Matter of Andresen v. New York City Dept. of Personnel, 387 N.Y.S.2d 490 (1976)

Denying retroactive salary benefits to police lieutenants based solely on their participation (or lack thereof) in a prior legal stipulation, when all lieutenants were promoted from the same examination, violates equal protection guarantees if the classification isn’t reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective.

Summary

Police officers who passed a promotion exam and were later appointed as lieutenants sued the City of New York, alleging a violation of equal protection. Some lieutenants (the "Amendola petitioners") received retroactive salary increments due to a stipulation in a separate lawsuit challenging the exam’s validity. The petitioners, who were not part of the Amendola lawsuit, argued that denying them the same retroactive benefits was unconstitutional. The court agreed, holding that the classification based on participation in the stipulation was arbitrary and not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, such as fiscal responsibility.

Facts

A promotional exam was administered for positions as police lieutenant. After the exam was graded, some candidates (the Amendola petitioners) challenged the validity of certain answers in a lawsuit. To avoid a stay on establishing the eligible list, the City stipulated that if the Amendola petitioners prevailed, they would receive retroactive appointment dates for seniority purposes, including salary increments, but excluding back pay. The Amendola petitioners were successful, and the eligible list was revised, with some candidates moving up in ranking. The City, on its own initiative, rerated all candidates’ exams. While all candidates received retroactive appointment dates for future promotion purposes, only the Amendola petitioners received retroactive salary increments.

Procedural History

The petitioners, who were not part of the Amendola lawsuit, commenced an action seeking a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to the same retroactive salary increments as the Amendola petitioners, arguing a violation of equal protection. The lower court ruled against the petitioners. This appeal followed.

Issue(s)

Whether the City’s denial of retroactive annual salary increments to police lieutenants, who were not part of the Amendola stipulation, while granting such benefits to lieutenants who were part of the stipulation, violates the equal protection clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions.

Holding

Yes, because classifying lieutenants based on participation in the Amendola stipulation, for the purpose of granting retroactive salary increments, lacks a reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental objective, thus violating equal protection.

Court’s Reasoning

The court applied the traditional equal protection test, asking whether the classification was rationally related to a valid state objective. The City’s purported objective was fiscal responsibility. However, the court found that classifying lieutenants based on their participation in the Amendola stipulation had no reasonable relationship to this objective. The court reasoned that the need for retroactive benefits stemmed from the faulty grading of the initial examination, which affected all candidates, not just those who participated in the lawsuit. As the court stated, “Since the granting of all the retroactive benefits in question is based upon the initial faulty grading, any reasonable differentiation would be expected to be by a classification based on whether injury was incurred as a result of participation in the examination. Instead the classification here is based on participation in the stipulation, a factor which has no significant relation either to the cost burden placed upon the City, or the reason for granting the benefit.” The court emphasized that the City already voluntarily granted retroactive appointment dates for promotion purposes to all candidates, recognizing the unfairness of the initial grading. Therefore, denying only the salary increments based on participation in the stipulation was arbitrary and violated equal protection. The court quoted Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346, 362 (1970) stating that equal protection is denied when the challenged classification rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of a valid state objective.”