{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0005-314651",
  "citation": "Res. 00142-2022 Sala Segunda de la Corte",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "No procede reajuste de incentivo de riesgo de seguridad al riesgo policial",
  "title_en": "Adjustment of security risk incentive to police risk denied",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Segunda de la Corte resuelve una demanda ordinaria laboral presentada por funcionarios de la Policía Penitenciaria que pretendían que el monto del incentivo por riesgo de seguridad y vigilancia que perciben se reajustara para equipararlo al incentivo por riesgo policial que reciben otros cuerpos policiales. Los actores alegaban una supuesta discriminación salarial. La Sala rechaza la pretensión, señalando que existe una norma expresa que regula el incentivo de riesgo de seguridad y vigilancia, así como un pronunciamiento previo de la Sala Constitucional que, al analizar el principio de igualdad, no encontró distinción alguna que justificara el reajuste solicitado. La decisión se basa en que ya se les retribuye el riesgo al que están expuestos mediante el incentivo específico de seguridad y vigilancia, y que no se configura un trato discriminatorio que vulnere el principio de igualdad salarial, por lo que no es procedente modificar el monto conforme a lo pedido en la acción.",
  "summary_en": "The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court resolved an ordinary labor lawsuit filed by Penitentiary Police officers who sought to have the amount of the security and surveillance risk incentive they receive adjusted to match the police risk incentive paid to other police forces. The plaintiffs alleged wage discrimination. The Chamber rejected the claim, noting that there is an express norm regulating the security and surveillance risk incentive, as well as a prior pronouncement of the Constitutional Chamber which, when analyzing the principle of equality, found no distinction that would justify the requested adjustment. The decision is based on the fact that they are already compensated for the risk to which they are exposed through the specific security and surveillance incentive, and that no discriminatory treatment violating the principle of wage equality is configured, so it is not appropriate to modify the amount as requested in the action.",
  "court_or_agency": "Sala Segunda de la Corte",
  "date": "2022",
  "year": "2022",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "incentivo de riesgo",
    "sobresueldo",
    "Policía Penitenciaria",
    "Ley General de Policía",
    "principio de igualdad salarial",
    "riesgo de seguridad y vigilancia"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Art. 6",
      "law": "Ley General de Policía"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 39",
      "law": "Ley General de Policía"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 90",
      "law": "Ley General de Policía"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 91",
      "law": "Ley General de Policía"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 1",
      "law": "Ley 7884"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 3",
      "law": "Ley 7884"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "incentivo de riesgo",
    "riesgo policial",
    "riesgo de seguridad y vigilancia",
    "policía penitenciaria",
    "igualdad salarial",
    "no discriminación",
    "sobresueldo",
    "Ley General de Policía"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "risk incentive",
    "police risk",
    "security and surveillance risk",
    "penitentiary police",
    "wage equality",
    "non-discrimination",
    "salary supplement",
    "General Police Law"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "Si a los actores ya se les paga el riesgo al que se exponen con el incentivo de Riesgo de Seguridad y Vigilancia, eso es lo importante y ninguna discriminación se les hace con lo que reciben al efecto, sin que pueda accederse a la pretensión planteada en la acción, pues existe una norma expresa, así como un pronunciamiento de la Sala Constitucional que en el análisis de igualdad no hizo distinción alguna en lo que ahora se conoce.",
  "excerpt_en": "If the plaintiffs are already paid the risk to which they are exposed through the Security and Surveillance Risk incentive, that is what matters and no discrimination is made against them with what they receive for that purpose, without being able to grant the claim raised in the action, since there is an express norm, as well as a pronouncement of the Constitutional Chamber that in the equality analysis made no distinction whatsoever in what is now known.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Denied",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The lawsuit seeking to adjust the security and surveillance risk incentive to the amount of the police risk incentive is dismissed, as no discrimination exists.",
    "summary_es": "Se declara sin lugar la demanda que pretendía reajustar el incentivo por riesgo de seguridad y vigilancia al monto del riesgo policial, al no existir discriminación."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando único",
      "quote_en": "If the plaintiffs are already paid the risk to which they are exposed through the Security and Surveillance Risk incentive, that is what matters and no discrimination is made against them with what they receive for that purpose.",
      "quote_es": "Si a los actores ya se les paga el riesgo al que se exponen con el incentivo de Riesgo de Seguridad y Vigilancia, eso es lo importante y ninguna discriminación se les hace con lo que reciben al efecto."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando único",
      "quote_en": "...there is an express norm, as well as a pronouncement of the Constitutional Chamber that in the equality analysis made no distinction whatsoever in what is now known.",
      "quote_es": "...existe una norma expresa, así como un pronunciamiento de la Sala Constitucional que en el análisis de igualdad no hizo distinción alguna en lo que ahora se conoce."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0005-314651",
  "tier": 2,
  "_editorial_citation_count": 0,
  "regulations_by_article": null,
  "amendments_by_article": null,
  "dictamen_by_article": null,
  "concordancias_by_article": null,
  "afectaciones_by_article": null,
  "resoluciones_by_article": null,
  "cited_by_votos": [],
  "cited_norms": [],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-1511",
      "norm_num": "6966",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Presupuesto Extraordinario",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "28/09/1984"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-17048",
      "norm_num": "7040",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Presupuesto Extraordinario",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "25/04/1986"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "norm_num": "7410",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Policía",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "26/05/1994"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "NO PROCEDE REAJUSTAR\nEL MONTO OTORGADO POR INCENTIVO DE RIESGO DE SEGURIDAD Y VIGILANCIA AL\nCORRESPONDIENTE POR RIESGO POLICIAL. Si\na los actores ya se les paga el riesgo al que se exponen con el incentivo de Riesgo de Seguridad y Vigilancia, eso es lo importante y ninguna discriminación\nse les hace con lo que reciben al efecto, sin que pueda accederse a la\npretensión planteada en la acción, pues existe una norma expresa, así como un\npronunciamiento de la Sala Constitucional que en el análisis de igualdad no\nhizo distinción alguna en lo que ahora se conoce. [142-22]",
  "body_en_text": "IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO READJUST THE AMOUNT GRANTED FOR THE SECURITY AND SURVEILLANCE RISK INCENTIVE (INCENTIVO DE RIESGO DE SEGURIDAD Y VIGILANCIA) TO THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT FOR POLICE RISK (RIESGO POLICIAL). If the plaintiffs are already being paid for the risk to which they are exposed through the Security and Surveillance Risk incentive, that is what matters, and no discrimination is being made against them with what they receive for that purpose, nor can the claim brought in the action be granted, since there is an express rule, as well as a ruling from the Sala Constitucional which, in its equality analysis, made no distinction whatsoever regarding what is now known. [142-22]"
}