79 N.Y.2d 227 (1992)

Advocacy against a group, even if it urges others to discriminate, does not constitute aiding, abetting, or inciting discrimination under New York’s Human Rights Law or Civil Rights Law unless a direct connection exists between the advocacy and actual discriminatory conduct.

Summary

Jews for Jesus sued the Jewish Community Relations Council, alleging that a memorandum circulated by the Council urging rabbis to dissuade churches and catering establishments from renting space to Jews for Jesus constituted unlawful discrimination. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Council’s actions did not violate state anti-discrimination laws because the memorandum did not directly cause any discriminatory acts. The court reasoned that the memorandum was too far removed from potential unlawful conduct to be considered incitement, as it was directed at religious associates, not those capable of carrying out discriminatory acts.

Facts

The Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) distributed a memorandum to Long Island rabbis concerning the activities of Jews for Jesus. The memo identified Jews for Jesus as a Hebrew-Christian organization seeking to convert Jews to Christianity and urged the rabbis to contact Christian colleagues and catering establishments, asking them to disapprove or deny space to Jews for Jesus. No evidence showed that any recipient took action based on the memorandum, nor that any facility discriminated against Jews for Jesus.

Procedural History

Jews for Jesus filed suit, alleging violations of New York’s Civil Rights Law and Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially denied motions for summary judgment, but upon renewal, granted the JCRC’s motion, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the distribution of a memorandum urging religious associates to discourage others from providing services or space to a religious organization constitutes aiding, abetting, or inciting discrimination under New York’s Human Rights Law and Civil Rights Law, even absent a showing of actual discriminatory conduct resulting from the memorandum.

Holding

No, because the memorandum was not directed to those in a position to carry out discriminatory practices and did not establish a sufficiently direct link between the speech and any potential discriminatory action. The conduct was too far removed to be considered incitement.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court focused on whether the JCRC’s actions constituted aiding, abetting, or inciting discrimination under Executive Law § 296(6). The Court assumed, without deciding, that attempting to incite discrimination was prohibited under the statute. However, the Court concluded that the memorandum did not violate the statute because it was directed at religious associates, not those capable of denying access to facilities. The Court reasoned that the JCRC’s conduct did not provide or attempt to provide assistance to those who could have denied access to Jews for Jesus. Moreover, the Court found that the JCRC’s actions did not rise to the level of incitement because the connection between the speech (the memorandum) and the potential discriminatory action was too attenuated. The Court emphasized that the memo asked associates to ask others to engage in prohibited conduct, which is not direct enough to establish incitement. The Court also dismissed claims under the Civil Rights Law, finding no denial of access to public accommodations or evidence that the memorandum aided or incited such a violation. Judge Kaye concurred, stating that while the statute was ambiguous, the better interpretation proscribes attempts to discriminate, not attempts to incite discrimination, and would dismiss the complaint on those grounds.