that are issued or any further legislation that is coming about because of Hardison related cases makes clear that the obligation is not to the extent to only an employer, but also to a labor organization and that the impact of accommodation to these cases, as far as we can tell, is so minimal that it really would not affect the form of relationship between a labor organization and an employer.

The accommodation percentage of people who need to be accommodated do not have the kind of impact that other seniority problems would raise.

We are dealing with an issue, which though of small percentage is of such great importance to individuals, that that kind of accommodation could be Legislative or could be provided by rules and regulations. Chair NORTON: Commissioner Leach.

Commissioner LEACH: On your labor union experience in the public sector, I'm sure you observed the attitudes of those unions that prevail to the public sector. What has been their attitude with respect to this issue?

Mr. KRAMARSKY: We began our negotiations deliberately with the representatives of the public employer unions because we felt that in public employment the accommodation has been accomplished in large parts in New York State.

So consequently they would have a base of experience by which they can go out to the unions who relate to private employment and say that this had a minimal impact.

It is our experience so far that the public employer unions with whom we've talked are anxious to cooperate and are willing to accommodate and willing to work with us in trying to spread this to other labor organizations throughout the State.

Chair NORTON: Are there any other questions?

Commissioner WALSH: Earlier in your statement you indicated that there might be difficulty in making reasonable accommodations according to the size of an organization.

I think you pointed out, for instance, a small store that worked seven days a week as compared to a large organization.

Do you or have you found any indications of differences in difficulty to accommodate, based on the type of industry?

Mr. KRAMARSKY: I don't think that our experience indicates that it is by industry or type of industry. Of course, the health care industry has taken the position that all parts of this industry are emergency related and they don't have to accommodate.

We have not agreed with them on that concept, but it is a fairly common thread that runs through the cases which relate to hospitals.

I do not know whether there is industry differentiations that we could statistically establish.

Chair NORTON: Are there any further questions?

Commissioner LEACH: No.

Commissioner WALSH: No.

Chair NORTON: Commissioner Kramarsky, I would like to thank you for coming here and presenting your testimony this morning.

Mr. KRAMARSKY: Thank you.

Chair NORTON: We want to call the next witness, Patricia Ortiz, Chairman, New York City Commission on Human Rights.

MS. ORTIZ: First, I would like to thank you for asking me here today to present testimony.

As you are probably knowledgeable of the City of New York's Commission on Human Rights is empowered to enforce the New York City Law on Human Rights, which since November of 1972, specifically prohibits discrimination in employment, promotion or discharge because of certain religious needs.

I will cite Local Law 74 which reads as follows: "(a) it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to impose upon an individual as a condition of obtaining or retaining employment any terms or conditions, compliance with which would require such individuals to violate or forego a practice of his creed or religion, including but not limited to the observance of any particular day or days or any portion thereof as a Sabbath or holy day or the observance of any other religious custom or usage, and the employer shall make reasonable accommodation to the religious needs of such an individual.

"Without in any way limiting the foregoing, no individual shall be required to remain at his place of employment during any days or portion thereof that, as requirement of his religion, he observes as his Sabbath or other holy day, including a reasonable time prior and subsequent thereto for travel between his place of employment and his home, provided, however, that any such absence from work shall, wherever practicable in the judgment of the employer, be made up by an equivalent amount of time at some other mutually convenient time. "(b) reasonable accommodation, as used in this subdivision, shall mean such accommodation to an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice as shall not cause undue hardship in the conduct of the employer's business.

"The employer shall have the burden of proof to such a hardship." New York City is perhaps the most racially, ethnically and religiously diverse city in the world. It is home to some 100 or so ethnic groups worshipping in the thousands of houses of worship according to the

religious canons of hundreds of differing religious denominations and sects.

It is, therefore, vital to the enjoyment of life in this great city to seek an accommodation to the free expression of each of these religious beliefs without causing deprivation to an individual.

Since the need for religious accommodations involves the fundamental constitutional right to freedom of religion, it is implicit that such a right can only be expressed if severe deprivations are not visited on those that do practice their religious beliefs through the denial of an economic opportunity.

Such a denial would work as a constraint on the exercise of such a vital constitutional right.

Therefore, the City of New York's Commission on Human Rights rejects Hardison, as applicable to most cases involving practices which would deny freedom of religious expression since Hardison involves a particular set of facts not applicable to over 80 per cent of the cases that have come before this Commission and will restrict Hardison to its facts and rest its requirements on the public policy and interests behind the laws of this City and the State of New York.

The City of New York's Commission on Human Rights will enforce accommodation requirements on employers with respect to employee's religious needs where the employer is unable to prove that such an accommodation would be disruptive to shop functions and would violate provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.

To this end the City of New York's Commission on Human Rights proposes the following:

(1) That collective bargaining units be encouraged to incorporate a religious accommodation agreement within the bargained contract; (2) That where an industry or a particular company's operating structure is such that it encompasses a seven day week that preference be given to an employee's religious needs to set work schedule unless such a preponderance of employees have an expressed need to observe the Sabbath on a particular day, that such an accommodation would work a severe disruption to the employer's operations;

(3) But where such be the case, due consideration must be given to as many employees as is feasible without resulting in such a severe disruption of the employer's operation;

(4) That where, at the time that an employer hires an employee, such an employee serves notice on such employer that such employee has a particular religious preference, that the actual hiring of such employee be construed as an expressed acceptance to accommodate such a preference;

(5) That despite the operating schedule of an industry or company, that all reasonable means be used to respect employees' rights to practice their religions, and where evidence of such is not apparent it will be considered a prima facie violation of law;

(6) That an employer must exhaust all possibilities to accommodate the religious needs of employees.

I thank you for the opportunity to present the policy and the recommendations of the City of New York's Commission on Human Rights. I will, if you wish, discuss a sampling of cases brought before this Commission.

To my left is my deputy general counsel who would also be available for questioning.

Chair NORTON: Thank you, Commissioner Ortiz.

I have a question concerning uniform services. When I was Commissioner here I recall that there were few Sabbath observers working for the fire department and the police department.

This may indicate some major prejudice or it may have to do with the nature of the uniform services. This area may be the most difficult area as Commissioner Kramarsky referred to before.

He referred to the hospitals as emergency services and in New York City there are 20 city hospitals. I don't know the effect there, but I wonder if you have any idea of what the experience of the police and fire department has been, as well as city hospitals, whether or not the City has any specific policies with respect to those specific services.

MS. ORTIZ: We are at present working and when I say we, I mean the City and myself, the Director of Personnel and the law department. Normally the corporate counsel's office will be working on an entire area of what we call the EEO opportunity package for the City of New York workers.

This, of course, will have to include, in order to comply with New York City's Human Rights Laws considerations as far as the Sabbath observer in all departments of the City, including the uniformed services.

This is currently on the boards.

Chair NORTON: Before the record is closed we would appreciate some indication from the police and fire and city hospitals as to what their specific experience has been and what their policies are and if the Commissioner on Human Rights could undertake to get the information to us and to the record because it will be very helpful to us.

Ms. ORTIZ: I will try to do that.

Commissioner LEACH: You've taken a rather strong position on this issue, a commendable position in light of Hardison.

I don't know whether it is a real world position, but perhaps you are not the appropriate witness for me to ask this of, but there is a rather substantial community of Orthodox Jews in New York and in your Commission's responsibility to enforce your law, you must, come upon employers who might suggest to the Orthodox community that in fulfilling their duties to accommodate perhaps all of their vacation time should go for time allotted for religious observance.

Now, what has been the experience on that issue? Has the employer or the employee agreed on the vacation time or is there anything being done or is there an issue?

Ms. ORTIZ: In the cases that have come before us they have varied and before I continue I have to take a strong stance because as I said in New York City we have such a variety of persons with different Sabbath observance and different religious customs and our experience has been that some employers do accommodate and not require that this be taken out of vacation time.

However, most employers do in fact require that such observance be taken from vacation time or annual leave, whatever they may call it. In some instances we have been able to work out agreements as to the employers. There is a sort of ad hoc kind of commitment on the part of an employer and it does not in fact affect others across the board.

We have not been successful in convincing employees that this kind of accommodation should not fall, and it is my belief that it should not fall, within an employee's vacation time allotment.

Chair NORTON: Thank you, Commissioner Ortiz.

Perhaps you can send us the cases you mentioned before so we can incorporate that into our record.

Ms. ORTIZ: I certainly can send them to you. We have a sampling that is quite extensive. It will give you an idea of what it is that we have. Chair NORTON: That will be very helpful to us.

I now call Arthur Stern, Director of the New York District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Mr. STERN: Good morning Madam Chair, members of the Commission and Mr. General Counsel. My name is Arthur W. Stern. I am director of EEOC's New York District Office.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to give brief testimony on the subject which brings you to this city today and to attempt to answer any questions which you might have.

While the subject of Sabbath observance and other religious accommodation in the area of employment is of great import and significance to EEOC, the impact of these issues upon the case load of the New York District Office is relatively minimal.