There are several processes that go into manufacturing leather, including one called beaming. Since 1981, Androme has been involved in the leather manufacturing process but has not engaged in beaming activity. Another facility in the area, JFB, has been involved with beaming since 1968. In 1988 the district in which both Androme and JFB is located was re-zoned as “M-1.” This resulted in the facilities in the area not being permitted to process leather, including beaming. Facilities that were already involved in the process however were permitted to continue. In October of 2000, Androme submitted a permit to the City in order to be allowed to add the beaming process to their facility. Their permit was denied as well as their appeal to the zoning board. Androme alleged that by denying their permit to beam but still allowing the JFB plant to continue their beaming process violated their equal protection rights under the 14th amendment because it treated Androme differently from other similarly situated individuals.
The Court first addressed the issue of whether or not Androme and JFB have a high degree of similarity. The Court concluded that they did not. Unlike JFB, Androme has never engaged in the beaming prior to the re-zoning. As a result, the process in which the two companies go about applying/reapplying for the permit is different. Specifically, Androme needs to seek approval from the zoning board since the use is not allowed in the district, whereas JFB does not because they are a grandfathered in nonconforming use. Further the Court noted that there is no evidence that financial records of the two companies are similar. Androme also failed to introduce evidence that they were treated differently than JFB,a nd they failed to introduce sufficient evidence to show that the zoning board acted irrationally with no legitimate reason for its decision. Therefore the federal district court dismissed the Equal Protection Clause claim.
Androme Leather Corporation v Gloversville , 2010 WL 199718 (N.D.N.Y. 1/14/10)
