Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. St. Elizabeth’s Hosp., 66 N.Y.2d 684 (1985)
An employer is not liable for an employee’s discriminatory act unless the employer encouraged, condoned, or approved it; mere employment is insufficient to establish liability.
Summary
This case addresses employer liability for an employee’s discriminatory actions under the New York Human Rights Law. A black woman alleged racial discrimination by a hospital emergency room doctor. The New York Court of Appeals held that the hospital could not be held liable for the doctor’s actions solely based on the employment relationship. The court emphasized that employer liability requires evidence that the employer encouraged, condoned, or approved the discriminatory conduct. The case was remanded for further findings on whether the hospital condoned the doctor’s actions by, for instance, failing to investigate or take corrective measures.
Facts
Deborah Greene, a black woman, sought treatment at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital for back pain. Dr. Louis Mascitelli treated her and provided notes excusing her from work. On a subsequent visit, Dr. Mascitelli refused to provide another note, claiming no medical basis for her pain. When Greene questioned him, Mascitelli allegedly tore up the note, made racially charged comments, and ordered her out of the hospital without a specialist referral. Greene reported the incident, claiming racial discrimination.
Procedural History
The New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) found both Dr. Mascitelli and St. Elizabeth’s Hospital liable for discrimination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed. The Appellate Division confirmed the determination, finding the delay in proceedings not prejudicial. The hospital appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether an employer (St. Elizabeth’s Hospital) can be held liable under the New York Human Rights Law for an employee’s (Dr. Mascitelli) discriminatory acts solely based on the employment relationship, without evidence that the employer encouraged, condoned, or approved the discriminatory conduct.
Holding
No, because an employer cannot be held liable for an employee’s discriminatory act unless the employer became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s ruling regarding the hospital’s liability. The court relied on the principle established in Matter of Totem Taxi v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., stating that “an employer cannot be held liable for an employee’s discriminatory act unless the employer became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it.” The court found that the DHR erroneously based the hospital’s liability solely on the employment relationship with Dr. Mascitelli. The court acknowledged the DHR’s argument that the hospital’s failure to adopt an anti-discrimination policy, apologize to Greene, or take action against Mascitelli could constitute condonation. Condonation, according to the court, involves a “knowing, after-the-fact forgiveness or acceptance of an offense,” and an employer’s inaction could indicate such condonation. However, because the DHR did not make specific findings regarding condonation, the court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the hospital’s actions or inactions constituted condonation of Dr. Mascitelli’s discriminatory behavior. The court recognized the hospital’s claim that it lacked knowledge of the incident and would have presented evidence of its investigative measures had condonation been asserted as a basis for liability earlier in the proceedings.