Jackson v. Long Island Railroad Company Brief for Appellees

    T o  b e  A r g u e d  by  
R i c h a r d  H . S t o k e s  
3 0  M i n u t e s  R e q u e s t e d

COURT OF APPEALS 
STATE OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MARSHALL M. JACKSON,

A p p e l l a n t - R e s p o n d e n t ,

- a g a i n s t -

THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY 
an d  STEWART McCLOUD,

A p p e l l e e s - P e t i t i o n e r s ,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- x

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES, 
THE LONG ISLAND RAIL 
ROAD COMPANY and  
STEWART McCLOUD

GEORGE M. ONKEN 
A t t o r n e y  f o r  A p p e l l e e s -  
P e t i t i o n e r s  
J a m a i c a  S t a t i o n  
J a m a i c a ,  N .  Y .  1 1 4 3 5

RICHARD H. STOKES 
LAURENCE H. RUBIN,  

O f  C o u n s e l .



To be A rgu ed  by- 
R ich ard  H. S tokes  
30 M inutes R eq u ested

COURT OF A PP E A L S  
STATE OF NEW YORK 
- - - - - -  ----------------------------------------------------

j MARSHALL M. JACKSON,
i
j A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t,

-a g a in s t -

THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY  
j and STEWART McCLOUD,

A p p e lle e s -P e t it io n e r s ,
%

“ “  -  x

BR IEF FOR A P P E L L E E S , 
THE LONG ISLAND RAIL  
ROAD COMPANY and 
STEWART McCLOUD

GEORGE M. ONKEN  
A ttorn ey  for A p p ellee  s -  
P e tit io n e r  s 
Jam aica  Station  
J a m a ica , N. Y. 11435

RICHARD H. STOKES 
LAURENCE H. RUBIN,

Of C ou n sel.



TABLE O F CONTENTSi

£agg
NATURE OF THE C A S E ........................................................................................... 1

QUESTIONS P R E S E N T E D .......................................................................................... 3

STATEM ENT OF FACTS ......................................  4

ARGUM ENT........................................................................................................................... 8

POINT I -  THE A P P E L L A T E  DIVISION A PP L IE D  
THE CORRECT STANDARD OF REVIEW  
IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO SUB - 
STANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD  
AS A WHOLE TO SUPPO RT A FINDING  
O F DISCRIMINATION......................................................................... 8

POINT II - THE DIVISION AND A P P E A L  BOARD
ACTED ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY  
AND BEYOND THEIR STATUTORY  
JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY UNDER THE  
SUPREM ACY CLAUSE OF THE U. S. CON­
STITUTION IN REQUIRING THE LIRR TO 
HIRE A PPE L L A N T -R E SPO N D E N T  AS A 
FIREM AN AND GRANT HIM THE SENIORITY  
AND OTHER RIGHTS HE WOULD HAVE HAD 
IF  HIS EM PLOYM ENT HAD NOT B EEN  
DENIED AT THE TIME OF HIS ORIGINAL 
A PPLIC A TIO N ..................... .............................................................. 14

POINT III- A PPE L L A N T -R E SPO N D E N T  JACKSON
SHOULD NOT BE AW ARDED ATTO RNEY'S
F E E S ..................................................... ..................................................... 16

CONCLUSION 17



COURT OF A PPE A L S  
STATE OF NEW YORK
----------------- ------------ ------------- ----- ------------------ -------x

MARSHALL M. JACKSON,

A p p ellan t-R e spondent,

-a g a in s t -

THE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY  
and STEWART McCLOUD,

A p p e lle e s -P e tit io n e r  s .

« .. .  - -  ---- ------------------------- ----- ----------------- -X

BR IEF FO R A P P E L L E E S ,
THE LONG ISLAND RAIL  
ROAD COMPANY and 
STEW Ak Y McCLOUD______

NATURE OF THE CASE

T his i s  an appeal from  a fin a l ord er  of the N ew  York State  

Suprem e C ourt, A pp ellate  D iv is io n , Second J u d ic ia l D epartm ent, 

en tered  on F eb ru a ry  4, 1974, w hich annulled  a D ec is io n  and O rder  

of the N ew  Y ork State Human R ights A ppeal B oard  a ffirm in g  an O rder  

of the N ew  Y ork State D iv is io n  of Human R ights and d is m is s e d  the 

com plain t h ere in .

The com plaint a lleg ed  that the a p p e llee s  h ere in  (p etitio n ers  

below ) had d iscr im in a ted  aga in st com plainant, M arsh a ll M. Jack son ,



It
!
iI

by refu sin g  to h ire  h im  as a firem a n  b eca u se  of h is  ra ce  and co lo r  in
I
! v io la tion  of the New Y ork State Human R ights Law. In su b sta n ce ,

jt .
j com plainant Jackson  ch arged  that the rea so n  g iven  by a p p e lle e s  for
j

refu sin g  to h ire him  a s  a firem an  w a s, in  r e a lity , a subtle  w ay to
I
; keep b la ck s  from  being em ployed  by the Long Islan d  R a il R oad.
!

D uring the in v e stig a to r y  h e a r in g s , the a p p e lle e s  den ied  the
j
! a lle g a tio n s  of M r. Jackson  and gave the New Y ork State D iv is io n  of

, Human R ights (h erein after  r e fe r r e d  to a s  D iv is io n ) ev id en ce  that the
I
j ra ilro a d  had reg u la r ly  h ired  both b lack s and w h ites  a s  f ir e m e n , p r o -  

vided  that they m et the m in im um  accep tab le  standards of v isu a l acu ity . 

The ev id en ce  show ed that the ra ilro a d  has refu sed  to h ire  any p erso n ,
i

b lack  or w h ite , who did not m ee t the m in im u m  a ccep ta b le  stand ard s of 

v isu a l acu ity .

A s a r e su lt  of i t s  in v estig a tio n  and the ev id en ce  obtained
|
i

th ere fro m , the D iv is io n , under date of F eb ru a ry  8 , 1972, is s u e d  it s  

D eterm in ation  that the a p p e llee s  had engaged  in  unlaw ful d iscr im in a to ry
I1 * 
j p r a c t ic e s  in  the h ir in g  of f irem en  and it  ord ered  that the r e l ie f  r e -
i
! q u ested  in  the com plaint be granted .

The a p p e lle e s , under date of F eb ru a ry  22 , 1972, f ile d  a

n otice  of appeal to the New York State Human R ights A ppeal B oard

(h ere in a fter  r e fe r r e d  to a s  A ppeal B oard) in  a cco rd a n ce  w ith S ectio n

2 9 7 -a  of the Human R ights Law, and a h earin g  w as sch ed u led  for and



i.

3.

h eld  on O ctober 26, 1972.

Under date of June 11, 1973, the Human R ights A ppeal B oard  

is s u e d  it s  d ec is io n  affirm in g  the F eb ru ary  8, 1972, O rder of the D iv i­

sion  of Human R igh ts.

The F eb ru a ry  8, 1972 O rder of the D iv is io n  of Human R igh ts  

and the June 11, 1973 D e c is io n  and O rder of the Hum an R ights A ppeal 

B oard  w ere  rev iew ed  by the A pp ellate  D iv is io n , Second D ep artm en t, 

pursuant to S ection  298 of the Human R ights Law. The A p p ella te  

D iv is io n  found that the sa id  o rd ers  w e re  not supported by su b stan tia l 

ev id en ce  on the w hole r eco rd  and, on F eb ru a ry  4, 1974, en tered  a 

fin a l ord er  d is m is s in g  the com p la in t. The app ellant h ere in  i s  seek in g  

a r e v e r sa l of the fin a l order of the A p p ella te  D iv is io n .

QUESTIONS PR ESEN TED

1. Did the A p p ella te  D iv is io n  app ly the c o r r e c t
| standard of rev iew  in  finding that th ere  w as
) no su b stan tia l ev id en ce  on the reco rd  a s  a
j w hole to support a finding of d iscr im in a tio n ?
I!

2 , D id the D iv is io n  of Human R ights and the Human 
R ights A ppeal B oard  a c t a r b itr a r ily , ca p r ic io u sly ' 
and beyond th eir  sta tu tory  ju r isd ic tio n  and au th or­
ity  under the S u p rem acy  C lause of the U nited  
S ta tes  C onstitu tion  and the R ailw ay Labor A ct in  
req u ir in g  the LIRR to h ire  com plainant a s a f i r e ­
m an and grant h im  the se n io r ity  and other r ig h ts  
he would have had if  h is  em p loym en t had not b een  
den ied  at the tim e  of h is  o r ig in a l ap p lica tion ?



3. Should th is court aw ard a tto rn ey 's  f e e s  to  
appellant Jack son ?

STATEM ENT OF FACTS

On January 29, 1970, the A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t, M arsh a ll 

M, Jack son , filed  an app lication  w ith A p p e llee , The Long Islan d  R ail 

Road C om pany {hereinafter "LIRR"), for a p o sitio n  a s  a h e lp er  in  the 

L IR R 's E le c tr ic  T raction  D epartm ent. (Exh. A .)  On the sam e day, 

j A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t underw ent a p h y sica l exam in ation  in  the LIR R 's 

M edical D epartm ent, and at that tim e h is  v isu a l acu ity  a s  shown on 

E xhib it J w as a s  fo llow s:

D istan t V ision : R E 40 L E 29 w ithout g la s s e s
R E 29 L E 22 w ith  g la s s e s

N ear V ision : R E 2 L E 2 w ithout g la s s e s
B in ocu lar V ision: 2 2 /2 0

A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t w as found p h y s ic a lly  fit for  em p loym en t  

a s  an E le c tr ic ia n 's  H elper and w as a s s ig n e d  to w ork  out of H ic k sv ille  

(28), but on M arch 30, 1970, h is s e r v ic e s  w ere  term in a ted  b eca u se  

h is  a ttitu d e, w ork  and attendance w ere  p oor . (1 4 7 -148) D esp ite  th is , 

the L IR R 's P e r so n n e l D epartm ent a ttem p ted  to a s s i s t  A p p ella n t-  

R espondent and thus, in  June 1970, he f iled  an ap p lica tion  for  a f i r e ­

m an 's job . (Exh. C; 159; 162) Su bseq uently , A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t  

w as in terv iew ed  by A p p ellee  M cCloud, who approved  h is  ap p lica tion



for em p loym en t a s  a firem an  subject to h is  b ein g  able to p a ss  the

p h y sica l exam in ation . (596)

A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t w as n ext exam in ed  in the LIR R 's M ed i-  

ca l D epartm ent by D r. Gordon M cV eigh, at w hich  tim e h is  v isu a l
i
jj acu ity  a s  shown by E xhib it L  w as found to be:t

D istan t V ision : R E 40 L E  29 w ithout g la s s e s
R E 33 L  E 25 w ith g la s s e s

N ear V ision : R E 2 L E  3
B in ocu lar  V ision: 2 2 /2 0

The LIRR's m e d ic a l stan d ard s, a s  shown by E xhib it M,

provide that a ll ap p lican ts for em p loym en t in  C la ss  A (w hich in c lu d es

| firem en ) sh a ll have 2 0 /2 0  v isu a l a cu ity  in each  eye te s te d  sep a ra te ly ,
f

! w ithout g la s s e s ,  and with b in ocu lar  s in g le  v is io n . A note to the a c u te -
I *
' n e s s  of v is io n  req u irem en ts  sta tes:

j!
|j When c r it ic a l sh o rta g es  of good ap p lican ts

for em p loym en t e x is t  Group I v isu a l r e q u ir e ­
m en ts  m a y b e  re la x ed  a s  fo llo w s: 2 0 /2 0  inl! .
one e y e , and 2 0 /3 0  in  the o th er , w ithout g la s s e s .

|
The v isu a l acu ity  standard u sed  by the LIRR i s  the standard  

e sta b lish e d  by the A m erica n  A sso c ia tio n  of R a ilro a d s  a num ber of 

y e a rs  ago and i s  u t iliz e d  by the en tire  ra ilro a d  in d u stry . (473) T h ese  

stand ard s have b een  rev iew ed  by the LIRR su b seq u en tly  and found to 

be n e c e s s a r y  in the in te r e s t  of public sa fe ty . (473 -474) The p r e ­

em p loym en t v isu a l a cu ity  standards a re  d e lib er a te ly  s e t  a t a h igh  

le v e l  b eca u se  i t  i s  r eco g n ized  that w ith  in c r e a s in g  age a p e r so n 's

i



v is io n  w ill  sta r t to d eter io ra te  (475) and although after  em p loym en t  

h is  e y e s  m a y  d e te r io ra te , he w ill  not be rem oved  from  h is  job if  h is  

v is io n  i s  c o r r e c te d  to 2 0 /2 0  in each  eye by  g la s s e s .  (475-476; 508)

W hile th ere  i s  a d ispute a s  to w hether or not A p p ellan t-  

R espondent w as ad v ised  of h is  r ight to be r e -ex a m in e d , in  fact he 

had h is  e y e s  r e -ex a m in e d  by h is  own o p to m etr ist who found h is  v isu a l 

a cu ity  to be 2 0 /2 0  in the le ft  eye and 2 0 /4 0  in the r igh t e y e .

« D uring January and A p ril 1970, the LIRR h ired  as  fir em en  

M e s s r s . L arson  and P in gh ero , and a s  shown by E xh ib its 5c and 5d, 

r e s p e c t iv e ly , th eir  v isu a l acu ity  w as:

L arson : D istan t V ision : R E 29 T. E ??
B in ocu lar V ision : 2 0 /2 0

P in gh ero: D istant V ision : R E 29 L E 22
B in ocu lar V ision : 2 0 /2 0

During June 1970, the LIRR h ired  as  f ir e m e n  M e s s r s . M iller  

and H ouston . Both of th ese  m en in it ia lly  fa iled  the v isu a l acu ity  r e ­

q u irem en ts , but upon being  r e - te s te d , w ere  found to have a D istan t  

V isio n  w ithout g la s s e s  of 2 0 /2 0  in  each  e y e . See E xh ib its  5a and 5b.

During the sam e app roxim ate p eriod , a b la ck  p erso n  nam ed  

T rotm an w as h ired  as  a trainm an (a lso  a C la ss  A p o sition ) w h ose  

v is io n  w as l e s s  than 2 0 /2 0  w ithout g la s s e s  but w h ose  v is io n  w as not 

l e s s  than 2 0 /3 0  (4 2 0 -4 2 1 ).

E xh ib it F , a copy of LIR R 's 1969 EEOC R ep ort, show s that



of 6 ,9 7 1  to ta l e m p lo y e e s , 875 or 1 2 -1 /2  p ercen t are  m in o r ity  group  

e m p lo y e e s , and of th is  group, 834 or 12 p ercen t are c a te g o r iz e d  a s  

N eg ro . At the tim e of the h ear in g , 36 out of 212 f irem en  em p loyed  by j
I

the LIRR w ere  b lack , or 17 p ercen t. (436) E xh ib it E show s that in
i

N ovem ber 1968 on ly  5 of the LIRR's f ir e m e n  w ere  b lack , (se e  a ls o
i

437) |

During the p er iod  in qu estion  (1969-1970) w h ile  the LIRF w ac !
I

h ir in g  a num ber of b la ck s a s  f ir em en , a num ber of w hite p e r so n s  w ere  j 

r e jec te d  for em p loym en t a s  firem en  b e c a u se  of eye d e fe c ts  a s  adm itted!
I

by A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t's  own w itn e s s , Joy C a p ers. (281 -2 8 2 )

The JLlRR’s lab or r e la t io n s  w ith  i t s  em p lo y ees  are  govern ed  

by the p r o v is io n s  of the R ailw ay  Labor A ct, 45 U. S. C. §151 e t  seq . , 

and the a g reem en ts  n egotia ted  w ith the v a r io u s unions pursuant to the !
I

p r o v is io n s  of that A ct. T h ese  a g r e e m e n ts , am ong other th in gs, co n -
i

ta in  p ro v is io n s  govern in g  sen io r ity  of the em p lo y ees  and the tim e  and
I

m ethod by w hich a m an is  f ir s t  p laced  on the se n io r ity  l i s t .  (451 -4 5 6 )

I



ARGUMENT

POINT I

THE A PP E L L A T E  DIVISION A PPL IE D  
THE CORRECT STANDARD OF REVIEW  
IN FINDING THAT TH ERE WAS NO SU B - 

. STANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD  
AS A WHOLE TO SUPPO RT A FINDING  
O F DISCRIMINATION_______________ _________

The A p p ella te  D iv is io n  c le a r ly  has the pow er to exam in e

|j and te s t  the m e r its  of any c a se  brought b efo re  i t  under the Human

R ights Law.

(T)he statute i s  unam biguous and in p lain  
language req u ires  the A pp ella te  D iv is io n  to  
exam in e and te s t  the m e r its  in  any p roceed in g  
p ro p er ly  b efo re  it , w h eth er in itia ted  by a 
p arty  a g g r iev ed  to obtain r ev ie w , or by the 
d iv is io n  i t s e l f  to obtain an ord er of en fo rce  -  

j m en t.
State D iv is io n  of Human R ights v . B y str ic k y ,
30 N . Y. 2d 322, 326 (1972)

S ectio n  298 of the E xecu tiv e  Law s ta te s  that the o r d e rs  of the D iv is io n  

and A ppeal B oard  m u st be "supported by su ffic ien t ev id en ce  on the
»
i

reco rd  co n sid ered  as  a w h ole . " To m e e t the standard of su b stan tia l 

ev id en ce , i t  m u st be proven  that the r e fu sa l to h ire  A p p ella n t-  

R espondent w as b eca u se  he w as b la ck . State D iv is io n  of Human R ights  

I v * B y str ic k y , 36 App. D iv. 2d 278, 280 (1971) a ff'd  30 N . Y. 2d 322 

! (1972). T h is the reco rd  fa iled  to show .

A pp ellan t-R esp on d en t has the burden of e s ta b lish in g  by



9.

su b stan tia l ev id en ce that the so le  rea so n  a p p e llee  fa iled  to em p loy  

him  w as h is  ra ce  or co lo r . See State D iv is io n  of Human R ights v.

S e r v ice  S y stem s C orp. , 40 App. D iv. 2d 1075 ( 1972).

The e s s e n c e  of A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t's  proof and c a se  is  

b a sed  upon the h irin g  of four w hite p e r so n s  by LIRR a s  f irem en  w ho, 

upon in it ia l exam in ation , had a v isu a l acu ity  of l e s s  than 2 0 /2 0  in
- t

each  ey e  w ithout g la s s e s .  Two of th ese  m en , upon re -ex a m in a tio n , 

were* found to a c tu a lly  have 2 0 /2 0  v is io n  in  each  eye w ithout g la s s e s ,  

and the other two cam e w ithin the ab so lu te  m in im um  standard s e t  by  

the ra ilro a d  in d u stry  of 2 0 /2 0  in one eye and 2 0 /3 0  in  the other ey e  w ith -
j

out g la s s e s .  At no tim e h as it  b een  a lle g e d  or shown that A o o e lla n t-O  — • *

R espondent could m ee t th is la tter  standard , and, in  fa c t, a ll of the eye

te s t s  g iven  to A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t, even  by h is  own o p to m etr ist,
!i

show ed he had 2 0 /4 0  in  h is  r igh t eye  and thus w as below  even  the
|
l' m in im um  standard e sta b lish e d  in  the N ote to the L IR R 's p re -em p lo y m en t
j.i «
! m ed ica l stan d ard s.
i|

The D iv is io n  and A ppeal B oard  ig n o red  the fa c t that A p p ella n t-
i:

R espondent ad m itted ly  could not m e e t the m in im um  v isu a l standard .
1 •
r No ev id en ce  w as in trod u ced  to show that th is  m in im um  standard of
i.

2 0 /3 0  for p re -em p lo y m en t v isu a l acu ity  had ev er  b een  w aived  by the 

R a ilro a d . U n less  it  could be shown that th is  p re -em p lo y m en t standard
•I
;i had b een  w aived  in other c a s e s  and not in the c a se  of A ppellant -

i



l!

■ R espondent, the finding of d iscr im in a tio n  b ased  upon co lor  or ra cei

m u st fa ll a s  being a rb itra ry , ca p r ic io u s  and w ithout su b stan tia l b a s is
• I •

in  ev id en ce  of reco rd . The A p p ella te  D iv is io n  reco g n ized  th is  and
I.

annulled the o rd ers  of the D iv is io n  and A pp eal B oard and d is m is s e d
li

the com p la in t.
I

A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t has argued that no ev id en ce  has b een

, in trod u ced  to d em on strate  that the m in im u m  v isu a l acu ity  stand ard s
ii

m e e t.a  b u s in e ss  n e c e s s ity  te s t . It i s  w e ll reco g n ized  that no te s t

j! u sed  for h ir in g  or prom otion  i s  va lid  i f  it  o p era te s  to exclu d e  N eg ro es
.1
!! and cannot be shown to be re la ted  to job p er fo rm a n ce . G rig g s v .
|j —
i Duke P ow er C o ., 401 U .S . 424 (1971) H ow ever, the in it ia l burden

!|

r e s t s  on the p arty  charging d iscr im in a tio n  to d em on stra te  that the te s t
ii

has d isq u a lified  b la ck s at a su b sta n tia lly  h igh er rate  than w h ite s .

!' G riggs v. Duke P o w e r , su p ra; C ooper v . A llen , 467 F . 2d 836, 838 

: (5th C ir . 1972); U .S . v . H. K. P o r te r  C o . , 296 F . Supp. 40, 76 -77
j ,WIT“ "
,1 ‘ ,

(N. D. A la . 1968) T here i s  no ev id en ce  that b la ck s have p oorer  e y e -

sigh t than w h ites  and that a v isu a l a cu ity  standard o p era tes  to  d isq u a lify
Ii
11 b la ck s at a h igh er rate than w h ite s . A p p ella n t-R esp o n d en t's  fa ilu re  

j to d em on strate  that a m in im um  v isu a l standard i s  d isc r im in a to ry  

!i m a k es ju stif ic a tio n  of that standard u n n e c e ssa r y . Cooper v . A lle n , 

supra.

■i



11

A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t has a lso  argued  and the D iv is io n  r e lie d  

upon the fa c t that the R ailroad  d oes not m ain ta in  the sam e standard  

, for i t s  firem en  after  they have been  h ired  and put to w ork . T h is  

argu m en t only g o es  to the is s u e  of the r e a so n a b len ess  of the p r e -  

em p loym en t standard e sta b lish ed  by the R a ilroad  and that q u estion  i s  

ou tsid e  of the ju r isd ic tio n  of the D iv is io n  and co n seq u en tly , finding  

45 in  th is regard  cannot be the b a s is  for a finding of d iscrim in ation  

basecl upon ra ce  or c o lo r .

i In the a b sen ce  of any in tru sio n  of co n ­
sid era tio n  of ra ce  and co lo r , w e cannot 
substitu te our judgm ent for that of the 
respon dent in  e sta b lish in g  c r ite r ia  of

l q u a lifica tion  for a p a rticu lar  p o sitio n  and
in  d eterm in in g  w hether or not a p a r tic u ­
lar  em p loyee  m e e ts  th ose q u a lifica tio n s, 

r New York T elephone Co. v . W eth ers ,
36 App. D iv. 2d 541, 542 (1971), aff'd  
30 N . Y. 2d 791 (1972)

The fact i s ,  a s  exp la in ed  by the LIR R 's W itn ess P e te r so n , the p r e -
i

em p loym en t standard i s  s e t  high b eca u se  the ra ilro a d  in d u stry  know s 

that w ith the p a ssa g e  of y e a r s  the e y es ig h t of the m en w ill  d e te r io r a te , '
ii|,
ji but i t  w ould be w rong to deprive th ese  m en  of th e ir  jo b s a s  long a s

1 th ey  can c o r r e c t  th eir  ey es ig h t w ith  g la s s e s  to 2 0 /2 0  in  both e y e s .
I*

H ow ever, the p rob ab ility  of a m an w ith  ey es ig h t b elow  the R ailroad
i:
•! standard having h is  v is io n  d e ter io ra te  to a point w h ere  it  cannot be
i1
„ c o r r e c te d  w ith g la s s e s  to 2 0 /2 0  and thus lo s e  h is  job , i s  m uch g rea ter



12.

than in  regard  to th ose  em p lo y ees  who m ee t the h igh er  standard .

S ection  63 of the R ailroad  Law im p o se s  upon the r a ilr o a d s  

the duty of in su r in g  that it s  em p lo y ees  are  fit  and com p eten t for  

th eir  d u tie s . The sa fe ty  of p a s s e n g e r s , fe llo w  e m p lo y e e s , and any  

p e r so n s  on the R a ilro a d 's  r ig h t-o f-w a y  often depends upon the e y e ­

sigh t of the en g in eer  and firem a n . A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t, in  th ree  

eye ex a m in a tio n s, w as unable to m e e t the m in im um  p re -e m p lo y m en t  

standard of 2 0 /3 0  in  one e y e . The R a ilroad  should not be req u ired  

to  do what it  has not h ereto fo re  done for any person ; n a m ely , w aive  

th is  m in im um  standard . The court

o  V , / s » * 1 / 1  /> 4 -  n ' ' L  / -  4 -1 4— ' 4 / s  •  / -  /•  1 *• ~ .
A i V / v  H l U k / k / U k b U v L  A . W U  J  V i U g U I v L b  a L a

that of the em p loyer  in e sta b lish in g  
p o lic ie s  for h ir in g , tra in in g , and p r o ­
m otion  in the a b sen ce  of any showing  
of d iscr im in a tio n  by r ea so n  of ra ce  or 
c o lo r .
N ew  York T elephone Co. v . W eth ers ,
36 App. D iv. 2d at 542.

The R a ilroad  has reco g n ized  its  duty to both the g en era l public  and 

i t s  em p lo y e e s  to m ake sure that the R ailroad  i s  operated  both sa fe ly  

and e ff ic ie n tly . The court should not now p reven t the R a ilroad  fro m  

m eetin g  th is  r e sp o n s ib ility .

The LIRR did not d iscr im in a te  a g a in st the A p p ella n t-  

R espondent and un law fully  w ithhold a p o sitio n  fro m  h im  b e c a u se  of h is  

ra ce  or c o lo r . Indeed, the R ailroad  had attem p ted  to a s s i s t  A pp ellan t -

i



13.

R espondent in obtaining em ploym en t w ith the R ailroad  d esp ite  the fact  

that he had a lrea d y  been  d ism is se d  by one R ailroad  departm en t for  

ca u se . E xh ib its E and F  show that in the sh ort p er iod  of a year and 

o n e-h a lf, the num ber of b lack  p erso n s  em p loyed  as  f irem en  jum ped  

from  5 to 38 and that during th is sam e p er iod , a ccord in g  to A p p ella n t-  

R esp on d en t's w itn ess  C ap ers, a num ber o f w hite p e r so n s  w ere  d i s ­

q u a lified  a s  fir em en  b eca u se  of th eir  ey es ig h t (2 8 1 -2 8 2 ). A p p ella n t-  

R espondent w as re fu sed  em ploym en t by the LJ.RR so le ly  b eca u se  of h is  

!■ in a b ility  to m ee t even  the m in im um  stand ard s of v isu a l acu ity  req u ired  

of p e r so n s  seek in g  a p o sitio n  as firem a n .

A pp ellan t-R esp on d en t fa iled  to m e e t the burden of estahlishineri °

by su b stan tia l ev id en ce  that the rea so n  the LIRR fa iled  to h ire  h im  w as  

b eca u se  of h is  c o lo r . A s the Court of A p p eals sta ted  in B y str ic k y ,
ii

su p ra :
l:

The reco rd  m e r e ly  e s ta b lis h e s  that c o m ­
plainant i s  b lack  and resp on d en t re fu sed  to  

•' s e l l  h im  her p rop erty . To m e e t the standard
of su b stan tia l ev id en ce  i t  m u st fu rther appear  
that the r e fu sa l w as b eca u se  he w as b lack .
T his the p r e se n t reco rd  fa ils  to do.
State D iv is io n  of Human R ights v . B y str ic k y ,
30 N . Y. 2d 322, 325 c itin g  low er  court 
opinion, 36 App. D iv. 2d 278, 280

The reco rd  h ere in  c le a r ly  e s ta b lish e s  that the so le  rea so n  

A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t w as-not h ired  a s  a firem a n  w as h is  e y e s ig h t .

'! The A p p ella te  D iv is io n  app lied  the c o r r e c t  standard of r ev iew  in

p"



finding that th ere w as no d iscr im in a tio n .

POINT II

THE DIVISION AND A P P E A L  BOARD  
ACTED ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY  
AND BEYOND THEIR STATUTORY  
JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY UNDER THE  
SUPREM ACY CLAUSE OF THE U. S. CON­
STITUTION IN REQUIRING THE LIRR TO 
HIRE A PPE L L A N T -R E SPO N D E N T  AS A 
FIREMAN AND GRANT HIM THE SENIORITY  
AND OTHER RIGHTS HE WOULD HAVE HAD 
IF  HIS EM PLOYM ENT HAD NOT BEEN  
DENIED AT THE TIME OF HIS ORIGINAL 
APPLICATION

A s te s t if ie d  to by M r. P e te r so n  at 4 5 1 -4 5 6 , the la b o r -  

m an agem en t r e la t io n s  betw een  the LIRR and it s  e m p lo y e e s  and th eir  

unions are  govern ed  by the p r o v is io n s  of the fed era l R a ilw ay  Labor 

A ct. P u rsu an t to the p ro v is io n s  of th is  a c t, the LIRR h as en tered  

into c o lle c t iv e ly  bargained a g reem en ts  w ith  the v a r io u s unions on it s  

p rop erty  and, in ter  a lia , the te r m s  of th ese  a g reem en ts  govern  and 

con tro l the b a s is  upon w hich, the m ean s by w hich , and the date upon 

w hich em p lo y ees  a re  p laced  upon the v a r io u s een io r ity  r o s te r s  and 

obtain th eir  other r ig h ts .

The s ta te s  m ay not in ter fe r e  w ith  or a lter  the p r o v is io n s  of 

c o lle c t iv e ly  b argain ed  a g reem en ts  en tered  in to  pursuant to the p r o ­

v is io n s  of the R ailw ay Labor A ct. S e e : LIRR v . N . Y. D ept, of L abor,

138 M isc . 612, 247 N . Y .S . 278 (Sup. Ct. A lbany -  1931); B rad y v .



15„

I TWA, 196 F . Supp. 504 (D. C. D e l. -  1961); Grand R apids C ity Coach

' L in es v . H ew lett, 137 F . Supp. 667 (D. C. M ich . - 1956).

;i A s the Suprem e Court has stated:

The fa c t that the (R ailw ay Labor) A c t's  
: ap p lica tion  w ill su p erced e  sta te  c iv il  s e r ­

v ic e  law s w hich con flic t w ith i t s  p o licy  of 
prom oting c o lle c t iv e  b arga in in g  d o es  not 

!•' d e tra ct from  the con clu sion  that C on g ress
| intended it  to apply to any com m on c a r r ie r

|! by ra ilro a d  engaged  in  in te r s ta te  tr a n sp o r ­
tation  w hether or not owned or operated  by  

* a sta te .
* C aliforn ia  v , T a y lo r , 353 U. S. 553, 5 66 -67  (1957)

,|i
To the exten t that the O rd ers of the D iv is io n  and A ppeal

li
1 B oard co n flic t w ith  ex ist in g  a g r ee m e n ts  of the LIRR w ith i t s  u n ion s,

the O rd ers a re  beyond the au th ority  and p ow er of the D iv is io n  and
I;
ji A ppeal B oard . The e x ist in g  a g reem en ts  betw een  the LIRR and the

. B rotherh ood  of L ocom otive  E n g in eers  co n tro ls  the se n io r ity  of f ir e m e n
I
! and it  i s  beyond the pow er of the D iv is io n  to req u ire  the LIRR to h ire|
1
! A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t and grant h im  se n io r ity  on any b a s is  other than
|l1
1 the s tr ic t  te r m s  of the con tro llin g  a g reem en t b etw een  the LIRR and the
i
j B rotherh ood  of L ocom otive  E n g in eers .

In th is  r e s p e c t , it  should be noted  that A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t
I
j has not p a ssed  a ll of the req u irem en ts  of the LIRR for em p loym en t, 

jj He has not a s  y e t had the req u ired  X -r a y s  and th erea fter  h is  p erm anent

i;

i| em p loym en t w ould depend upon h is  taking a tra in in g  c o u rse  and s u c c e s s -



16

fu lly  p a ss in g  the regu lar  qualify ing te s ts  g iven  p r o sp e c tiv e  firem en  

upon com p letion  of the tra in ing p rogram .

T hus, the O rd ers of the D iv is io n  and A ppeal B oard  req u irin g  

the LIRR to h ire  A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t a s  a firem an  and to grant him  

se n io r ity  a s  of the date h is  ap p lication  w as o r ig in a lly  den ied , w ere  

a rb itra ry , ca p r ic io u s  and beyond th eir  authority .

POINT III

A PPE L L A N T -R E SPO N D E N T  JACKSON 
SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED ATTORNEY'S  
F E E S _____________________________

It i s  the c le a r ly  e sta b lish e d  p o licy  of the N ew  Y ork State 

Human R ights Law (E xecu tive  Law §290 et seq . ) that p r iv a te  a tto rn ey 's  

fe e s  tohoulu. iiul. oc a w a iu cd  for com p la in ts  brought b efore  the D iv is io n . 

E xecu tive  Law §297(4a) p ro v id es  for a sta ff of a tto rn ey s to r ep re sen t  

com p la in an ts. The New Y ork co u rts , p a r ticu la r ly  the A pp ella te  

D iv is io n  Second D epartm ent, have c o n s is ten tly  denied m o tion s for  

aw ards of a tto rn ey 's  fe e s  for p rivate  co u n se l. '

In State D iv is io n  of Human R ights v s .  G orton , 32 App. D iv .

2d 933, 302 N . Y .S . 2d 966 (1969), the court m od ified  an order of the 

D iv is io n  w hich  had aw arded a tto rn ey 's  f e e s .  In exp la in in g  the r e a s o n ­

ing behind that d e c is io n , the court said:

In M atter of State D iv. of Human R ights v s .
G orton, th is court re fu sed  to en fo rce  an ord er of 
the C o m m issio n er  w hich had aw arded the c o m ­
plainants com p en sa tory  d am ages and rea so n a b le



17

a tto rn ey 's  f e e s .  T here w as a com p lete  a b sen ce  
of proof of dam ages and we fe lt  that a tto rn ey 's  
fe e s  should not be aw arded in  th ese  c a s e s .  The 
State D iv is io n  has a sta ff of com petent a ttorn eys  
to a id  poten tia l com plainants and thus it  i s  not 
n e c e s s a r y  to reta in  p rivate  co u n se l to obtain  
r e l ie f  from  that agen cy .
State D iv . of Human R ights v s . Luppino,
35 App. D iv. 2d 107, 110.

In G orton, the D iv is io n  had aw arded a tto rn ey 's  fe e s  in i t s  order and 

the cou rt denied  the aw ard. In the p r e se n t c a se , the D iv is io n  did not 

see  fit  to aw ard a tto rn ey 's  f e e s ,  and the court should not now in itia te  

such an aw ard.

U nlike the F ed era l C ivil R ights Law, w hich  e n v is io n s  c o m ­

p lainants a s  p rivate  a tto r n e y s -g e n e r a l, the N ew  York State Human  

R ights Law  p ro v id es  for en forcem en t proced u re w ith in  the D iv is io n  of 

Human R ig h ts. Unlike the fed era l law , the sta te  statute p ro v id es  for  

a sta ff of a tto rn ey s to a id  com p la in an ts. T h ere fo re , any se c t io n s  of 

the fed era l statute w hich  provide for a tto rn ey 's  fe e s  should not be  

read  in to  the N ew  Y ork State Human R igh ts Lav/.

In addition , i t  should be noted  that A p p ellan t-R esp on d en t 

Jack son  i s  a lso  a party  in a sep ara te  fed era l a c tio n . Should a tto rn ey 's  

fe e s  be aw arded in that ac tio n , th ere  i s  a p o s s ib il ity  of d u p licate  aw ards  

being m ad e.

CONCLUSION

F o r  the forego in g  r e a so n s , the fin al ord er  of the A p p ella te



D iv is io n  should be a ffirm ed

R esp ec tfu lly  subm itted ,

GEORGE M. ONKEN 
A ttorn ey  for A p p ellee  s -  
P e tit io n e r s , The Long 
Islan d  R ail Road Com pany  
and Stew art M cCloud  
J a m a ica  Station  
Jam a ica , New Y ork 11435

RICHARD H. STOKES 
LAURENCE H. RUBIN  

Of C oun sel.



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I h ereb y  c e r tify  that co p ies  of the fo rego in g  B r ie f  for

A p p e lle e s  w ere  m a iled  th is 24th day of S ep tem b er, 1974, p ostage  

prepaid  to the fo llow in g  co u n se l of record ;

JACK GREENBERG  
MARILYN J. HOLIFIELD  
10 Colum bus C ircle  
Su ite 2030
N ew  York, N ew  York 10019

r
X * .  C v W X  i.AVJ y  O  w *  / I p p C X i U U b

RICHARD H. STOKES