Case Name: In the Matter of New York Roadrunners Club et al., Respondents, v. State Division of Human Rights, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1982-02-18
Citations: 55 N.Y.2d 122
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of New York Roadrunners Club et al., Respondents, v State Division of Human Rights, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 122–130

Head Matter:
In the Matter of New York Roadrunners Club et al., Respondents, v State Division of Human Rights, Appellant.
Argued January 6, 1982;
decided February 18, 1982
POINTS OF COUNSEL
Ann Thacher Anderson for appellant.
I. The court below overlooked evidence in the record and related legal principles justifying the orders on review. (Williams v Gallatin, 229 NY 248; People v Wise, 54 Misc 2d 87; 795 Fifth Ave. Corp. v City of New York, 40 Misc 2d 183, 20 AD2d 850, 15 NY2d 221; Matter of Theatre Festival v Moses, 16 Misc 2d 258; Scala v City of New York, 200 Misc 475; New York State Div. of Human Rights v New York-Pennsylvania Professional Baseball League, 36 AD2d 364, 29 NY2d 921; Proctor v Mount Vernon Arena, 292 NY 168; Johnson v Auburn & Syracuse Elec. R. R. Co., 222 NY 443; Norman v City Is. Beach Co., 126 Misc 335; Delany v Central Val. Golf Club, 263 App Div 710, 289 NY 577.) II. The orders of the division and the appeal board are not made arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable by evidence as to safety. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Clark v City of Buffalo, 288 NY 62.)
Bennett L. Gershman for respondents.
I. It was entirely reasonable for the organizer of the New York City Marathon to establish as a condition of competition that athletes must use their feet, unassisted by any wheels or other devices, to aid locomotion. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of New York Athletic Club of City of N. Y. v City Comm. on Human Rights, 56 Misc 2d 565; Matter of Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 49 NY2d 234; Southeastern Community Coll. v Davis, 442 US 397; Kampmeier v Nyquist, 553 F2d 296.) II. Legitimate concern for the safety of runners, borne out at the administrative hearing by compelling and convincing evidence, entitled the organizer of the New York City Marathon footrace to disqualify from competition athletes using wheeled devices for locomotion. (Kampmeier v Nyquist, 553 F2d 296; Davis v Southeastern Community Coll., 424 F Supp 1341, affd sub nom. Southeastern Community Coll. v Davis, 442 US 397.) III. The State Division of Human Rights exceeded its jurisdiction in this matter. (La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575.)
Richard C. Raymond for International Wheelchair Road Racers Club, amicus curiae.
I. Excluding wheelchair athletes from a road race discriminates against such athletes on the basis of their disability. (Korematsu v United States, 323 US 214; Weber v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 406 US 164; Trimble v Gordon, 430 US 762; Weinberger v Wiesenfeld, 420 US 636; Schlesinger v Ballard, 419 US 498; New York State Div. of Human Rights v New York-Pennsylvania Professional Baseball League, 36 AD2d 364, 29 NY2d 921.) II. Section 296 (subd 2, par [a]) of the Executive Law prohibits the organizers of a road race from excluding wheelchair athletes who meet the publicly announced criteria for entry. (Gilmore v City of Montgomery, 417 US 556; Norwood v Harrison, 413 US 455.) III. The court below erred in setting aside the well-supported determination of the Commissioner of Human Rights that participation in road races by wheelchair athletes does not pose a significant threat to the safety of other competitors. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; Matter of CBS, Inc. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 76 AD2d 813; Galante & Son v State Div. of Human Rights, 76 AD2d 1023, 52 NY2d 962; State Off. of Drug Abuse Servs. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 48 NY2d 276.)
James J. Weisman for Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association, amicus curiae.
I. The Human Rights Commissioner’s factual finding that wheelchair athletes do not present any proven safety hazards and his order enjoining the Roadrunners from unlawful discriminatory practices against such athletes may not be reversed as they were both supported by sufficient evidence on the record. (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176; State Div. of Human Rights v Syracuse City Teachers Assn., 66 AD2d 56; State Div. of Human Rights v County of Onondaga, 50 AD2d 716; State Div. of Human Rights v City of Syracuse, 57 AD2d 452; Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256.) II. The Roadrunner’s exclusion of qualified wheelchair athletes from the New York City Marathon constitutes discrimination based on disabil ity and thereby violates section 296 (subd 2, par [a]) of the Executive Law. III. The Roadrunner’s discriminatory practices are not justified by the affirmative defense that wheelchair participants would create safety hazards in the New York City Marathon. (Dothard v Rawlinson, 433 US 321; Home Lines v State Div. of Human Rights, 60 AD2d 1004; New York State Div. of Human Rights v New York-Pennsylvania Professional Baseball League, 36 AD2d 364, 29 NY2d 921; Matter of Guardian Capital Corp. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 46 AD2d 832; Murphy v Steeplechase Amusement Co., 250 NY 479; Curcio v City of New York, 275 NY 20; Arnold v Schmeiser, 34 AD2d 568; Kozera v Town of Hamburg, 40 AD2d 934; McEvoy v City of New York, 266 App Div 445, 292 NY 654; Stevens v Central School Dist. No. 1 of Town of Ramapo, 25 AD2d 871.) IV. The Roadrunners are not exempt from compliance with the Human Rights Law in order to preserve the traditions of the ancient Greek Marathon. (People v Bernquist, 167 Misc 293; Baker v Drake, 66 NY 518; Garramone v Simmons, 177 Misc 330; Hopper v Sage, 112 NY 530; Matter of City of New York v Maltbie, 269 App Div 662, 294 NY 931; B.M. Heede, Inc. v Roberts, 303 NY 385; International Harvester Co. v Town of Ellery, 28 AD2d 1081.)

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
The record reveals no proof to support the Human Rights Division's finding that the respondents, New York Roadrunners Club and its president, Fred Lebow, discriminated against the disabled in violation of section 296 (subd 2, par [a]) of the Executive Law (Human Rights Law) when, in organizing and promoting the 1978 New York City Marathon, it required participants to use only their feet, and not wheelchairs, skateboards, bicycles or other extraneous aids. Indeed, as the Appellate Division pointed out, so long as entrants met this qualification, as well as some others the propriety of which are unchallenged, any disabilities unrelated to the capacity to move on foot would rule out no prospective contestant.
What the respondents had decided to conduct was not just any kind of marathon race, but a marathon footrace, a traditionally and, in any case, because of its label as a marathon, an historically rooted athletic event. No doubt it might have been possible for the club to have laid down guidelines which would have opened the race to individuals who used any means of locomotion, or one which would have allowed only those who used means other, than their feet to participate. But the club, a private, though not-for-profit, organization, without more was under no legal compulsion to follow any of these alternatives. Standing alone, its election to adhere to the method of locomotion most intrinsic and conventional to what, at all odds, is planned as a foot racing event cannot be catalogued as blameworthy in a Human Rights Law discriminatory sense. In setting the standards for the race, in this perspective it also was a valid consideration for the club to take into account the fact that a uniform requirement that the race be run on foot would tend to equalize competition. Equally valid was its concern that, without a uniform rule, it would make it difficult, if not impossible, to objectively evaluate the relative performances of the competitors.
In making these observations, we, of course, are not insensitive to the role athletic activity may play in the rehabilitation and in the lives of the handicapped. Nor do we depart from our appreciation of the special concerns committed to the expertise of the Human Rights Division to combat discrimination in the first instance (State Off. of Drug Servs. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 48 NY2d 276, 283-284). Rather, we simply hold that, under the circumstances, the acts on which the complaint here was posited did not constitute an unlawful discriminatory practice.
Finally, because of the ground on which we affirm, we note that we have had no occasion to reach or decide either the issue of safety or the question as to whether the marathon course was a "'place of public accommodation'" (see Executive Law, §292, subd 9) or the legal significance, if any, of the failure of the city to have withdrawn its permit once the respondents had rejected its request that wheels be allowed.