Sontag v. Bronstein, 33 N.Y.2d 197 (1973)
A facially neutral employment standard that disproportionately affects a protected class requires an employer to demonstrate the standard’s rational relationship to job performance.
Summary
Marilyn Sontag challenged a physical test for an audiovisual aid technician position after failing the dumbbell lift portion, which all male candidates passed. She argued the test was not related to job duties and discriminated based on sex. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ dismissal, holding that when a hiring standard disproportionately affects a protected class, the employer must show the standard’s rational relationship to job performance. The court remanded the case for a hearing to determine the connection between the dumbbell lift and the actual duties of an audiovisual aid technician.
Facts
Marilyn Sontag received a provisional civil service appointment as an audiovisual aid technician at Hunter College. She passed the written civil service exam but failed the physical test, specifically the dumbbell lift subtest. This test required lifting a 25-pound dumbbell with one hand and a 20-pound dumbbell with the other. All male candidates passed the dumbbell lift. Sontag was subsequently released from her position, and a male candidate was hired to fill the vacancy.
Procedural History
Sontag filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging the dumbbell lift subtest, arguing it was unconstitutional. Special Term denied the application. The Appellate Division affirmed. Sontag appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the dumbbell lift subtest bears a rational relationship to the performance of the duties of an audiovisual aid technician, and whether it discriminates invidiously on the basis of sex, violating section 296 of the Executive Law, title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Holding
No, the lower court erred in dismissing the petition without a hearing, because the record was insufficient to determine whether the dumbbell lift subtest had a rational relationship to the job requirements and whether it disproportionately impacted female applicants.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that while employers have wide discretion in setting hiring standards, standards that disproportionately affect protected classes warrant judicial scrutiny. The court cited Section 296 of the Executive Law, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex. The court reasoned that when a facially neutral hiring standard adversely affects equal employment opportunity for a protected class, the employer must demonstrate that the standard bears a rational relationship to and is a valid predictor of employee job performance. The employer must also show that the standard does not create an arbitrary barrier to employment that discriminates on the basis of an impermissible classification.
The court found the record deficient regarding the relationship between the duties of an audiovisual aid technician and the handling of heavy objects. While a field audit report mentioned lifting projectors weighing approximately 25 pounds, the record lacked specifics on how heavy equipment was handled. The court noted a factual dispute regarding the weight of typical projection equipment, with estimates varying between 25 and 40 pounds. Because of these uncertainties, the Court of Appeals determined a hearing was necessary to resolve these factual disputes. The court stated, “Adjudication of petitioner’s claim that the dumbbell lift subtest lacks such a rational relationship and, thus, discriminates invidiously on the basis of sex, turns on the relationship, if any, between the duties of the audio-visual aid technician and the handling, moving, carrying, etc., of heavy objects.”
The court also noted the importance of evidence on whether the dumbbell lift subtest adversely affects equal employment opportunity for women as a class, and cited statistics from similar cases, such as State Div. of Human Rights v. New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation, and Griggs v. Duke Power Co., where statistics were used to establish that certain requirements disproportionately affected protected classes. The court emphasized that although the record revealed that all men passed the test and both women failed, there was no other evidence, physiological, statistical, or otherwise, bearing on the ability of women, as a class, to perform the required lift.