Opinion
September 17, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.)
Plaintiffs are public assistance recipients of either home relief ( see, Social Services Law § 158) or aid to families with dependent children ([ADC] see, Social Services Law § 349 [A]) who have been required by New York City Department of Social Services to participate in its Work Experience Program (WEP). The WEP in its present form commenced in 1995, when eligible home relief recipients were required to accept work assignments, most for 90 days or less. ADC recipients were brought into the program in 1996. ADC participants, who are provided child care during work assignments, are limited to six months of participation for no more than 20 hours per week, unless the goal of full-time employment is achieved in the interim. Plaintiffs are paid minimum wage for tasks that generally involve office clerical work, maintenance and community services. Plaintiffs' main contention is that the nature of the tasks to which they are assigned effectively makes them City employees and that, as such, they are entitled to equivalent wages and benefits. Denying them compensation equivalent to comparable City employees, they argue, results in several statutory and constitutional violations. The City does not deny that WEP participants are not paid the prevailing rate for City employees performing similar tasks, but does deny that WEP participants are, or were ever meant to be, "employees" performing regular work in a regular manner, and that the nature of their participation renders them eligible for prevailing rates of compensation.
Initially, plaintiffs cannot claim the benefit of New York State Constitution article I (§ 17), which extends prevailing wage protection only to employees of contractors and subcontractors performing public work, categories into which plaintiffs clearly do not fit ( Matter of Corrigan v. Joseph, 304 N.Y. 172, rearg denied 304 N.Y. 759, cert denied sub nom. Remelius v. Joseph, 345 U.S. 924). Plaintiffs are not performing public work regardless whether a public purpose is being served ( Varsity Tr. v. Saporita, 71 A.D.2d 643, and 48 N.Y.2d 767). Moreover, there is a historical recognition that public assistance recipients performing tasks in exchange for benefits are not public employees ( Matter of Social Investigator Eligibles Assn. v. Taylor, 268 N.Y. 233; Matter of Ballentine v. Sugarman, 74 Misc.2d 267, 270, affd in part sub nom. Gotbaum v. Lindsay, 43 A.D.2d 815, mot to dismiss appeal granted 34 N.Y.2d 667). Plaintiffs' reliance on Social Services Law § 164, now repealed (L 1997, ch 436, § 1, part B, § 147-a), to equate their tasks with "public work" and to demand comparable wages for such is unavailing. Rather, current State law authorizing the payment of minimum wage for WEP participants (Social Services Law § 336-c [b]) governs, and we find no basis to find this statute constitutionally infirm. Since labor is not a property right, there can be no unconstitutional taking ( Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 333) resulting from wage restrictions. Nor is there any merit to plaintiffs' equal-protection claim, insofar as there is a rational distinction ( see, Goodwin v. Perales, 88 N.Y.2d 383) between qualifying public employees selected from civil service lists or by provisional hiring, and WEP participants selected solely, and temporarily, to help them enter the work place.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
[ See, 174 Misc.2d 26.]