Mize v. State Division of Human Rights
| Decision Date | 25 February 1972 |
| Citation | 328 N.Y.S.2d 983,38 A.D.2d 278 |
| Parties | , 9 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 732, 20 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 527, 4 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7762, 68 Lab.Cas. P 52,798 Florence MIZE et al., Petitioners, v. STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Heller & Ramm, Buffalo, for petitioners (Edward Heller, Buffalo, of counsel).
Anthony Manguso, Corporation Counsel, Buffalo, for City of Buffalo, respondent (James J. McLoughlin, Buffalo, of counsel).
McMahon & Crotty, Buffalo, for Police Benevolent Assn., respondent (Thomas P. McMahon, Buffalo, of counsel).
Henry Spitz, New York City, for State Div. of Human Rights, respondent.
Before MARSH, J.P., and WITMER, GABRIELLI, MOULE and CARDAMONE, JJ.
Petitioners are women employed by the City of Buffalo to guard prisoners in the female cell block at police headquarters. In this proceeding, they seek review and reversal of an order of the Human Rights Appeal Board which reversed an order of the Commissioner of Human Rights and dismissed their complaints against the City of Buffalo (City) and the Police Benevolent Association (PBA). In their complaints, they alleged that they performed the same duties as patrolmen assigned as guards in the male cell block, but that a contract entered between the City and the Erie Club, the predecessor of the PBA, provided that they would receive $2,000 a year less than the men.
The issues presented are whether the City or the PBA denied petitioners equal pay for equal work and, if so, whether the matrons are entitled to back pay.
A hearing was held before a Hearing Examiner for the State Division of Human Rights. The record discloses that the City employs 1,224 patrolmen, 16 policewomen, and 6 matrons. The primary function of the matrons is the custodial care of prisoners in the female cell block at Police Headquarters. Any woman arrested in the City of Buffalo, regardless of the charge, is brought to the female cell block at Police Headquarters. When a female prisoner is brought in, she is 'frisked' by the matron for weapons and then taken to a cell where her clothes and person are searched. The prisoner is then locked up and a record made of her belongings. A record is also made of the name of the prisoner, date of birth, address, arresting officer, the charge, the time of entry, the cell number, and the name of the officer who brought the prisoner in. In felony cases, the matron also escorts the prisoner to the male cell block for photographing and fingerprinting.
There is no separate civil service classification for guards in the male cell block at Police Headquarters. These duties are performed by 8 patrolmen who are referred to as 'turnkeys'. There was uncontradicted testimony at the hearing that the matrons performed the same duties as turnkeys except that the turnkeys made out the court sheets for the male and female prisoners. A high school education is required for patrolmen and policewomen, and the examinations are comparable in content. Only a grade school education is required for the position of matron. However, no matron's examination has been given since 1955 and all matrons appointed since 1959 were taken from the list of those eligible for appointment as policewomen.
On September 10, 1968 a contract was entered into between the City of Buffalo and the Erie Club, which provided for a salary range of $7,015.00 to $9,225.00 for patrolmen and policewomen, and $5,785.00 to $7,225.00 for matrons.
The Commissioner found that matrons and turnkeys were counterpart positions, that there was no requirement that turnkeys be patrolmen, and that during the course of their respective employment, the matrons performed substantially the same duties and had substantially the same responsibilities as the turnkeys. He concluded that the performance of duties and not the turnkeys' status as patrolmen should be the determining factor, and that, since the matrons received less pay than the turnkeys, the City and the PBA discriminated against them because of their sex. He ordered the City and the PBA to cease and desist from their discriminatory practices and to pay back wages from August 5, 1968, the effective date of the contract. The Appeal Board held that the findings of the Commissioner were not supported by substantial evidence and that his order was arbitrary, capricious and an unreasonable abuse of discretion, and it dismissed the complaints.
The basis for the Appeal Board's reversal was that the duties of matrons did not encompass the scope of duties of patrolmen and, since turnkeys remained patrolmen at all times and were subject to reassignment, the matrons were not entitled to equal pay.
Section 194 of the Labor Law provides in part:
'No employee shall be paid a wage at a rate less than the rate at which an employee of the opposite sex in the same establishment is paid for equal work on a job the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility * * *'
Section 296 of the Executive Law provides in part:
'1. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
(a) For an employer, because of the age, race, creed, color, national origin or sex of any individual, * * * to discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment. * * *
(c) For a labor organization, because of the age, race, creed, color or national origin or sex of any individual, * * * to discriminate in any way against any of its members * * *'
The key issue is, what is a 'job' for purposes of application of the equal pay standard. There is no New York case in point, but under federal law, actual performance is the determining factor. The federal statute on equal pay for equal work (Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)) is virtually identical to the New York statute, and the regulations of the U.S. Department of Labor provide that:
'Application of the equal pay standard is not dependent upon job...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arizona Civil Rights Division, Dept. of Law v. Olson
...Ins. Co., 449 F.Supp. 397 (W.D.Pa.1978); U. S. v. City of Milwaukee, 441 F.Supp. 1371 (E.D.Wis.1977); Mize v. State Div. of Human Rights, 38 A.D.2d 278, 328 N.Y.S.2d 983 (1972), relevant part aff'd but for back pay, 31 N.Y.2d 1032, 342 N.Y.S.2d 65, 294 N.E.2d 851, modified to award back pay......
-
State Division of Human Rights v. Syracuse City Teachers Ass'n, Inc.
...of boys' and girls' teams did not perform equal work and they were not, therefore, entitled to equal pay (cf. Mize v. State Div. of Human Rights, 38 A.D.2d 278, 328 N.Y.S.2d 983, affd. 31 N.Y.2d 1032, 342 N.Y.S.2d 65, 294 N.E.2d 851). Complainants undertook similar duties, in a similar spor......
-
Berni v. Leonard
...of 1964 (U.S.Code, tit. 42, § 2000e--2(a)) and the requirements of that section apply to police departments (Mize v. State Div. of Human Rights, 38 A.D.2d 278, 328 N.Y.S.2d 983). The exception in the Executive Law (§ 296, subd. 1, par. (d)) and in the Civil Service Law (§ 50, subd. 7) permi......
-
Town of West Hartford v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
...Veeder-Root Co. v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 165 Conn. 318, 334 A.2d 443 (1973); Mize v. State Division of Human Rights, 38 App.Div.2d 278, 328 N.Y.S.2d 983 (1972), affirmed, 31 N.Y.2d 1032, 342 N.Y.S.2d 65, 294 N.E.2d 851 (1973), modified, 33 N.Y.2d 53, 349 N.Y.S.2d 364, ......