59 N.Y.2d 69 (1983)
Statistical evidence alone is insufficient to prove unlawful employment discrimination based on a quota system; there must also be proof of employment practices that warrant the conclusion that discrimination exists.
Summary
CUNY-Hostos Community College appealed a finding of unlawful discrimination for discharging an employee, Moses Harary, allegedly to maintain ethnic quotas during a retrenchment. Harary claimed his discharge was based on race, color, and ethnicity. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statistical evidence presented, showing the ethnic makeup of employees before and after the retrenchment, was insufficient to prove the college implemented an illegal quota system. The court emphasized that the statistical analysis was more a report of the results of the retrenchment plan rather than a design, and that there was no evidence of discriminatory practices or that the college required the discharge of whites other than the complainant.
Facts
Moses Harary, a Jewish American, was hired as associate dean of administration and management planning at CUNY-Hostos in 1972. In 1975, due to a financial crisis, CUNY directed its units to reduce expenses, prioritizing reductions in administrative positions. In August 1975, the college’s president told Harary he was not satisfied with his performance and advised him to seek new employment. Harary was given notice in July 1976 that he would not be reappointed. A retrenchment plan was implemented, leading to the discharge of 15 employees, including Harary.
Procedural History
Harary filed a charge with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging unlawful discrimination. The Division initially found no credible evidence of malice based on Harary’s religion or national origin. However, it later found the college guilty of unlawful discrimination, concluding the retrenchment plan was a deliberate effort to perpetuate unlawful quotas. The Human Rights Appeal Board and the Appellate Division affirmed. The college then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether substantial evidence supported the Division of Human Rights’ determination that CUNY-Hostos Community College implemented an illegal quota system in its retrenchment plan, thereby unlawfully discriminating against Moses Harary.
Holding
No, because the statistical evidence presented was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge based upon a quota. The court found that there was no proof of employment practices which warrant the conclusion that discrimination existed.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that while statistics can be relevant in discrimination cases, they must be used with other objectively established evidence to permit an inference of unintentional discrimination. A statistical predicate alone is insufficient. The court found the statistical analysis presented was more a report of the results after formulating the plan of retrenchment than a design for retrenchment. The court noted that the college had an established affirmative action policy and that its president was aware of the need to avoid penalizing any minority group during retrenchment. The Court quoted, “The consequences of this `Retrenchment Plan’ were discussed with the Affirmative Action Office. No significant difference will take place in the ethnic distribution of the faculty as a result of this plan”. It held that this statement and the statistical analysis “far from being proof per se of unlawful discrimination, was entirely consistent with his sensitivity to discrimination as the law and university policy required him to be.” The court also considered the college’s historical affirmative action hiring practices, which contributed to faculty diversity. The dissent argued that the university carried affirmative action too far when it employed the practice in firing employees to maintain ethnic balance and that the president’s own statement was a concession that the ethnic makeup was considered in the retrenchment plan. Judge Fuchsberg, in a separate dissent, emphasized the narrow scope of judicial review in human rights cases and argued that the agency’s determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the nearly perfect correlation between the pre- and post-retrenchment ethnic distribution of the faculty.