination of discrimination by the State Division of Human Rights requires sufficient evidence on the record to support the finding, particularly regarding comparable policies for non-pregnancy-related disabilities.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals reviewed a determination by the State Division of Human Rights that the Board of Education’s pregnancy leave policy was discriminatory. The original policy mandated unpaid leave without sick leave credit for pregnant teachers. After the board implemented a new policy offering pregnant teachers a choice between sick leave for actual disability and a more extended leave of absence without sick leave credit, the Division found this new policy still discriminatory. The Court of Appeals reversed the Division’s order, finding insufficient evidence in the record to compare the policy with those for non-pregnancy-related disabilities. The court emphasized that without such comparison, it’s impossible to determine whether the policy was indeed discriminatory.
Facts
1. The Board of Education and the teachers association had a collective bargaining agreement adopting the Board’s pre-existing maternity leave policy.
2. The original policy required pregnant teachers to take unpaid leave beginning no later than the end of the sixth month of pregnancy and ending at the start of the academic semester following six months after delivery, without sick leave credit.
3. The Board later replaced this policy with a new one, giving pregnant teachers the option to take sick leave for actual disability with full sick leave credits or a leave of absence for a more extended period without sick leave credits.
4. The Division of Human Rights found the new policy violated the Human Rights Law, leading to an enforcement proceeding.
Procedural History
1. The State Division of Human Rights initially determined that the Board of Education’s original maternity leave policy violated the Human Rights Law.
2. The Board of Education abandoned the original policy and implemented a new, substitute policy.
3. The Division then determined the new policy still violated the Human Rights Law and initiated an enforcement proceeding at the Appellate Division.
4. The Appellate Division agreed there was a violation of the terms of the Division orders but rejected the Division’s substantive contentions and modified the order to direct the Board of Education to implement its substituted policy.
5. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the State Division of Human Rights’ determination that the Board of Education’s new pregnancy leave policy was discriminatory under the Human Rights Law, particularly concerning the lack of sick leave credits for the extended leave of absence option.
Holding
No, because there was insufficient evidence in the record to compare the Board of Education’s policies regarding non-pregnancy-related disabilities with the policy for pregnant teachers, making it impossible to determine if the policy was discriminatory.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals focused on the absence of evidence regarding the Board’s policies for non-pregnancy-related disabilities. The Court acknowledged that while sick leave with full credit was available for all disabilities during periods of actual disability, the record was silent on whether an alternative leave of absence option existed for non-pregnancy-related disabilities and, if so, whether its terms were comparable to those offered to pregnant teachers. The court stated, “Critical in our view is the fact that there is no sufficient proof as to the comparable policies of the Board of Education with respect to non-pregnancy-related disabilities…More precisely, it cannot be determined whether there is any option at all, or, if a choice is open, whether its terms correspond to those offered to pregnant teachers as an alternative, and in particular whether sick leave credits may be applied against a leave of absence.” The Court reasoned that without knowing whether similar leave options existed for other disabilities, it was impossible to determine whether the pregnancy leave policy was discriminatory. The court concluded, “In this state of the record we can only conclude that there is not sufficient evidence on this record considered as a whole to support the determination of the division and thus to entitle it to the enforcement order that it seeks.” The key to determining discrimination lies in comparing the treatment of pregnant teachers with the treatment of other employees with disabilities. Absent such comparison, a finding of discrimination cannot be sustained.