Gambardella v. County of Nassau

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: Before BALLETTA
• Citation: Gambardella v. County of Nassau, 562 N.Y.S.2d 709, 168 A.D.2d 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
• Decision Date: 03 December 1990
• Parties: Carol GAMBARDELLA, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., Respondents.

Page 709

562 N.Y.S.2d 709

168 A.D.2d 421

Carol GAMBARDELLA, et al., Appellants, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

Dec. 3, 1990.

Johnson & Horn, Mineola (Steven M. Critelli, of counsel), for appellants.

Robert W. Schmidt, County Atty., Mineola (Barbara-Anne Roberto and Ernest D'Angelo of counsel), for respondent County of Nassau.

Nancy E. Hoffman, Albany (Marilyn S. Dymond, of counsel), for respondent Nassau County Chapter Civ. Service Employees' Ass'n, Inc.

Before BALLETTA, J.P., and MILLER, O'BRIEN and RITTER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring a supplemental agreement dated September 25, 1980, to a collective bargaining agreement between the defendants Nassau County Chapter of the Civil Service Employees' Association, Inc., and the County of Nassau, for the period from January 1, 1979, to December 31, 1981, unconstitutional as violative, inter alia, of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated June 23, 1989, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in their favor.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring the challenged supplemental agreement constitutional.

The plaintiffs, two X-ray technicians employed by the Nassau County Department of Health (hereinafter the Health Department) and stationed at Nassau County Health Centers, commenced the instant action seeking a judgment declaring that a salary increase awarded to X-ray technicians stationed at the Nassau County Medical Center (hereinafter the Medical Center) but not to them, applies to them as well, or in the alternative, for a declaration that such a salary increase is illegal, null and void, as violative of the Equal Protection Clause (see, U.S. Const., 14th Amend.).

Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between Nassau County and the Nassau County Chapter of the Civil Service Employees' Association, Inc. (hereinafter the CSEA), the parties executed the challenged supplemental agreement, inter alia, which deleted a provision of the existing collective bargaining agreement that required the Medical Center X-ray technicians to work five hours of overtime per week at an overtime rate of pay. In exchange, the Medical Center X-ray technicians received a salary increase to compensate them for their loss of mandatory overtime. The plaintiffs, who do not work at the Medical Center but who instead perform duties at other Nassau County Health Centers, did not receive a similar salary increase.

The plaintiffs alleged that all X-ray technicians, whether at the Medical Center or at the Health Department, have equal capabilities and qualifications. However, the record clearly indicates that the duties and responsibilities performed by the Medical Center X-ray technicians were more complicated, sophisticated, broader, and differed materially from the duties and responsibilities of the X-ray technicians employed at Nassau County Health Centers. In addition, the Nassau County Medical Center X-ray technicians were required to be available and willing to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whereas the Health Center X-ray technicians were required to work only five days a week at regularly scheduled hours. The standard work week for the Medical Center X-ray technicians was 40 hours with five of those hours being compensated at the overtime rate. The standard work week for the Health Center X-ray technicians was 33 3/4 hours.

In the absence of a classification affecting fundamental rights or constituting a so-called suspect classification, which must be invalidated unless justified by some compelling State interest, the Equal Protection Clause requires only that a classification which results in unequal treatment rationally further some legitimate, articulated State interest or objective (see, Matter of Doe v. Coughlin, 71 N.Y.2d 48, 523 N.Y.S.2d 782, 518 N.E.2d 536, cert. denied ...