Equal pay for equal work

Equal pay for equal work
Bertoldi v State of New York, 275 AD2d 227; Motion to appeal denied, 96 NY2d 706; Motion to appeal on constitutional grounds denied, 95 NY2d 958

Section 115 of the Civil Service Law provides that State employees are entitled to equal pay for equal work, and regular increases in pay in proper proportion to increase of ability, increase of output and increase of equality of work demonstrated in service.

While Section 115 applies only to employees of the State of New York, in Evans v Newman, 71 AD2d 240, the Appellate Division ruled that nonjudicial court employees were to be treated consistent with the provisions of Civil Service Law Article 8, Classification and Compensation of State Employees.

The Appellate Division, First Department’s interpretation of Section 115 proved critical in resolving Bertoldi’s claim that certain trial court clerks were entitled to back salary because their positions had been improperly allocated to a lower salary grade.

The New York State Court Clerks Association and other clerks employed by the State’s Unified Court System complained that appellate court level clerk positions had been allocated to higher salary grades than trial court clerk positions. The Classification Review Board found that trial clerks and appellate clerks were essentially performing the same type of work with equivalent difficulty, and that they were therefore entitled to equal pay.

The trial clerks then sued to recover the salary differential for the approximately 14 years the appellate clerks received a higher salary. The Appellate Division rejected the trial clerks’ theory that Section 115 mandated that they be awarded such retroactive pay. The court said that:

1. The principle of equal pay for equal work need not be applied in all cases under any and all circumstances; and

2. Section 115 enunciates a policy and confers no jurisdiction on a court to enforce such policy.

The court characterized the discrepancy in pay as due to oversight or error and therefore insufficient to establish that [the trial clerks] were not provided equal pay for equal work.

Also rejected was the trial clerks’ contention that they were denied equal protection under the New York State and United States Constitutions as a result of the allocation of the two titles to different salary grades.

The court’s rationale: the decision not to award the trial clerk’s the pay differential had a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest in view of the high costs involved and the limited ability of the court system to absorb such costs within its existing budget.

Exposure to possibly suffering a permanent disability if continued in the job not persuasive for the purposes receiving disability retirement benefits

Exposure to possibly suffering a permanent disability if continued in the job not persuasive for the purposes receiving disability retirement benefits
Greenway v NYS Employees’ Retirement System, 274 AD2d 662; Motion to appeal dismissed as untimely, 95 NY2d 917

Corrections Officer Gary Greenway’s appeal of a determination by the New York State Employees’ Retirement System rejecting his application for performance of duty disability retirement appeared to present a familiar scenario: the System’s physician concluded that Greenway was not permanently disabled; Greenway’s physician came to the opposite conclusion.

However, there was a significant difference between the two opinions. The System’s medical expert’s opinion was based on his physical examination of Greenway and his review of Greenway’s medical records and diagnostic test results. In contrast, although Greenway’s medical expert concluded that he was permanently incapacitated, the court pointed out that his opinion was not based upon Greenway’s present condition but upon the possibility that Greenway might sustain a serious permanent injury in the event that he was assaulted by an inmate in the future.

The court said that in order to demonstrate his entitlement to accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits, Greenway was required to demonstrate that he currently was permanently incapacitated from the performance of his duties. This he failed to do considering the statement of his medical expert that he could be permanently disabled as the result of an assault by an inmate in the future.

Given the nature of conflicting medical opinions offered in this case, the Appellate Division concluded that it was within the Comptroller’s discretion to weigh the expert testimony in the record and to accept the opinion of one medical expert as more credible than that of the other. The court then dismissed Greenway’s appeal.

Union’s lawsuit alleging a breach of the CBA held subject to a six-year statute of limitations, not a four-month period for an Article 78 action

Union’s lawsuit alleging a breach of the CBA held subject to a six-year statute of limitations, not a four-month period for an Article 78 action
Arkport Staff United v Arkport Cent. School Dist., 2010 NY Slip Op 09745, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The Arkport Staff United claimed that members were entitled to longevity increases under Article 27 of a collective bargaining agreement between it and the Arkport Central School District.

Claiming that the union’s lawsuit was untimely, the School District asked Supreme Court to dismiss the union’s petition court in view of the four-month statute of limitations applicable to CPLR article 78 proceedings.

Supreme Court denied Arkport’s motion.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s determination, holding that the union’s action was subject to the six-year statute of limitations applicable to "breach of contract" actions rather than the four-month statute of limitations controlling filing an Article 78 action.

As the union’s “underlying claim” is an action on the contract – in this instance a collective bargaining agreement -- the Appellate Division said that its lawsuit was timely as it had been commenced “within six years of the alleged breach” of the agreement.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_09745.htm