Dating olvet login
Under the Salary Plan, a position is evaluated using the “Hay Method” to determine salary: A Hay point value is assigned depending on the skills and talents needed to perform the job, and a minimum, midpoint, and maximum salary range for the position is established. The railroad's explanation for Barnett's higher salary is that in the 1990s it was more attractive for LIRR employees to be union workers than to be in NTSA positions governed by the Salary Plan because the unions received overtime pay and merit increases during the period of the Salary Plan wage freeze.All three office engineer positions are assigned the same number of Hay points and have the same minimum, midpoint, and maximum salaries. Under the Equal Pay Act once a plaintiff makes out a prima facie case, she need not prove a discriminatory animus on her employer's part. The LIRR therefore attempted to attract union employees to management by including overtime pay in calculating the 10 percent promotion increase given under the Salary Plan.
When the NSTA again brought the disparity to the attention of the LIRR, Rein Olvet, the Director of Labor Relations, explained that the 1986 transition of the office engineer positions to the Salary Plan, which resulted in Hughes, Fishman and Rinfret all receiving the same salary of ,936, caused the disparity. Appellant's challenge to her employer's conduct, which she alleges discriminated against her, is limited on this appeal to her claims under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII. And, a factfinder might consider further that on July 16, 1990 appellant's salary was brought up to the minimum.In 1993 the LIRR Salary Plan provided a 4 percent merit increase for all employees covered by the plan, rather than individual assessments of merit. It placed weight on the fact that the transition to the Hay method preceded Belfi's promotion to office engineer by four years.Hence, Belfi's salary was increased to ,857, and Hughes' was increased to ,240. Yet, nothing in the inequity increase policy suggests that the timing of the salary restructuring is relevant in deciding whether an employee could receive an inequity increase on this basis.Before selecting Barnett for the position of Office Engineer-Electric Traction, the railroad interviewed nine people. Second, between June 1994 and January 1995 plaintiff's salary was ,000 less than that of Gary Barnett, who was brought in as a new hire to the position Office Engineer-Electric Traction to replace Fishman, who had retired.Defendant asserts that it was necessary to pay Barnett ,249 to induce him to accept the position. We have emphasized that the trial court must be especially cautious in deciding whether to grant this drastic provisional remedy in a discrimination case, because the employer's intent is often at issue and careful scrutiny may reveal circumstantial evidence supporting an inference of discrimination. We agree with the trial court's characterization of this pay disparity as “unfortunate,” but we think such disparity may also constitute proof of pretext when the basis for the employer's decision is analyzed.