Additional duties to incumbents of certain positions may serve as a rational basis for their allocation to different salary grades despite some overlap of duties
Cribbin v New York State Unified Ct. Sys., 2013 NY Slip Op 01548, Appellate Division, Second Department
Patrick Cribbin file an Article 78 petition seeking an order compelling the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New York to reclassify an certain New York State Court Officer-Major I (Judicial Grade-26) employees to the title of New York State Court Officer-Major II (Judicial Grade-28).
The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court ruling that granted the petition [as amended] and remitted the matter to the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New York for further proceedings.
The court said that when a position classification decision is made "[t]he courts have the power to reverse or modify a particular classification . . . [only] if it is wholly arbitrary or without any rational basis," citing Association of Secretaries to Justices of Supreme and Surrogate's Courts in the City of New York. v Office of Court Administration of the State of New York., 75 NY2d 460 and other decisions.
The Appellate Division explained that “So long as the classification determination has a rational basis, a court may not disturb it even if there are legitimate grounds for a difference of opinion.”
As the record established a rational basis for the distinction between the positions of Major I and Major II, even though there was some overlap in duties, the court concluded that the additional managerial duties assigned incumbents of Major II positions provided a rational basis for distinguishing between the two positions.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_01548.htm