Enacts the New York state equal pay act requiring equal pay for certain male and female employees

Summary of provisions

Section 1 of this bill would amend the definition of employer to include governmental entities.

Section 2 of this bill would make the determination as whether an occupation is predominantly of one sex versus the other an issue of fact. A simple majority would be the only minimum qualification for the purposes of deciding whether a group of employees is actually predominated by a certain gender.

Section 3 of this bill allows a suit to be brought either by an individual or a representative organization.

Section 4: Sets forth effective dates

Justification

Despite the enactment of the federal Equal Pay Act and the state Equal Pay Law in 1963 and 1966 respectively there are still incidences of discrimination in pay based on sex. In the state of New York those who are being discriminated against by a public employer are forced to seek redress in the federal courts because governmental agencies are exempted under state law.

In 1960, the legislature repealed the exemption of the law applicable to domestic workers, farm workers and those employed at not for profit corporations and associations, This change was made despite the fact that federal law at the time provided general coverage for all 3 categories of these workers. The availability of a federal remedy did not stop the state legislature from removing these exemptions from the statute. However, the exemption that continued to survive was that exempting governmental bodies from the law's applicability. So, thirty years later we still have a situation where public sector workers have no legal redress for sex-based pay differentials in our state courts.

Government employers are no better than private actors when it comes to discrimination in pay based on gender. As it stands, the New York Equal Pay Law may be useless hi one of the most important women's equal pay act cases presently being litigated in the United In Andrews et al v. City of New York (Case No. io-C1V-2426 (SETS) (MD) SDNY), female School Safety Agents (SSA) were compelled to file suit in federal court against the City of New York because they were barred from doing so in state court. They are currently fighting at least a $7000 differential in pay between their title and that of the male-dominated Special Officers who virtually perform the same job. Even at the federal level there is no guarantee that they will be

allowed to present their case to a jury despite the fact that the SSA title is 70% female and the Special Officer title is 66% male.

A common defense in these types of cases is for employers to claim that there is no real discrimination because the lower paid title has at least some members of the opposite sex. The employer in Schulte v. State of New York, 353 F. Supp 31 (EDNY, 1991) was able to convince a judge to rule against a group of women in a job title that was 715 female versus a similar title that was 675 male. The judge found that because there was such a substantial representation of the minority sex within each job, even if they performed identical work the fact that they were paid different salaries did not establish discrimination. These women never got a chance to present their case to a jury.

This bill would not only allow governmental entities to be sued in state court for gender-based pay discrimination but it would also allow a jury to decide on its own whether similar job titles are predominated by the opposite sex.

Legislative history

New bill.

Fiscal implications

Only those costs normally associated with defending against any lawsuit which can already be filed in federal court. Whether an additional venue for plaintiffs will increase costs would he difficult to quantify or determine.

Effective date

Thirty days after enactment.