New York Court of Appeals, 1976

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

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 3, 1976 · Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur

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

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

BD. OF TRUSTEES OF BASTROP INDEPENDENT SCH. DIST. v. Toungate (Tex. 1998)
Viscecchia v. Alrose Allegria LLC (District Court, E.D. New York 2015)
Jacqueline Schiavo v. Marina District Development (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015)
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
City of New York v. Cole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
State Division of Human Rights v. Foodmart, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.