Equal pay for equal work

To contact us Click HERE

Equal pay for equal work
Subway Surface Supervisors Assn. v New York City Tr. Auth., 2013 NY SlipOp 00276, Appellate Division, First Department
In deciding this appeal, the Appellate Division, in a threeto two decision, said that Civil Service Law §115 codifies a critical publicpolicy, which is that, "to attract unusual merit and ability to theservice of the state of New York, to stimulate higher efficiency among thepersonnel, to provide skilled leadership in administrative departments, to rewardmerit and to insure to the people and the taxpayers of the state of New Yorkthe highest return in services for the necessary costs of government,"there should be "equal pay for equal work, and regular increases in pay inproper proportion to increase of ability, increase of output and increase ofequality of work demonstrated in service."
In Bertoldi v State of New York, 275 AD2d 227, the AppellateDivision, First Department, stated that "[t]he principle of equal pay forequal work need not be applied in all cases under any and allcircumstances." The clear implication of that statement, said the court,is that there are circumstances in which the principle of equal pay for equalwork must be applied and that “this Court has the power to apply it.”
Further, the Appellate Division explained, “The mere factthat there are no reported cases in which a court has exercised such power doesnot mean that courts do not have that power.”
While case law establishes that a court need not presumethat a disparity in pay is violative of §115, the Appellate Division said acourt nevertheless may correct the disparity where "there is palpablediscrimination or arbitrary action detrimental to the individual orclass," citing Beer v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 83 NYS2d 485.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_00276.htm