Matter of Johnson v. Oneida County Sheriff’s Dept., 60 N.Y.2d 970 (1983)
An employer asserting a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense to a charge of sex discrimination must demonstrate that the qualification is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business and that there are no reasonable alternatives available.
Summary
Marie Johnson, a female Deputy Sheriff correction officer, was denied a promotion to sergeant in the male wing of the Oneida County jail. The Sheriff’s Department argued that being male was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) because of male inmate privacy concerns during cell inspections. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Sheriff’s Department failed to prove that sex was a BFOQ, as they did not demonstrate that no reasonable alternatives existed to protect inmate privacy while allowing female sergeants to supervise the male wing. The court emphasized the narrow scope of the BFOQ exception to anti-discrimination laws.
Facts
Marie Johnson was a qualified female Deputy Sheriff correction officer working in the female housing unit of the Oneida County jail.
She passed the civil service promotional exam for correction officer sergeant and ranked higher than the male candidate who was ultimately promoted.
Johnson was denied the promotion solely because the vacancy was in the male wing of the jail, and the Sheriff’s Department assigned only male sergeants to that wing.
The Sheriff’s Department argued that assigning female sergeants to the male wing would violate the privacy rights of male inmates during cell inspections, as the cells contained open toilets and showers, and the inmates lacked sleepwear.
Procedural History
Johnson filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging unlawful sex discrimination.
The Division of Human Rights found in favor of Johnson, concluding that the Sheriff’s Department failed to prove that sex was a BFOQ for the position.
The Appellate Division reversed the Division’s determination.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the Division of Human Rights’ finding of unlawful discrimination.
Issue(s)
Whether the Oneida County Sheriff’s Department proved that being male was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the position of correction officer sergeant in the male wing of the jail, justifying the denial of promotion to a qualified female candidate.
Holding
No, because the Sheriff’s Department failed to demonstrate that the sex-based qualification was reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the jail and that there were no reasonable alternatives available to protect the privacy interests of the male inmates.
Court’s Reasoning
The court applied Section 296 of the Human Rights Law, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment, and Section 300, which mandates liberal construction of the Human Rights Law to accomplish its purposes.
The court acknowledged the BFOQ exception but emphasized its narrow scope, requiring the employer to prove that the sex-based qualification is reasonably necessary and not susceptible of reasonable alternatives. The court referenced Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977), underscoring the “extremely narrow” nature of the BFOQ exception.
The court found that the Sheriff’s Department failed to meet this burden because they did not demonstrate that alternatives, such as installing shower curtains or providing sleepwear to inmates, were infeasible or prohibited.
The court highlighted that the Sheriff acknowledged existing procedures to protect inmate privacy during inspections by officers of the opposite sex, and he offered no reason why those interests could not be further accommodated. The court further suggested the possiblity of having male guards walk through the cellblocks during unannounced inspections, while a female sergeant maintained radio contact at the desk, as a reasonable alternative.
The court distinguished Carey v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., noting that in Carey, the determination of the Division of Human Rights was being confirmed, whereas, in this case, it was being challenged. The court also noted that Carey involved the special security needs of a correctional facility housing female inmates, which necessitated intrusive measures like body searches, not applicable in this case.
The dissent argued that the Division’s determination was a reasonable conclusion based on the record and should not have been disturbed. The dissent further explained that the Sheriff’s Department failed to show a reasonable degree of necessity for its refusal to promote Ms. Johnson solely on the basis of her sex.