Viewing page 31 of 99

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

exclusive remedies, stating at pages 723-4 that Congress had no express or implied intent to bar state legislation in this field and that state legislation "will not frustrate any part of the purpose of the federal legislation."
In addition, the United State Supreme Court decision which, in fact, upheld state fair employment legislation involved the very same New York statute in issue in the present case concerning respondent, together with an organization which was also engaged in interstate commerce as is Respondent. This case is Commerce Railway Mail Association vs. Corsi 326 U.S. 88 (1945). This case together with the decision of American Airlines vs. State Commission for Human Rights 29. A.a. 2d 178, 286 N.Y.S. 2d 493 (1st Dept., 1968) leave no doubt that the proceedings in the present action involving Respondent is proper. In the American Airlines case, a 32 year old stewardess was involuntarily retired and then requested the protection of the same New York statute involved in Respondents case. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division denied her relief, not because of nay federal pre-emption doctrine or lack of jurisdiction, but solely because pursuant to the actual wording of the statue, the protection afforded is specifically against age discrimination of person between the state ages of forty and sixty-five. The Court in the American Airlines decision at page 180 cited the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act for the same principle and noted that the New York statutes stated purpose is "to eliminate discrimination"