Palagonia v. City of Newark

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Palagonia v. City of Newark

379 A.2d 488, 153 N.J. Super. 256, 1977 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1109

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedOctober 21, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 379 A.2d 488 (Palagonia v. City of Newark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Palagonia v. City of Newark, 379 A.2d 488, 153 N.J. Super. 256, 1977 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1109 (N.J. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment below essentially for the reasons expressed in the trial court’s opinion, 142 N. J. Super. 363 (Ch. Div. 1976), except as follows: We express no view as to whether the court correctly applied the “strict scrutiny” test in invalidating this particular gender-based classification as unconstitutional. For even if a less rigorous standard is used, the classification is unconstitutionally discriminatory and the conclusion reached by the court below is correct. See Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199, 97 S. Ct. 1021, 51 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1977); Kalina v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 541 F. 2d 1204 (6 Cir. 1976), aff’d by mem. op., 431 U. S. 909, 97 S. Ct. 2164, 53 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1977).

We note that the cases of Silbowitz v. Sec't of Health, Education and Welfare, 397 F. Supp. 862 (S. D. Fla. 1975), and Jablon v. Sec’t of Health, Ed. and Welfare, 399 F. Supp. 118 (D. Md. 1975), cited by the court below, have been affirmed by memorandum opinions of the United States Supreme Court. 430 U. S. 924, 97 S. Ct. 1539, 51 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1977). The appeal to the United States Supreme Court of the case of Coffin v. Sec’t of Health, Ed. and Welfare, 400 F. Supp. 953 (D. C. 1975), also relied on below, was dismissed by that court. 430 U. S. 924, 97 S. Ct. 1539, 51 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1977).

We have also considered appellants’ contention that the “benefits under the statute do not give greater benefits to a male and his widow than to a female [retired] employee.” We have concluded that it plainly is without merit, even in the light of the proofs presented as to the comparison between the benefits that would be received by the “average” female retired employee and the “average” retired male employee and his widow. Cf. Moss v. Sec’t of Health, Ed. and Welfare, 408 F. Supp. 403, 410 (D. C. M. D. Fla., 1976).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment below essentially for the reasons expressed in the trial court’s opinion, 142 N. J. Super. 363 (Ch. Div. 1976), except as follows: We express no view as to whether the court correctly applied the “strict scrutiny” test in invalidating this particular gender-based classification as unconstitutional. For even if a less rigorous standard is used, the classification is unconstitutionally discriminatory and the conclusion reached by the court below is correct. See Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U. S. 199, 97 S. Ct. 1021, 51 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1977); Kalina v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 541 F. 2d 1204 (6 Cir. 1976), aff’d by mem. op., 431 U. S. 909, 97 S. Ct. 2164, 53 L. Ed. 2d 220 (1977).

We note that the cases of Silbowitz v. Sec't of Health, Education and Welfare, 397 F. Supp. 862 (S. D. Fla. 1975), and Jablon v. Sec’t of Health, Ed. and Welfare, 399 F. Supp. 118 (D. Md. 1975), cited by the court below, have been affirmed by memorandum opinions of the United States Supreme Court. 430 U. S. 924, 97 S. Ct. 1539, 51 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1977). The appeal to the United States Supreme Court of the case of Coffin v. Sec’t of Health, Ed. and Welfare, 400 F. Supp. 953 (D. C. 1975), also relied on below, was dismissed by that court. 430 U. S. 924, 97 S. Ct. 1539, 51 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1977).

We have also considered appellants’ contention that the “benefits under the statute do not give greater benefits to a male and his widow than to a female [retired] employee.” We have concluded that it plainly is without merit, even in the light of the proofs presented as to the comparison between the benefits that would be received by the “average” female retired employee and the “average” retired male employee and his widow. Cf. Moss v. Sec’t of Health, Ed. and Welfare, 408 F. Supp. 403, 410 (D. C. M. D. Fla., 1976).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

379 A.2d 488, 153 N.J. Super. 256, 1977 N.J. Super. LEXIS 1109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palagonia-v-city-of-newark-njsuperctappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack