Establishing affirmative defenses to alleged pay-discrimination claims brought pursuant to Federal and New York State laws

In ANITA EISENHAUER v. CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, [21-2919-cv], decided October 17, 2023, United States Circuit Court [Second Circuit] Judge JOSÉ A. CABRANES introduced the court's majority decision* as follows:

"This case presents the questions of what a defendant must prove to establish affirmative defenses to pay-discrimination claims under federal and state laws: the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. §206(d), and New York Labor Law §194(1). 

"Plaintiff Anita Eisenhauer alleges that defendant Culinary Institute of America violated these equal-pay laws by compensating her less than a male colleague. 

"The Culinary Institute responds that a 'factor other than sex' — its sex-neutral compensation plan, which incorporates a collective bargaining agreement — justifies the pay disparity. 

"Eisenhauer argues that the compensation plan cannot qualify as a 'factor other than sex' because it creates a pay disparity unconnected to differences between her job and her colleague’s job."

* CHIEF JUDGE DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON concurred in the judgment in part and filed a separate opinion.

Click HERE to read more.

 

 

Determinations by certain other entities not binding on a retirement system's medical board if the medical board's decision is supported by substantial evidence

Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition to annul Medical Board's determination rejecting Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement [ADR] benefits and dismissed the proceeding Petitioner brought pursuant to CPLR Article 78. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling, without costs.

The Appellate Division opined "Petitioner has not shown that [the Medical Board's] determination to deny her application for ADR benefits was arbitrary and capricious or made in violation of lawful procedure", citing Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund, 90 NY2d 139.

The court explained the evidence submitted at the hearing included the Medical Board's physical examination of Petitioner and its exhaustive review of the conflicting medical evidence from examining physicians, as well as Petitioner's acknowledgment that she could, without assistance, "perform daily life activities such as bathing, dressing, and walking." The Appellate Division's decision also noted "the Medical Board concluded that [Petitioner] did not complain of pain in her back, neck, and extremities when she went to the emergency room immediately after the accident underlying her request for ADR benefits, and that her various orthopedic problems were part of a normal degenerative process in a middle-aged person."

The Appellate Division's opinion noted that the Medical Board's determination conflicted with the finding of the Social Security Administration that awarded Petitioner disability benefits and Petitioner acknowledged "the finding of the Social Security Administration is not binding on the Medical Board [see Matter of Fusco, 136 AD3d at 451]".

Similarly, public safety officers and firefighters who have been deemed as suffering an occupational injury or disease within the meaning of the Worker's Compensation Law are sometimes disappointed to find that decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board have no bearing on their eligibility for other benefits such as accidental retirement benefits or General Municipal Law §207-a or §207-c benefits. For example, in Balcerak v County of Nassau, 94 NY2d 253, the Court of Appeals ruled that entitlement to benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law and General Municipal Law §207-c are discrete and entirely independent of one another. 

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

 ===============

Disability benefits for New York State and municipal employees

A 1098 page e-book focusing on administering the Retirement and Social Security Law, General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and similar laws providing disability benefits to employees of the State of New York and its political subdivisions. 

For more information and access to a free excerpt of the material presented in this NYPPL e-book, click on http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html.

 

The "Pell doctrine" applied in judicial review of the penalty imposed on a public employee found guilty of disciplinary charges

The determination of appointing authority [Employer] terminating Petitioner's employment based on the report and recommendation of an Administrative Law Judge following a disciplinary hearing was unanimously confirmed by the Appellate Division.

The court noted that "Substantial evidence supports [the Employer's] determination that Petitioner violated Department directives and procedures concerning the retrieval of inmate property, engaged in undue familiarity with an inmate, failed to submit a required unusual incident report, used excessive force against an inmate, and made false and misleading statements."

Under the circumstances, the Appellate Division opined that "The penalty of termination of petitioner's employment does not shock one's sense of fairness", citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, among other decisions.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

=============

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty - for information and access to a free excerpt of the material presented in this 442 page NYPPL e-book, click HERE.