Cottongim v. County of Onondaga Sheriff’s Dept., 71 N.Y.2d 623 (1988)

An at-will employee can bring a claim for unlawful discrimination even though they can be discharged for any reason that is not statutorily impermissible.

Summary

Arlene Cottongim, a white female at-will employee of the Onondaga County Sheriff’s Department, was compelled to resign after a black male co-worker, John Stevens, visited her while she was home sick. Stevens, a civil service employee, was only lightly disciplined. Cottongim filed a complaint alleging race and sex discrimination. The Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights found discrimination and ordered reinstatement and damages. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that even though Cottongim was an at-will employee, she could not be discharged for discriminatory reasons and that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s finding of discrimination.

Facts

Arlene Cottongim, a white female, worked as a juvenile transport officer for the Onondaga County Sheriff’s Department, considered an “at will” employee. She performed the same duties as John Stevens, a black male deputy sheriff who was a civil service employee. On April 26, 1979, Stevens, claiming illness, visited Cottongim at her home while she was on sick leave. A Sheriff’s Department Internal Affairs Officer discovered Stevens there. Subsequently, Cottongim was told to resign or be fired. Stevens was later charged with abuse of sick leave and assault of a juvenile, receiving only a two-day suspension.

Procedural History

Cottongim filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging unlawful discrimination based on race and sex. An Administrative Law Judge held a hearing. The Commissioner of the Division of Human Rights found discrimination and ordered reinstatement and damages. The Appellate Division modified the award for mental anguish. The County appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Commissioner’s determination of discrimination was supported by substantial evidence.
2. Whether the Commissioner acted within his discretion in ordering reinstatement of Cottongim to her Deputy Sheriff position.

Holding

1. Yes, because the record sufficiently supports the conclusion that Cottongim made a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that she, as a white woman, was disciplined differently from her black male coemployee, Deputy Stevens.
2. Yes, because the Commissioner has broad powers to form a remedy for discrimination, with the limitation that the remedy be reasonably related to the injury to be rectified; reinstatement is specifically authorized by the Human Rights Law.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized the deference owed to the Commissioner’s expertise in identifying discrimination, noting that discrimination is often subtle and elusive. The court found substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s conclusion that Cottongim was discriminated against. Cottongim established a prima facie case by showing she was disciplined differently than Stevens, a similarly situated black male employee. The Sheriff’s Department’s justifications for Cottongim’s discharge were found to be pretextual. The initial reason (abuse of sick time) was baseless. Other explanations, such as failing to report Stevens’s rule violation or acting to discredit the department, were not consistently applied and appeared discriminatory. The court stated, “Initially, shifting responses alone, especially where the first proffered explanation proves baseless, may give rise to an inference that the later justifications are pretextual.”

The court distinguished this case from those involving vicarious liability, emphasizing that the Sheriff himself engaged in discriminatory conduct. Regarding the remedy, the court held that reinstatement was appropriate because it returns the employee to the position they were deprived of due to discrimination, and it does not put the employee in a better position than before the discrimination. The court reasoned that to preclude reinstatement would allow public officials to discriminate with impunity, undermining the purpose of the Human Rights Law.