bona fide occupational qualification exception in New York

1973Co. ( 408 F. 2d 228, 235 ): " We hold that in order to rely on the bona fide occupational qualification exception an employer has the burden of proving that he had reasonable cause to believe, that is, a factual basis for believing, that all or substantially all women would be unable to perform safely and efficiently the duties of the job involved. ’ ’ The Appellate Division (36 A D 2d 364, 368, supra) also examined the guidelines set down by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: “ Those guidelines have construed the bona fide occupational qualification exception very narrowly.

1971Co., 408 F. 2d 228 at p. 235 , “ we hold that in order to rely on the bona fide occupational qualification exception an employer has the burden of proving that he had reasonable cause to believe, that is, a factual basis for believing, that all or sub stantially all women would be unable to perform safely and efficiently the duties of the job involved. ’ ’ We conclude that the findings in the proceeding under review are amply supported in the record and that the provisions of the order of the Appeal Board are proper.

1972Reg., tit. 29, § 1604.1, subd. [a]) (the Federal agency which administers the anti-discrimination provisions of title VII [supra]), which guidelines the Federal courts have held are entitled to “great deference ” (Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 ; Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542 , [concurring opn. by Marshall, J.]; Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 434 ; Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.

1971(Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 ; Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542 [concurring opinion, Marshall, J.]; Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel., supra.) Those guidelines have construed the bona fide occupational qualification exception very narrowly.

1972Reg., tit. 29, § 1604.1, subd. [a]) (the Federal agency which administers the anti-discrimination provisions of title VII [supra]), which guidelines the Federal courts have held are entitled to “great deference ” (Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 ; Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542 , [concurring opn. by Marshall, J.]; Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 434 ; Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.

1971(Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 ; Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542 [concurring opinion, Marshall, J.]; Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel., supra.) Those guidelines have construed the bona fide occupational qualification exception very narrowly.

1988However, unlike proceedings invoking the bona fide occupational qualification test under the Human Rights Law (see, Executive Law § 296 [1] [d]) where the employer or employment agency carries the burden of proving that the employee’s disability precludes him from reasonably doing what the job requires (see, New York State Div. of Human Rights v New York-Pennsylvania Professional Baseball League, 36 AD2d 364, 367 , affd 29 NY2d 921 ; cf., Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 60 NY2d 527, 532 ), here petitioner must show that MPTC acted arbitrarily in adopting the subject hearing regulation, which petit

1988However, unlike proceedings invoking the bona fide occupational qualification test under the Human Rights Law (see, Executive Law § 296 [1] [d]) where the employer or employment agency carries the burden of proving that the employee’s disability precludes him from reasonably doing what the job requires (see, New York State Div. of Human Rights v New York-Pennsylvania Professional Baseball League, 36 AD2d 364, 367 , affd 29 NY2d 921 ; cf., Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 60 NY2d 527, 532 ), here petitioner must show that MPTC acted arbitrarily in adopting the subject hearing regulation, which petit

1988However, unlike proceedings invoking the bona fide occupational qualification test under the Human Rights Law (see, Executive Law § 296 [1] [d]) where the employer or employment agency carries the burden of proving that the employee’s disability precludes him from reasonably doing what the job requires (see, New York State Div. of Human Rights v New York-Pennsylvania Professional Baseball League, 36 AD2d 364, 367 , affd 29 NY2d 921 ; cf., Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 60 NY2d 527, 532 ), here petitioner must show that MPTC acted arbitrarily in adopting the subject hearing regulation, which petit

1988However, unlike proceedings invoking the bona fide occupational qualification test under the Human Rights Law (see, Executive Law § 296 [1] [d]) where the employer or employment agency carries the burden of proving that the employee’s disability precludes him from reasonably doing what the job requires (see, New York State Div. of Human Rights v New York-Pennsylvania Professional Baseball League, 36 AD2d 364, 367 , affd 29 NY2d 921 ; cf., Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 60 NY2d 527, 532 ), here petitioner must show that MPTC acted arbitrarily in adopting the subject hearing regulation, which petit

1985Based on the record of the hearing held on remittitur, the Commissioner determined that "respondents have failed to proffer any legitimate similarities between the duties and responsibilities of a deputy sheriff-road patrol position and that of a police officer under Civil Service which would justify the adoption of the Civil Service age requirement as a bona fide occupational qualification requirement for said position.” The Commissioner weighs the evidence and chooses between conflicting testimony (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269,270 ; State Div. of Human Rights v Genesee Hosp., 8

1985Based on the record of the hearing held on remittitur, the Commissioner determined that "respondents have failed to proffer any legitimate similarities between the duties and responsibilities of a deputy sheriff-road patrol position and that of a police officer under Civil Service which would justify the adoption of the Civil Service age requirement as a bona fide occupational qualification requirement for said position.” The Commissioner weighs the evidence and chooses between conflicting testimony (see, Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 NY2d 269,270 ; State Div. of Human Rights v Genesee Hosp., 8

1972Reg., tit. 29, § 1604.1, subd. [a]) (the Federal agency which administers the anti-discrimination provisions of title VII [supra]), which guidelines the Federal courts have held are entitled to “great deference ” (Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16 ; Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542 , [concurring opn. by Marshall, J.]; Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 434 ; Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.