New York Public Personnel Law: The term “race” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1981 is to be defined the same as the term “race” is defined for the purposes of Title VII

February 22, 2016

The term “race” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1981 is to be defined the same as the term “race” is defined for the purposes of Title VII

The term “race” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1981 is to be defined the same as the term “race” is defined for the purposes of Title VII

Village of Freeport v Barrella. USCA 2^nd Circuit, Docket 14-2270

A disappointed candidate for appointment to the position Chief of Police sued the Village of Freeport for alleged unlawful discrimination.

The individual, a “white Italian-American.” alleged that a “less-qualified Hispanic candidate” was appointed to the position in violation of 42 USC 1983 because he scored highest on the examination and of the three names on the list certified for the appointment, the Hispanic candidate was ranked "third."* The Village argued that an employer who promotes a “white Hispanic” candidate over a “white non-Hispanic” candidate cannot have engaged in unlawful discrimination based on race.

The Second Circuit reject the Village’s argument, explaining that the term “race” includes ethnicity for the purposes of 42 USC 1983 and race should be defined in the same manner as “race” is defined for the purposes of Title VII. In so doing the court said “The Parties and the District Court experienced some confusion in unraveling the legal definitions of “race” and “Hispanic,” thanks partly to the federal government’s less-than-straightforward use of those terms,” citing McCleskey v Kemp, 481 US 279.

The court also noted that even to the extent that one eligible was more qualified than another eligible for appointment, federal anti-discrimination law “does not require that the candidate whom a court considers most qualified for a particular position be awarded that position; it requires only that the decision among candidates not be discriminatory.” Further, said the Circuit Court, “an employer’s stated desire for diversity in the workplace does not, without more, establish a discriminatory intent with respect to any particular employment decision.”

* It appears that the appointment was otherwise consistent with the so-called "rule of three" set out in §61 of the Civil Service Law.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9b9a5a4b-3821-4207-85d5-52e87d144e8e/1/doc/14-2270_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9b9a5a4b-3821-4207-85d5-52e87d144e8e/1/hilite/

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.