Case Name: In the Matter of American Jewish Congress, Respondent, v. Elmer A. Carter et al., Constituting the State Commission Against Discrimination, Respondents, and Arabian American Oil Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1961-03-02
Citations: 9 N.Y.2d 223
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of American Jewish Congress, Respondent, v. Elmer A. Carter et al., Constituting the State Commission Against Discrimination, Respondents, and Arabian American Oil Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 223–230

Head Matter:
In the Matter of American Jewish Congress, Respondent, v. Elmer A. Carter et al., Constituting the State Commission Against Discrimination, Respondents, and Arabian American Oil Company, Appellant.
Argued January 5, 1961;
decided March 2, 1961.
Chester Bordean, George W. Bag, Jr., Lowell Wadmond and T. Barrington Semple, Jr., for appellant.
I. Petitioner is not a party aggrieved under sections 297 and 298 of the Law Against Discrimination. (Matter of Walter, 75 N. Y. 354; Matter of New York State Comm. Against Discrimination v. Perricone, 10 Misc 2d 346, 5 A D 2d 849, 4 N Y 2d 874, 358 U. S. 801; Doolittle v. Supervisors of Broome County, 18 N. Y. 155; Matter of Personal Finance Co. v. Lyon, 203 Misc. 710; Matter of J. D. L. Corp. v. Bruckman, 171 Misc. 3; Matter of Civil Serv. War Veterans Protective Assn. v. Finegan, 249 App. Div. 822; Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn. v. Hurd, 202 Misc. 386; Schieffelin v. Komfort, 212 N. Y. 520; Pratt v. La Guardia, 182 Misc. 462; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.. S. 449; Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 U. S. 72; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510.) II. Commissioner Carter’s granting of a bona fide occupational qualification exemption to Aramco with respect to its hiring and employment practices relating to employees expected to travel to Saudi Arabia is supported by adequate evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious. (Matter of Swalbach v. State Liq. Auth., 7 N Y 2d 518; Matter of Barton Trucking Corp. v. O’Connell, 7 N Y 2d 299; Matter of Jeanpierre v. Arbury, 4 N Y 2d 238; Matter of Wager v. State Liq. Auth., 4 N Y 2d 465; Matter of Mounting & Finishing Co. v. McGoldrick, 294 N. Y. 104; Red Hook Cold Stor. Co. v. Department of Labor, 295 N. Y. 1; Matter of Park East Land Corp. v. Finklestein, 299 N. Y. 70; Matter of Monachino v. Rohan, 13 Misc 2d 729; Ashwander v. Valley Auth., 297 U. S. 288; Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44; United States v. Belmont, 301 U. S. 324; United States v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203; Russian Republic v. Cibrario, 235 N. Y. 255; Kleve v. Basler L.-V. Gesellschaft, 182 Misc. 776.) III. Commissioner Carter’s finding with respect to Aramco’s hiring and employment practices with respect to employees not expected to travel to Saudi Arabia is supported by adequate evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious.
Shad Polier, Will Maslow, Leo Pfeffer and Joseph B. Robison for American Jewish Congress, respondent.
I. The investigating Commissioner erred, as a matter of law, in granting appellant a ‘ ‘ bona fide occupational qualification ” exemption permitting it to ask questions concerning religion of applicants in New York for employment.in Saudi Arabia. (Grove Press v. Christenberry, 175 F. Supp. 488; F. C. C. v. RCA Communications, 346 U. S. 86; Davies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 144; Matter of Barry v. O’Connell, 303 N. Y. 46; Securities Comm. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194.) II. Appellant has failed to show Federal nullification of the State Law Against Discrimination as applied to its operations. Application of the Law Against Discrimination to appellant would not conflict with any Federal policy or interest. (Matter of United States of Mexico v. Schmuck, 294 N. Y. 265; Weilamann v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 21 Misc 2d 1086; United States v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203; New York v. Dibble, 62 U. S. 366.) III. Only treaties or formal agreements are entitled to precedence over State law. (Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi, 326 U. S. 88; German-American Coffee Co. v. Diehl, 216 N. Y. 57; Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416; United States v. Belmont, 301 U. S. 324; United States v. Pink, 315 U. S. 203.) IV. A treaty or formal agreement or other executive action approving Saudi Arabian discrimination against Jews would be unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. (Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416; Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U. S. 258; Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497; United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75.) V. The courts of this State have long refused to apply foreign laws abhorrent to the public policy of the State. (Lemmon v. People, 20 N. Y. 562; Vladikavkazsky Ry. Co. v. New York Trust Co., 263 N. Y. 369; Lederkremer v. Lederkremer, 173 Misc. 587; Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261; The Kensington, 183 U. S. 263; Griffin v. McCoach, 313 U. S. 498.) VI. The “bona fide occupational qualification ’ ’ exception of the Law Against Discrimination is inapplicable, as a matter of law, to Aramco’s practice of investigating the religion of prospective employees. VII. The courts below properly held that the investigating Commissioner violated the requirements of administrative procedure in holding that Aramco did not ask discriminatory questions of applicants for work in New York State. (Matter of Barry v. O’Connell, 303 N. Y. 46; Matter of New York Water Serv. Corp. v. Water Power & Control Comm., 283 N. Y. 23.) VTII. Petitioner is a party aggrieved under sections 297 and 298 of the Executive Law. (Order of Conductors v. Swan, 329 U. S. 520; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U. S. 33; Matter of New York State Comm. Against Discrimination v. Perricone, 10 Misc 2d 346, 5 A D 2d 849, 4 N Y 2d 874, 358 U. S. 801; Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U. S. 44; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449; Uphaus v. Wyman, 360 U. S. 72.)
Jack Greenberg, TJmrgood Marshall and Norman C. Amaker for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., amicus curios.
I. The basis for the Commissioner’s determination that Aramco was entitled to a bona fide occupational qualification exemption under section 296 (subd. 1, par. [c]) of the Executive Law is not an allowable basis under that law. (Matter of Barry v. O’Connell, 303 N. Y. 46; Bank of United States v. Planters’ Bank, 9 Wheat. [22 U. S.] 904; Ulen & Co. v. Bank Gospodarstwa Krajowego, 261 App. Div. 1; Hannes v. Kingdom of Roumania Monopolies Inst., 260 App. Div. 189; United States v. Deutsches Kalisyndikat Gesellschaft, 31 F. 2d 199; Coale v. Societe Co-op. Suisse Des Charbons, Basle, 21 F. 2d 180; The Beaton Park, 65 F. Supp. 211; The Uxmal, 40 F. Supp. 258; Matter of Holland v. Edwards, 307 N. Y. 38.) II. The practices of Aramco violate principles firmly embedded in the Constitution of the United States, the State of New York and the New York State Law Against Discrimination. (Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497; Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi, 326 U. S. 88.)

Opinion:
Froessel, J.
The present proceeding before us was commenced in 1956. The principal issue presented is whether " probable cause " existed " for crediting the allegations of the complaint " (Executive Law, § 297). On the basis of the record before us, both courts below have held that " probable cause " did exist here. Special Term went further and erroneously addressed itself to how the issues pertaining thereto might be ultimately resolved. The evidence supports the finding of probable cause, and the Appellate Division properly remanded the matter to the commission for proceedings in accordance with article 15 of the Executive Law.
Accordingly, two alternatives are now open to the commission under section 297, the paramount mandate here involved: (1) The investigating Commissioner "shall immediately endeavor to eliminate the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of by conference, conciliation and persuasion "; or (2) he may refer the matter to the entire commission for a hearing.
The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.