"Equal Pay for Equal Work": Is the Policy Set Forth in Civil Service Law Section 115 Enforceable in Court?
February 18, 2013
Civil Service Law Section 115, entitled "Policy of the state," provides that "it is hereby declared to be the policy of the state to provide equal pay for equal work, and regular increases in pay in proper proportion to increase of ability, increase of output and increase of quality of work demonstrated in service." Is this "policy" enforceable in court? That depends upon which court you ask.
In 2007, in Matter of Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State of New York Unified Court System, the Third Department Appellate Division cited prior court decisions and stated that "the courts have repeatedly held that [Civil Service Law Section 115] merely enunciates a policy and confers no jurisdiction on a court to enforce such policy." (emphasis in original).
However, on January 22, 2013, the First Department Appellate Division held otherwise. A divided Court held, in Subway Surface Supervisors Association v. New York City Transit Authority, that: (1) there is no impediment to judicial enforcement of Civil Service Law Section 115; and (2) the fact that a union negotiated a salary schedule does not preclude the union from challenging that salary schedule under Civil Service Law Section 115.
The NYC Transit Authority case involved the Transit Authority's Station Supervisor title, which has two assignment levels (SS-I and SS-II). The skill and testing requirements for the positions are the same; however, the functions and duties of each position are different. Thus, the SS-II position has always been better compensated. Each assignment level is represented by a different union, and each union negotiated a multi-year collective bargaining agreement covering the wages and benefits of the positions within its bargaining unit.
The union representing the employees in the SS-I position alleged that the Transit Authority had shifted work over time between the assignment levels, to the point where there was no significant distinction between the work performed by the employees at each level. The union filed a lawsuit against the Transit Authority demanding "equal pay for equal work" under Civil Service Law Section 115, as well as the State and Federal Constitutions.
The Transit Authority filed a motion to dismiss the claims, arguing that the union should be estopped from challenging salary levels that it had negotiated. The Transit Authority also argued that the union's claims related to terms and conditions of employment required to be negotiated in good faith through collective bargaining under the Taylor Law, and that the claims therefore fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Employment Relations Board.
Affirming the lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss, the First Department majority wrote that "the issue here is not whether the union negotiated an unfavorable deal but whether the [Transit Authority] has violated public policy. Such disputes are amenable to review by the courts." The majority also rejected the Third Department's 2007 opinion that the courts do not have jurisdiction to enforce Civil Service Law Section 115.
The dissent agreed with the Third Department, and rejected the notion that a union could assert a viable equal protection claim after negotiating a salary schedule through collective bargaining. The dissent also noted that Civil Service Law Section 115 not only stated a policy of "equal pay for equal work," but also a policy of regular pay increases based on ability, output, and quality. The dissent pointed out that the majority's reasoning would essentially create a cause of action in court based on allegations that an employee had not received regular pay increases, which could not have been intended by the Legislature in stating this policy.
The First Department's recent decision creates a split in the appellate courts regarding the enforceability of the policy enunciated in Civil Service Law Section 115. It remains to be seen whether the Court of Appeals will be asked to resolve this issue.
