A public employee’s speech as a citizen rather than as an employee protected by the First Amendment

A public employee’s speech as a citizen rather than as an employee protected by the First Amendment

Matthews v City of New York, USCA, 2^nd Circuit, Civ. 13-2915

New York City Police Officer Craig Matthews sued the City of New York alleging that the City had retaliated against him for speaking to his commanding officers about an arrest quota policy at his precinct.*

A United States District Court judge granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Matthews had spoken as a public employee and not as a citizen and thus his speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

Citing Cox v Warwick Valley Central School District, 654 F3d 267, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said that the test it applied in cases in which a plaintiff asserts a First Amendment retaliation claim requires the plaintiff to establish that:

(1) his or her speech or conduct was protected by the First Amendment;

(2) the defendant took an adverse action against him or her; and

(3) there was a causal connection between this adverse action and the protected speech.

The Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s ruling, explaining that “because Matthews’s [sic] comments on precinct policy did not fall within his official duties and because he elected a channel with a civilian analogue to pursue his complaint, he spoke as a citizen.” The court then remanded the matter for further proceeding “consistent with this opinion.”

* Although not relevant to this appeal, which was limited to the narrow question of whether Matthews spoke as a citizen or as a public employee, the alleged acts of retaliation consisted of “punitive assignments, denial of overtime and leave, separation from his career-long partner, humiliating treatment by supervisors, and negative performance evaluations.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/94c58cb0-319d-4fa2-8743-a6327b4f46f0/1/doc/13-2915_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.usc

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on February 26, 2015

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on February 26, 2015

Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full report

On February 26, 2015 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the following audits have been issued: 

Department of Health (DOH): Medicaid Program: Medicaid Claims Processing Activity April 1, 2013 Through September 30, 2013 (2013-S-12)
DOH’s eMedNY computer system processes Medicaid claims submitted by providers for services rendered to Medicaid-eligible recipients, and it generates payments to reimburse the providers for their claims. During the six-month period ended Sept. 30, 2013, auditors identified over $5.6 million in inappropriate or questionable Medicaid payments. By the end of the audit fieldwork, auditors recovered about $2.3 million of the overpayments identified.

Department of Labor (DOL): Assessment and Collection of Selected Fees and Penalties (Follow-Up) (2014-F-19)
An initial report issued in May 2013, determined DOL had not collected about $3.8 million in fees and penalties for the Public Work Enforcement Fund, the boiler inspection program and the asbestos abatement program. Auditors also determined DOL does not have accurate records to show who is required to pay boiler inspection and asbestos-related project fees. In a follow-up, auditors found DOL has made substantial progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial report.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA): Headquarters and Capital Construction Travel and Entertainment Expenses (2013-S-47)
Auditors found MTA Headquarters and MTA Capital Construction have opportunities to strengthen controls over travel and entertainment, which could help reduce certain costs. For example, MTAHQ and MTACC could utilize federal travel guidelines (established by the U.S. General Services Administration and the U.S. Department of State) pertaining to maximum allowable lodging rates. Auditors found certain travel transactions lacked proper prior approvals, statements of purpose, or other required supporting travel documentation. Business office staff did not consistently ensure that all required approvals and supporting documents were included with employees’ travel expense reports.

New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (NYC HPD): Housing Preferences for Veterans (2014-F-14)
An initial report issued in June 2012 found that although the state Legislature had extended the right of preference for housing to many more veterans, few actually benefited due to inaction or disregard by housing companies and lax enforcement by NYC HPD. Auditors found two housing companies in Manhattan (Hamilton House and Clinton Towers) filled vacant apartments with non-veterans even though veterans had been identified on their waiting lists. In a follow-up report, auditors found NYC HPD has made progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial report and has implemented all three prior recommendations.

Office of Information Technology Services (OITS):  Security and Effectiveness of Division of Criminal Justice Services’ (DCJS) Core Systems (2014-S-24)
Auditors found that OITS does not have an established monitoring and oversight process for user access management of DCJS systems and is not operating in compliance with state cyber security policies. OITS does not have established policies and procedures for backup of key DCJS systems. Also, ITS does not have an active regional backup site, and DCJS systems are at risk for total data loss in the event of a regional disaster. Auditors also found OITS does not have an established monitoring and oversight process for software or operating systems and changes made to these systems.

Office of Information Technology Services (OITS): Security and Effectiveness of the Department of Labor’s Unemployment Insurance System (2014-S9)
Auditors found the Unemployment Insurance System data has not yet been classified as required by the current security policy, even though 80 of the 83 unemployment insurance applications in use by the Labor Department have been deemed mission critical. The security policy indicates that all agency information should be classified on an ongoing basis based on its confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Almost two years after the transition of services, OITS still does not have a service level agreement in place governing responsibilities and services provided to human services agencies. Auditors also found that although mainframe programming changes are logged, there is no indication of when these changes have been implemented, thereby reducing accountability.

Office of Information Technology Services (OITS): Security and Effectiveness of Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV) Licensing and Registration Systems (2013-S-58)
Auditors found OITS and DMV are not in compliance with the payment card industry data security standards that govern the systems that process credit card transactions. Since January 2012, neither agency has completed and submitted a required self-assessment questionnaire or third-party compliance report, which are necessary to ensure that all risks have been properly identified and mitigated. Non-compliance also exposes the state to other risks ranging from extensive fines or penalties to business disruption due to cancelled accounts and the inability to accept credit card payments. OITS does not have an established monitoring and oversight process for user access management of DMV systems and is not operating in compliance with state cybersecurity policies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuitʹs tests for sovereign immunity

The U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuitʹs tests for sovereign immunity

Leitner v Westchester Community College, USCA, 2^nd Circuit, 14-1042-cv

An adjunct professor employed by the Westchester Community College was terminated for allegedly making offensive comments in class. She sued, contending that the Community College violated her state and federal constitutional rights.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court’s denial of the Community College’s motion to dismiss the professor’s complaint on grounds that the college defendants were not entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

In a ruling that instructive in that it sets out the six factors considered, and the two-part test applied, by the Second Circuit when addressing a governmental entity’s claim of sovereign immunity, the court said that in this instance:

(1) a finding of sovereign immunity would not serve the twin aims of the Eleventh Amendment, as immunity would not further the states interest in preserving its treasury, nor would it protect the integrity of the state; and

(2) Westchester Community College is not an arm of the state entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ea5b6b9-b3ce-46b7-82a9-7e0e896784eb/1/doc/14-1042_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ea5b6b9-b3ce-46b7-82a9-7e0e896784eb/1/hilite/

.

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on February 25, 2015

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on February 25, 2015

Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full report

Town of Croghan – Financial Management (Lewis County)
The board adopted budgets that relied too heavily on fund balance as a financing source and appropriated more fund balance than it had available. The board has not developed a multiyear financial plan to address long-term priorities or a policy to determine the amount of fund balance to maintain.
Town of Dickinson – Fiscal Oversight (Franklin County)
The board did not effectively oversee the town’s financial operations. The supervisor did not provide the board with adequate monthly financial reports. In addition, the town’s procedures for auditing claims were not in compliance with town law.
Johnstown Public Library – Cash Receipts (Fulton County)
Auditors were unable to determine if all collections were recorded and deposited in a timely manner and intact. This was because library officials have not established formal policies or procedures for handling and recording cash receipts.
Town of Kiantone – Town Clerk (Chautauqua County)
The town clerk did not deposit all money collected. As of June 23, 2014, the clerk had a shortage totaling $3,147. In addition, the clerk did not record, deposit or remit money collected in an accurate and timely manner. Auditors also found the board did not provide adequate oversight of the clerk’s operations.
Town of Lewisboro – Financial Condition (Westchester County)
The town’s general, sewer and water funds all had a deficit fund balance at some point from 2009 through 2013. While officials were able to eliminate accumulated deficits in these funds by the end of 2013, they have not developed a multiyear financial plan to help monitor operations and guard against future operating deficits.
Village of Mill Neck – Financial Management (Nassau County)  The board has not established adequate policies and procedures or provided guidance on maintaining a reasonable level of fund balance. As a result, the village has accumulated excessive fund balance in its general fund that resulted, at least in part, from unrealistic budget estimates.
Saratoga Springs Public Library – Claims Processing (Saratoga County)
Internal controls over the claims audit process were not designed appropriately. For example, not all claims included signatures from the director or department heads to indicate that goods and services were actually received. In addition, the board assigned the responsibility to audit and approve all claims for payment to the president.
Town of Sweden – Justice Court (Monroe County)
The justices do not provide adequate oversight of court operations to ensure the accurate and complete collection, deposit, recording and reporting of court moneys in a timely manner. The justices have not adequately segregated the duties of the clerks and do not regularly review accounting records, bank statements, or monthly reconciliations and accountability analyses.
Town of Tyrone – Financial Management (Schuyler County)
Town officials have not developed multiyear financial plans, policies, or procedures to govern budgeting practices or the level of unexpended surplus funds to maintain. The board adopted budgets that were not based on sound and realistic estimates of revenues and expenditures. Poor budgeting, along with overspending in the highway fund, has caused cash flow problems, which required inter-fund transfers and advances from the general fund to pay bills over the last several years.
Town of West Union – Board Oversight and Cash Receipts and Disbursements (Steuben County)
The board has not provided adequate oversight to safeguard town assets. Specifically, the board did not adopt structurally balanced budgets. For fiscal years 2011 through 2013, the town had excessive fund balances in both the general fund and highway fund. In addition, the board did not audit the books and records of any of the town officers and employees that handled cash.

.

Refusing to answer work-related questions in the course of an investigation

Refusing to answer work-related questions in the course of an investigation
2015 NY Slip Op 01573, Appellate Division, First Department

The question of compelling a public officer or employee to testify or risk termination was considered by the Court of Appeals in Matt v LaRocca, 71 NY2d 154, cert denied 486 US 1007. In the Matt case the Court of Appeals held that when a public employee is threatened with termination if he or she refuses to testify under oath, the testimony given by the individual is "cloaked with use immunity," noting that "when a public employee is compelled to answer questions or face removal upon refusing to do so, the responses are cloaked with immunity automatically, and neither the compelled statements nor their fruits may thereafter be used against the employee in a subsequent criminal prosecution."

An attorney serving with the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) was terminated from his position. The administrative law judge, after a disciplinary hearing, had found the attorney guilty of misconduct and recommended the individual be terminated from employment. The appointing authority adopted the findings and recommendation of the administrative law judge and dismissed the attorney.

The attorney appealed but the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the appointing authority’s determination. The penalty imposed, said the court, “does not shock our sense of fairness” given, among other things, the attorney’s refusal to appear for duly scheduled investigatory interviews even after receiving use immunity.

The court explained that substantial evidence supported the determination that attorney had engaged in misconduct by representing a tenant in litigation against the New York City Housing Authority while employed as an attorney for HPD, by “using [HPD’s] resources in the course of that representation, and by refusing to comply with directives to appear for investigatory interviews.

The Appellate Division said that although the attorney “is correct that a violation of New York City Charter §2604(b)(7) was not established given the absence of any evidence that he received any compensation for representing the tenant ... there was substantial evidence that [the attorney] violated other laws and orders in connection with that representation, including New York City Charter 2604(b)(2) and HPD Commissioner Order 2009-1(4)(a).”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_01573.htm

 __________________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - a 442-page volume focusing on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Now available in two formats - as a large, paperback print edition, and as an e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

 __________________

.

New Deputy Chief Investment Officer named to the New York State Common Retirement Fund

New Deputy Chief Investment Officer named to the New York State Common Retirement Fund

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

On February 24, 2015 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the appointment of Anastasia Titarchuk to the position of Deputy Chief Investment Officer for the $181.7 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund. Ms. Titarchuk previously served the Fund as Director of Absolute Return Strategies.

Ms. Titarchuk has 17 years of experience across diverse sectors of the financial services industry, including traditional equity and fixed income markets, as well as derivatives and alternatives. Prior to joining the Fund in 2011, she served as Director of International Derivatives Sales at Bank of America and has held important roles with Lehman Brothers/Barclays Capital and JPMorgan. Titarchuk graduated Summa Cum Laude from Yale University with a B.S. in Applied Mathematics.

Letter sent to Acting State Commissioner of Education Berlin concerning teacher evaluation

Letter sent to Acting State Commissioner of Education Berlin concerning teacher evaluation

Source: Office of the Governor

On February 23, 2015 Director of State Operations Jim Malatras sent a letter to State Education Department Acting Commissioner Elizabeth R. Berlin regarding the teacher evaluation process.

The letter can be viewed on the Internet at:

https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/Maltras_Letter_To_Berlin.pdf

Determining seniority of probationary employees in the event of a layoff

Determining seniority of probationary employees in the event of a layoff

Kenny v Rockland County Supt. of Highways, 2015 NY Slip Op 01453, Appellate Division, Second Department

Kevin J. Kenny was appointed to the position of Engineer II [Field] by the Rockland County Highway Department in April 2001. In August 2005, after serving a 26-week probationary period, he obtained tenure in that title as Engineer II [Field].

In December 2011 Kenny’s position was reclassified to an Engineer III position and in January 2012, Kenny filed an application for the Engineer III position and was nominated for a noncompetitive promotion* to the title of Engineer III. Kenny received a salary increase commensurate with his promotion to Engineer III and his appointment was described as "permanent, but serving probationary period."

In late June 2012, Kenny was told that a number of positions had been abolished by the County Legislature and that, although his position was not among those abolished, another employee with permanent status had greater rights to the Engineer III position than he had. On July 27, 2012, Kenny was terminated from his employment.

Contending that his appointment to the Engineer III position was a reclassification of his job title, not a promotion, thereby not requiring any new probationary period, Kenny challenged the Department’s determination. The Department, on the other hand, argued that Kenny’s appointment to the Engineer III position “constituted both a reclassification and a promotion” and that Kenny’s termination complied with applicable law.** After conducting a hearing, the Supreme Court granted Kenny’s petition, annulled the Department's determination, and reinstated the him to the position of Engineer II (Field) with back pay and benefits.

On appeal the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s ruling, on the law, and dismissed Kenny’s petition on the merits.

The Appellate Division explained that “Where, as here, an existing civil service position is reclassified, such reclassification is governed by Civil Service Law §22”*** and, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the evidence at the hearing established that the procedural requirements for reclassifying the [Kenny’s] position from Engineer II (Field) to Engineer III were properly met.

Further, said the court, “contrary to [Kenny’s] contention, the reclassification also constituted a promotion, as it encompassed certain out-of-title duties which he had begun to perform after having received his engineering license in 2009 ... and resulted in a salary increase from a field position (Engineer II) to a management position (Engineer III), and a change in union representation to the Rockland Association of Management.”

The Appellate Division’s conclusion: the determination terminating Kenny’s employment had a rational basis, complied with due process requirements, and was not arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.

* See Civil Service Law §52.7.

** N.B. §80.1 of the Civil Service Law that provides “Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision, however, upon the abolition or reduction of positions in the competitive class, incumbents holding the same or similar positions who have not completed their probationary service shall be suspended or demoted, as the case may be, before any permanent incumbents, and among such probationary employees the order of suspension or demotion shall be determined as if such employees were permanent incumbents [emphasis supplied]..

*** §22 of the Civil Service Law, in pertinent part, provides: “Any such new position shall be created or any such existing position reclassified only with the title approved and certified by the commission.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_01453.htm

 __________

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5216.html

 __________

.

Reforms to New York State’s ethics laws and rules proposed

Reforms to New York State’s ethics laws and rules proposed

Source: Office of the Governor

On Friday, February 20. 2015, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo outlined proposed reforms to New York State’s ethics laws and rules. The reforms are included in the 30 day amendments to the 2015-16 Executive Budge and address the following:

New Disclosure Requirements:

Public officials will be required to disclose all outside earned income they receive, from whom they receive it, the actual services performed to receive the income and whether there is any connection to the state government or the office that they hold and the work performed. Specifically:

All public officials must disclose the nature of each source of outside compensation in excess of $1,000.

No member or legislative employee may receive any kind of compensation in connection with a pending bill or resolution. Additionally, no legislator or legislative employee may refer individuals who are lobbying or advocating for a proposed or pending piece of legislation to firms or businesses where that legislator or legislative employee is also affiliated.

Lawyers, real estate agents and certain other professionals must provide a description of services for which they received compensation and the source of the compensation.

All public officials who personally provide services or work as a member or employee of a business or firm, and receives compensation in excess of $5,000 from a client/customer, must disclose information on that client/customer, the services rendered and whether the services were related to pending legislation governmental action.

Requirements to disclose outside income will apply to all legislative discretionary capital funding.

This proposal will also enhance penalties for failure to comply with the law.

Under current law, individuals cannot be prosecuted for filing false instruments under the Penal Law. Under the reforms advanced by the Governor, the officials can be prosecuted for not just filing a false financial disclosure statement but other crimes, as well. Further, the proposal would bar anyone convicted of a misdemeanor for failing to disclosure information under the financial disclosure law from holding public office for five years, or possibly up to 10 years if a misdemeanor plea was a plead down.

This proposal would also amend the Public Officers Law to expressly bar legislators from representing entities in legislative matters or referring such legislative matters to their firms. It would also amend the Lobbying Law to cover lobbying of municipalities that have a population of 5,000 or more – current law is set at municipalities with populations of 50,000 or more.

Pension Forfeiture

Public officials who are convicted of public corruption should not have taxpayers pay for their retirement. This proposal will amend the New York State Constitution (and related pension forfeiture law enacted in 2011) to apply New York’s pension forfeiture law to public officials who entered the retirement system before enactment of the pension forfeiture law in 2011.

Per Diem Reform

This proposal will end the practice of misusing per diems as backdoor salary supplements. Specifically, legislators and statewide elected officials would receive reimbursement only of reasonable and necessary travel expenses, for which receipts must be submitted, that are actually incurred while in the performance of their duties at the same rate as otherwise allowed state employees.

Further, the proposal would operationalize these reforms. The Office of State Comptroller will be prohibited from reimbursing expenses for a member of the legislature or statewide elected official until expanded disclosure provisions are met. Additionally, new caps are placed on the amount of reimbursement authorized under the law at the same level as the caps that currently apply to all other state employees. This proposal also repeals current law that gives great discretion to legislative leaders to broaden and increase per diems.

Campaign Finance Disclosure

The proposal will further expand the requirement for disclosing independent expenditures to include independent expenditures on communications made within 60 days before a general, or special election, and 30 days before a primary election to that reference a clearly identified client. This proposal also turns over enforcement of independent expenditures rules to new chief enforcement counsel.

.

Professionals employed by educational institutions entitled to employment insurance benefits for periods between two successive academic years absent a reasonable assurance of continued employment

Professionals employed by educational institutions entitled to employment insurance benefits for periods between two successive academic years absent a reasonable assurance of continued employment

2015 NY Slip Op 00926, Appellate Division, Third Department

Labor Law §590(10) precludes professionals employed by educational institutions from receiving employment insurance benefits for periods between two successive academic years when the employer has provided them with a reasonable assurance of continued employment. This decision by the Appellate Division, Third Department, explores applying the requirement of giving an educator “a reasonable assurance of continued employment.”

An individual was employed as an adjunct lecturer [AL] by the Borough of Manhattan Community College [MCC] since 1991. During the 2010-2011 academic year, AL worked a total of 150 hours, 105 hours in the 2010 fall semester and 45 hours in the 2011 spring semester. At the close of the 2010-2011 academic year, he received a letter from MCC offering to reappoint him to the same position for the 2011 fall and 2012 spring semesters, "subject to sufficiency of enrollment, financial availability and curriculum need."

Shortly after receiving this letter, MCC informed AL that he would be assigned to work 45 hours during the 2011 fall semester, but did not specify his assignment for the 2012 spring semester. AL applied for unemployment insurance benefits between the two academic years and was initially deemed ineligible on the basis that he had received a reasonable assurance of continued employment from the employer for the next academic year.

Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge overruled this determination and found that AL was eligible to receive benefits because MCC did not provide him with a reasonable assurance of continued employment within the meaning of Labor Law §590(10). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the administrative law judge's ruling, and adhered to its decision upon reconsideration. MCC appealed the Board’s ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s ruling, explaining that although Labor Law §590(10) precludes professionals employed by educational institutions from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for periods between two successive academic years when the employer has provided them with a reasonable assurance of continued employment, "A reasonable assurance ... has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period."

Whether a claimant received a reasonable assurance of employment is a question of fact for the Board to resolve and its findings in this regard will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence

AL, said the court, had worked 150 hours during the 2010-2011 academic year, but was only offered 45 hours during the 2011-2012 academic year, limited to the 2011 fall semester. Further, MCC did not specify any hours for the 2012 spring semester either in its reappointment letter or notice advising AL of his assignment, and AL was offered significantly fewer hours during the 2011 fall semester than he had worked during the 2010 fall semester.

Given that the economic terms of the offer of reappointment during the 2011-2012 academic year were substantially less favorable than AL’s earnings during the 2010-2011 academic year, the Appellate Division held that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that MCC did not provide AL with a reasonable assurance of continued employment under Labor Law §590(10).

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_00926.htm

.