MATTER OF PAGE AIRWAYS OF ALBANY, INC. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF PAGE AIRWAYS OF ALBANY, INC. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

352 N.E.2d 140, 39 N.Y.2d 877, 386 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2816, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 11,146

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 352 N.E.2d 140 (MATTER OF PAGE AIRWAYS OF ALBANY, INC. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MATTER OF PAGE AIRWAYS OF ALBANY, INC. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 352 N.E.2d 140, 39 N.Y.2d 877, 386 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2816, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 11,146 (N.Y. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. Although the prohibitions against discrimination in employment based on sex extend not only to hiring but to conditions and privileges of employment as well (Executive Law, § 290 et seq.), we do not believe that an employer unlawfully discriminates when he establishes a reasonable grooming policy which may be said to differentiate between male and female. Employers, particularly those whose business involves contact with the public should be free to express and act upon a concern with the image which their employees communicate by their appearance and demeanor. There is no indication in the record before us that Page Airways’ regulations were the result of an invidious intention to affect, to harass or to deprive one sex of equal opportunity or treatment (Matter of Eastern Greyhound Lines v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 27 NY2d 279). Thus the instant regulations do not constitute discrimination within the meaning of the applicable statutes.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Memorandum. Although the prohibitions against discrimination in employment based on sex extend not only to hiring but to conditions and privileges of employment as well (Executive Law, § 290 et seq.), we do not believe that an employer unlawfully discriminates when he establishes a reasonable grooming policy which may be said to differentiate between male and female. Employers, particularly those whose business involves contact with the public should be free to express and act upon a concern with the image which their employees communicate by their appearance and demeanor. There is no indication in the record before us that Page Airways’ regulations were the result of an invidious intention to affect, to harass or to deprive one sex of equal opportunity or treatment (Matter of Eastern Greyhound Lines v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 27 NY2d 279). Thus the instant regulations do not constitute discrimination within the meaning of the applicable statutes.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 N.E.2d 140, 39 N.Y.2d 877, 386 N.Y.S.2d 223, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2816, 12 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 11,146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-page-airways-of-albany-inc-v-new-york-state-div-of-human-ny-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack