![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
(c) and at an age less than that of sixty-five as set forth in the statute (d) said policy having no reasonable and necessary basis becomes a mere 'subterfuge' in violation of Section 296 (3a) of the New York Human Rights Law. Respondents contend in their brief, that the 'saving' clause in the statute allowing an employer to terminate an employee to affect the retirement policy or system where such policy or system is not merely a subterfuge to evade the provisions of the statute subdivisions, exculpates them of responsibility for violating Section 296 (3a). However, their sole argument basically is that they have been doing this for years before the statute was enacted, so how are they attempting subterfuge? To illustrate the facetiousness of the argument, if this was a criminal act such as, for example, larceny, which Respondents were committing repeatedly prior to the enactment of a law prohibiting larceny, would their continuation to commit larceny after the law was enacted be any less criminal simply because they had been getting away with it for years before the law was passed? The New York Human Rights Law was enacted for this very purpose, to put a stop to the act of depriving a man of his employment based solely on his age. Unless there is a reasonable necessity why an instructor, supervisory, test or ferry pilot must also fly on-line revenue flights (which a pilot over sixty years of age is prohibited from doing) then the continued application of this policy by Respondent then becomes merely a -6-