Declaring a school board member’s office vacant by reason of his or her unexcused absences

Declaring a school board member’s office vacant by reason of his or her unexcused absences
Margaret McQuaid Kaplan v Board of Education of the East Meadow Union Free School District, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 16,113

Margaret McQuaid Kaplan was elected as a member of the East Meadow Union Free School Board in May 2007. On September 24, 2008, the Board held a special meeting at which it initiated an independent investigation into allegations of impropriety involving Kaplan.

The following time line sets out the next steps taken by the parties:

1. On October 21, 2008, the Board met to discuss the investigation.

2. On October 22, 2008, Kaplan was hospitalized.

3. On October 28, 2008, the Board held a special meeting and schedules Kaplan's hearing concerning the allegations for November 17, 2008.

4. Kaplan was released from the hospital on November 1, 2008.

5. Kaplan retained counsel at 6:00 p.m. on November 17, 2008.

6. Kaplan's attorney arrived late to the November 17, hearing and requested an adjournment after the Board’s evidence was presented. The Board denied the requested adjournment.

7. The Board voted, declaring Kaplan’s position vacant by operation of law for repeatedly failing to attend board meetings without valid excuses.

The Board also voted to remove her from office for based on Kaplan’s alleged:

1. Failure to complete required training and/or to provide the required certification for such training;

2. Failure to complete, sign and return to the district’s independent auditor the “Related Party Disclosure Questionnaire;”

3. Public disclosure of confidential and Executive Session information; and

4. Abuse of the authority of her office.

Kaplan appealed the Board’s action to the Commissioner of Education contending that she was not furnished with a copy of the charges filed against her and that she was not allowed to answer the charges in writing. She also denied having committed any acts constituting misconduct and that the charges "were not adequately proven against her."

In addition, Kaplan also argued that that her attorney’s request for an adjournment was improperly denied.

As redress, she asked the Commissioner to direct that a new hearing be conducted and that she be reinstated to her position.

In rebuttal, the Board claimed that the District had provided Kaplan with [1] a notice of the charges and [2] a hearing was held at which all five charges of misconduct against her “were properly sustained.”

As to the issue concerning Kaplan’s unexcused absences from Board meetings, the Commissioner said that Education Law §2109* provides that board members who have failed to attend “three successive meetings of the board of which he** is duly notified, without rendering a good and valid excuse therefore to the other trustees vacates his office by refusal to serve.”***

As to Kaplan's alleged absences from Board meetings, the Board said that it had relied on "an audit memo from the internal auditor" indicating that Kaplan had missed 12 meetings without explanation or excuse during the 2007-2008 school year, including four consecutive meetings during May and June 2008. The Board also said that it had relied on a listing of 2007-2008 Board meetings and Kaplan’s absences signed by the Board secretary with a statement that she received no advance notification that Kaplan would not be attending those meetings.

Noting that although Kaplan had missed 13 of the 2007-2008 meetings, the Commissioner found that Kaplan’s absences from meetings on May 22 and June 5, 24 and 29, 2008 did not constitute absences from consecutive meetings as there was an intervening June 10, 2008 meeting for which Kaplan had not been marked absent.

However, said the Commissioner, Kaplan had, in fact, missed three consecutive meetings on a different occassion, i.e., meetings held on September 4, 6 and 18, 2007.

The Commissioner said that Kaplan had not offered any evidence either at the Board’s hearing or in her appeal to the Commissioner rebutting the Board’s evidence that she failed to attend the three meetings in September 2007 without notification or that she was unable to attend these meetings, "other than her own broad assertions that her absences were either religious observances or [of a] medical necessity.”

Accordingly, the Commissioner, focusing solely on the issue of Kaplan's absences from Board meetings, dismissed her appeal, commenting that the Board was neither arbitrary nor capricious in finding that Kaplan vacated her office by failing to attend three consecutive meetings without adequate documentation or excuse by operation of law as provided by Education Law §2109.

* §2109 of the Education Law provides as follows: A trustee of a common school or union free school district who publicly declares that he will not accept or serve in the office of trustee, or refuses or neglects to attend three successive meetings of the board, of which he is duly notified, without rendering a good and valid excuse therefor to the other trustees vacates his office by refusal to serve

** §22 of the General Construction Law provides that "Whenever words of the masculine or feminine gender appear in any law, rule or regulation, unless the sense of the sentence indicates otherwise, they shall be deemed to refer to both male or female persons.]

*** Concerning the issue of an individual not attending meetings scheduled by a public entity, Public Officers Law §30.3 provides that in the event “any member of a board, commission, committee or authority, holding office by appointment of the governor, fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings of such board, commission, committee or authority, unless such absence is for good cause and is excused by the chairman or other presiding officer thereof, or, in the case of such chairman or other presiding officer, by the governor, the office may be deemed vacant for purposes of the nomination and appointment of a successor.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume50/d16113.htm

Stay of arbitration

Stay of arbitration
Town of Hempstead v CSEA Local 1000, Supreme Court, Nassau County, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Under what circumstances will a court issue an order barring a grievance from being submitted to arbitration? As the Town of Hempstead case demonstrates, the court must be persuaded that (1) the demand for arbitration was untimely, or (2) that the subject matter of the grievance was not arbitrable, or (3) both.

In the Hempstead case, the court ordered the town to arbitrate a grievance in which an employee claimed he was denied seniority rights.

CSEA concluded that an employee who had less seniority than Fernando Avolio was promoted to the position of Dockmaster. The union filed a grievance on behalf of Avolio alleging that the Town violated the seniority provisions of the Taylor Law agreement then in effect.

The Town’s Grievance Board issued a determination holding that the Town’s action was not grievable because “the subject matter of the grievance does not fall within the definition of a grievance” under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. The Town wrote CSEA indicating that it would not submit the issue to arbitration.

Half a year later, CSEA served the Town with a notice of intent to arbitrate. In response, Hempstead filed a motion in New York State Supreme Court pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules [CPLR] to stay arbitration.

The Town said the demand for arbitration was untimely because “the union ... was required to commence a proceeding to compel arbitration within 30 days of the Grievance Board decision....”. Also, it said Avolio’s claim was not subject to arbitration under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

The court rejected the town’s argument on the issue of timeliness. Because the town declared that the seniority issue was not covered by the contract, it took the position that the grievance did not exist, the court said. Therefore, the town cannot rely the CSEA’s failure to file a timely demand for arbitration to defeat its demand for arbitration.

As to the merits of the issue regarding the contract, said that the definition of a grievance is quite broad. Under the express language of the contract, the parties agreed that arbitrable grievances include those related to a claimed violation, misinterpretation or inequitable application of the existing collective bargaining agreement, rules, procedures, regulations, administrative orders or work rules of the employer or department.

Specifically, said the court, Section 26 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that ability, adaptability and seniority shall prevail insofar as practicable and consistent with the needs and practices of the department. This includes (a) promotions in labor and non-competitive jobs, (b) job assignments, (c) transfers with a department regarding proximity of the job and (d) vacancies in departments.

The court said neither the Town’s petition to stay arbitration nor the Grievance Board’s memorandum set out any reason why the “seniority” grievance submitted by Avolio does not fall within the ambit of the definition of a grievance.

Finding that the Collective Bargaining Agreement “is clear and unequivocal and the definition of grievance is broad and encompassing and covers the dispute in question,” the court ordered Hempstead to “proceed forthwith to arbitration with respect to this grievance.”

Remanding an arbitration award for the sole purpose of calculating or recalculating "damages" does not permit a new determination on the merits

Remanding an arbitration award for the sole purpose of calculating or recalculating "damages" does not permit a new determination on the merits
Shroid Construction v Dattoma, App Div, 250 AD2d 590

Sometimes an arbitration award is challenged pursuant to Article 75 and while sustained on the merits, the matter is remanded to calculate or recalculate the amount of “damages” to be paid. May the arbitrator make new or additional findings in calculating the “damages” to be paid?

In the Shroid case, the Appellate Division ruled that the answer is no: “under the circumstances, it was improper for the [hearing officer] to attempt to amend his findings after they had been reviewed and affirmed on appeal.”

Shroid alleged the union had sanctioned a work slowdown by its members in violation of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The Judicial Hearing Officer [JHO] who heard the complaint ultimately sustained the allegations and ruled that the union’s action violated the contract, which resulted in Shroid’s suffering “actual damages.”

The JHO’s determination was sustained by the Appellate Division and the matter was returned to him for a determination of amount of the damages Shroid suffered. However, while considering the question of damages, the JHO made “substantive changes” in his findings and Shroid again appealed.

Shroid argued that the JHO did not have any power to make a substantive change in his findings, particularly in the light of the Appellate Division’s determination sustaining his findings.

The Appellate Division agreed. According to the ruling, the JHO’s authority was limited to making a “calculation of damages” resulting from the work slowdown.

The Appellate Division commented that its ruling in a prior appeal is not only binding on the parties, but was binding “on this court as well.”

In other words, once an arbitration award is sustained by the court, that determination is binding on the parties, and on the courts, in any future litigation involving a challenge to that determination.

Probationary termination procedure found consistent with due process

Probationary termination procedure found consistent with due process
Persico v NYC Board of Education, Appellate Division, 250 A.D.2d 854

Isabella G. Persico, a New York City probationary teacher, was terminated from her position effective September 3, 1990. In accordance with the by-laws of the New York City Board of Education, the decision to terminate Persico followed a review by a committee appointed by the Chancellor of the Board of Education. The committee held a hearing and recommended that Persico be terminated.

After being notified of the decision, Persico sued and a State Supreme Court judge ordered the Board of Education to conduct a de novo review hearing.

The Appellate Division said that Supreme Court was incorrect because Persico had not demonstrated that she was deprived of any substantial right warranting a new review hearing.

According to the ruling, Persico had been given “numerous opportunities to questions witnesses,” was not prevented from giving relevant testimony and told she could call witnesses on her behalf. In addition, her advisor was allowed to submit a written concluding statement.

This, said the court, indicated that she had been provided with “ample opportunity” to challenge the termination of her probationary appointment.

Providing legal representation and indemnification of State officers and employees

Providing legal representation and indemnification of State officers and employees
Samuels v Vacco, Appellate Division, 251 AD2s 10

Section 17 of the Public Officers Law provides that a state officer or employee is entitled to representation by the Attorney General if the individual is sued as a result of his or her performing official duties. Under certain conditions, the individual may be entitled to be represented by a private attorney rather than by the Attorney General.*

Section 17 provides for representation and indemnification only in a civil action or proceeding in state or federal court arising out of any alleged act or omission which occurred while the individual was acting within the scope of his or her public employment.

David G. Samuels was named as a defendant in a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 USC 1983. He decided that he preferred to be represented by his own, private, counsel rather than by the Attorney General but wanted the Attorney General to pay his legal fees. When the Attorney General declined to reimburse him for his legal fees if Samuels employed private counsel, Samuels sued.

The Appellate Division rejected Samuels’ petition. The court said Samuels did not allege that he was acting outside the scope of his employment and thus “there was never any possibility that [he] would be held liable for unreimbursable damages, either compensatory or punitive.”

Would it be possible for the individual to claim he or she was acting “outside the scope of his or her employment,” in an effort to obtain private counsel?

Surely, but such a representation would constitute an admission such that the provisions set out in Section 17 are not triggered and the Attorney General would be under no obligation to pay the individual’s attorney’s fees nor would the State be liable to reimburse the individual for any damages won by the plaintiff.

Are there any circumstances under which an officer or employee may claim that he or she is entitled to representation by private counsel in lawsuits connected with the performance of official duties?

Yes: when the Attorney General, or a court, determines that such representation would be appropriate or because there is an actual or potential conflict of interest. Under such circumstances the individual is entitled to be represented by private counsel and the State is required to pay the individual’s “reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses” and any damages for which the individual may be held liable.

* Section 18 of the Public Officers Law authorizes political subdivisions of the State to provide for the “defense and indemnification” of officers and employees sued in connection with the performance of their official duties.

A request seeking permission to delay filing an appeal with the Commissioner of Education must be timely filed

A request seeking permission to delay filing an appeal with the Commissioner of Education must be timely filed
M.H. v Santiago Taveras, Interim-Acting Deputy Chancellor for Teaching and Learning of the New York City Department of Education, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 16,097

M.H., a tenured New York City teacher, appealed the denial of her objections to unsatisfactory performance ratings by the Interim-Acting Deputy Chancellor to the Commissioner of Education.

Rejecting M.H.’s appeal as untimely notwithstanding the representation that the delay in filing the appeal was due to personal illness, the Commissioner explained:

1. An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the making of the decision or the performance of the act complained of unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown and to be timely, a request to have the delay excused must be commenced within 30 days of receiving the administrative determination.

2. When the record does not indicate when petitioner actually received the determination, the date of receipt is calculated by affording the usual five days for mailing, excluding Sundays and holidays.

3. Neither illness nor ignorance of the appeal process is a valid excuse for the late commencement of an appeal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume50/d16097.htm

Canceling COBRA coverage

Canceling COBRA coverage
Geissal v Moore Medical Corp., USSC, 524 U.S. 74

If an employer discovers that an individual participating in its health insurance plan under COBRA is also covered as a dependent under a different health insurance plan, may it cancel his or her coverage?

It all depends on the date on which the individual’s coverage as a dependent in the other plan took effect.

According the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the Geissal case, the employer may not cancel its coverage if the individual was covered as a dependent under the other plan before he or she made the COBRA election.

The court noted that 29 USC 1162(2)(D)(i) allows the employer to cancel an individual’s COBRA participation in its health plan only if the individual became covered as a dependent in the other plan after making his or her COBRA election and then only if the new plan does not exclude “pre-existing conditions.”

The Geissal case involved an employee who was covered under both his employer’s health insurance plan and as a dependent under his spouse’s health insurance plan at the time he was terminated from employment and made a timely election to continue in the employer’s group health plan as provided by COBRA.

The fact that both plans provided similar coverages was held irrelevant. The high court decided that because Geissal was covered by his wife’s policy as a dependent before he elected COBRA, his former employer could not cut off his participation in its plan even though the benefits in both plans were essentially the same.

In other cases involving the discontinuation of COBRA coverage by employers on the basis of “alternate coverage as a dependent,” some U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal had applied a “significant gap” test. These courts held that continued coverage under COBRA was available to an eligible employee only if there was a “significant gap” between the individual’s COBRA benefits and the benefits available to the individual under his or her spouse’s plan. Eligibility for continuation of COBRA coverage based on such a distinction was rejected by the Supreme Court.

Unemployment Insurance Board may apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel to reject an individual’s application for benefits

Unemployment Insurance Board may apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel to reject an individual’s application for benefits
Obafemi v Comm. of Labor, Appellate Division, 250 A.D.2d 905

Suppose an employee who has been dismissed from his or her position following a disciplinary hearing applies for unemployment insurance benefits. May the Unemployment Insurance Board deny unemployment insurance benefits on the doctrine of “collateral estoppel?”

The doctrine of collateral estoppel allows a court or administrative body to apply the judgment in a earlier action in a subsequent action based on the same events but brought as a different “cause of action,” thereby obviating the need for a new hearing.

Disciplinary charges were filed against Thkikuma D. Obafemi, a toll collector, alleging that he was discourteous to customers. The arbitrator had found Obafemi guilty of being rude to a customer despite prior warnings to refrain from such inappropriate behavior. The penalty imposed was dismissal.

Following his termination Obafemi applied for unemployment insurance benefits. When the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ruled that he was disqualified for such benefits because he was terminated for misconduct, he appealed. Obafemi claimed that he was not given a hearing as to his eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. The Appellate Division dismissed his appeal, commenting that the board could give “collateral estoppel” effect to the findings of the arbitrator. After all, the court said, Obafemi had been given a “full and fair opportunity” to litigate the issue of his misconduct at the arbitration hearing.

In another unemployment insurance case, Joyce v Commissioner of Labor, 250 A.D.2d 901, the Appellate Division said that the Unemployment Insurance Board had substantial evidence that Stephen M. Joyce had voluntarily left his employment with the U.S. Postal Service without good cause.

Joyce was directed to leave work after an outburst during which he shouted racist remarks. The Postal Service’s psychiatrist found Joyce “not fit for duty” and advised him to seek “outside psychiatric treatment.” Joyce was also told that he could not return to work until he obtained treatment. Joyce told the Service that he was unwilling to seek outside psychiatric treatment.

The Court agreed with the Board, pointing out that “it is well settled that when a claimant fails to take a step that is reasonably required as a prerequisite to continued employment, the claimant will be deemed to have left his [or her] employment without good cause.”

Past practice of using seniority in bidding for shift assignment trumps Sabbath observer’s request for work schedule adjustment

Past practice of using seniority in bidding for shift assignment trumps Sabbath observer’s request for work schedule adjustment
Balint v Carson City [Nevada], CA9, 144 F.3d 1225

Lisette Balint had been selected for employment in the detention center of the Carson City, Nevada Sheriff Department and was to start “on a swing shift” effective Friday, March 31, 1995. However, Balint was a member of a church that barred all forms of secular work during the period its members observed as the Sabbath -- Friday night through Saturday night.

After being selected, Balint told the department that she could not work “during her Sabbath” and requested that her schedule be adjusted to accommodate her religious practice. When the head of the detention department informed Balint that there could be no accommodation, she withdrew her employment application.

In her original application for employment Balint said that she “was willing to work swing-shift, graveyard, weekends and holidays.” She did not mention any religious or other objections to working on certain shifts.

As a “past practice,” Carson City deputy sheriffs participate in a semi-annual bidding system in which the twelve or thirteen deputies assigned to the jail bid for shifts in the order of their seniority.

Contending that Title VII required that the department accommodate her religious needs, Balint sued. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit disagreed, reversing a lower court ruling in Balint’s favor.

The Court commenced its analysis with the observation that Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of religion and that the employer has a duty to accommodate a current or prospective employee’s religious practices unless the accommodation would cause “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business,” citing 42 U.S.C. Sect. 2000e(j).

The applicant or employee must establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. If he or she does so, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that it either initiated good faith efforts to accommodate the employee or that any accommodation would create an undue hardship on the employer.

The department argued, and the court agreed, that it had “a legitimate seniority system, enacted without discriminatory intent” and any attempt to accommodate Balint would, as a matter of law, cause undue hardship.

The Circuit Court concluded that because the Sheriff’s Department had followed a nondiscriminatory seniority-based system for assigning shifts, it had no duty to accommodate Balint, “even if such accommodation would have no more than a de minimis [slight] impact. The court ruled that an employer is not required to alter an existing, bona fide seniority-based shift-bidding system to accommodate an employee’s religious needs.

Individual ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if compensation exceeds the highest benefit rate applicable during relevant “effective days”

Individual ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if compensation exceeds the highest benefit rate applicable during relevant “effective days”
Robinson v Commissioner of Labor, 2010 NY Slip Op 06272, decided on July 29, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

A claimant for unemployment insurance benefits is eligible to be paid for an accumulation of "effective days" of unemployment, provided that no effective days may be accumulated in any week in which he or she is paid compensation exceeding the highest benefit rate applicable.

Jonathon Robinson applied for unemployment insurance benefits but his claim was rejected by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board based on its finding that Robinson received an average weekly wage "far above the maximum weekly benefit rate of $405" and, as a result, “he did not accumulate effective days for those weeks.”

Robinson had been employed as a lecturer at Cornell University for the summer sessions in 2006 and 2007, teaching a class two days per week. He received a flat fee of $9,360 for the summer 2006 session, representing an average weekly wage of $1,560, and a flat fee of $9,780 for the summer 2007 session, representing an average weekly wage of $1,630.

Paid on a semimonthly basis, Robinson applied for unemployment benefits for those weeks in which he did not receive a paycheck, certifying that he had earned less than the maximum weekly benefit rate of $405.

Ultimately it was determined that Robinson was ineligible to receive benefits on the basis that he earned over the statutory limitation for those weeks for which he had claimed entitlement to benefits. He was charged with a recoverable total overpayment of $1,504.75 and, in addition, his right to receive future benefits by 64 effective days on the basis that he had made willful false statements to obtain benefits.

Robinson appealed these determinations by the Board.

The Appellate Division sustained the Board’s decision, commenting that “A claimant is eligible to be paid for an accumulation of ‘effective days" of unemployment, provided that no effective days may be accumulated in any week in which a claimant is paid compensation exceeding the highest benefit rate applicable’ … Here, the record reflects, and claimant admits, that he received an average weekly wage far above the maximum weekly benefit rate of $405 and, therefore, the determination by the Board that he did not accumulate effective days for those weeks is supported by substantial evidence and has a reasonable basis in law.”

As to the Board's finding that Robinson “made willful misrepresentations to obtain benefits,” the Appellate Division concluded that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.

The decisions reports that Robinson had conceded that he had received and read the unemployment insurance benefits handbook. Accordingly, said the court, the Board could reasonably find that, regardless of his communications with representatives of the Department of Labor, the language in the handbook addressing a claimant's ineligibility for benefits was clear and unambiguous.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06272.htm

The statute of limitations for filing an appeal commences to run on date the individual knew, or should have known, of the event or omission

The statute of limitations for filing an appeal commences to run on date the individual knew, or should have known, of the event or omission
William R. Hayes v The Board of Education of the Saugerties Central School District, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 16,094

A board member read aloud an anonymous letter in which district employees were criticized at a public board meeting held by the Saugerties Central School District on December 8, 2009. William R. Hayes, who was present at the meeting, asked for a copy of the letter on December 18, 2009. He received the requested copy on January 22, 2010.

Contending that the anonymous letter was disrespectful to teachers and contrary to the Board’s code of ethics and Education Law §1709(18), Hayes filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Education seeking [1] a letter of apology from the School Board to the teaching staff for reading the letter, and [2] the Board's agreement not to read anonymous letters in a public forum in the future. In the alternative, Hayes asked to Commissioner to “chastise” the Board for its alleged unethical behavior.

The Board asked the Commissioner to dismiss the appeal for a number of reasons, including its representation that the appeal is untimely. The Commissioner agreed that Hayes' appeal was untimely and dismissed it.

Noting that an appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced "within 30 days from the making of the decision or the performance of the act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown,” the Commissioner explained that the anonymous letter was read at a Board meeting held on December 8, 2009 and Hayes did not file his appeal until January 26, 2010, more than 30 days later.

As the appeal related solely to the Board’s actions on December 8, 2009, the Commissioner ruled that Hayes’ “belated receipt of a copy of the letter does not excuse his delay” in view of the fact that he was present at the December 8 meeting of the Board and "personally heard and observed the alleged misconduct at that time."

The decision demonstrates the general rule that a statute of limitations for filing an appeal with the Commissioner is measured from the date on which the individual knew, or should have known, of the alleged offending event or omission.

Another frequent basis for the Commissioner rejecting an appeal – the failure of the appellant to name and serve a necessary party, i.e., an individual that may be adversely affected were the Commissioner to sustain the appeal, as illustrated in recent decisions by the Commissioner. See, for example, http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/07/appeal-to-commissioner-of-education.html .

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume50/d16094.htm

Comptroller's audit finds former Town Supervisor's spouse misappropriated $378,000 of the Town’s funds by writing checks to the Supervisor and herself

Comptroller's audit finds former Town Supervisor's spouse misappropriated $378,000 of the Town’s funds by writing checks to the Supervisor and herself
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

According to an audit released by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, the spouse of the former supervisor of the Town of Fairfield admitted to misappropriating $378,000 in town funds by using her husband's signature stamp on 347 checks that she made payable to herself and her husband.

The supervisor, who has since resigned, had hired his wife as deputy supervisor.

Following fieldwork by DiNapoli's auditors, the former supervisor's wife was indicted on 350 counts related to the lost money.

Auditors tracked the town's bank activity from 2004 to 2009.

The Comptroller’s report is posted on the Internet at: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/towns/2010/fairfield.pdf

Uninterrupted Civil Service Law §72 absence for one year or more permits termination of employee pursuant to §73 of the Civil Service Law

Uninterrupted Civil Service Law §72 absence for one year or more permits termination of employee pursuant to §73 of the Civil Service Law
NYC Dept. of Corrections v Anonymous, OATH Index #1472/10

OATH Administrative Law Judge Alessandra Zorgniotti recommended that the New York City Department of Correction terminate a correction officer absent on Civil Service Law Section 72 leave from employment pursuant to Section 73 of the Civil Service Law after the officer has been absent from duty continuously for more than one year due to a non work-related disability.

Zorgniotti credited the opinion of the Department's doctor that the officer was not currently fit to return to work because “his medical condition was active and that the stresses of returning to work in the jail could trigger another episode with serious consequences.”

Section 72 leave is available to an employee who is unable to perform his or her duties because of a disability other than a disability resulting from an occupational injury or disease as defined in the Workers’ Compensation Law, while Section 71 of the Civil Service Law provides for a leave of absence when the employee is absent due to an occupational injury or disease.

There is, however, one significant difference between Section 71 leave and Section 72 leave. The one-year leave period* allowed under Section 71 is determined on the basis of the individual’s cumulative absence while the minimum leave period under Section 72 is based on the employee’s ininterrupted absence for one year.

In other words, under Section 72, the employee may be terminated pursuant to Section 73 of the Civil Service Law if he or she has been absent from work for an uninterrupted period of at least one year.

In contrast, an employee absent on Section 71 leave may be terminate after he or she has been absent for a cumulative total of at least one year, even if such absences are intermittent whereby the employee returns to work and then goes on Section 71 leave again because of the same injury or disease.

It should be remembered that under both Section 71 and Section 73, separating an employee from service after the employee has been absent for the minimum period mandated for such leave is discretionary and the appointing authority is not required to terminate the employee.

Further, the individual separated from the position pursuant to either Section 71 or Section 73, as the case may be, is eligible for reinstatement to his or her former position is he or she applies for such reinstatement within one year of termination of the disability. If a suitable position is not available, the individual’s name is to be placed on a preferred list and he or she may be reinstated to a suitable position in a lower grade while on such a preferred list if available.

* In the event is the employee’s absence resulted from an assault sustained in the course of his or her employment, he or she is entitled to a leave of absence for at least two years unless his or her disability is of such a nature as to permanently incapacitate him or her for the performance of the duties of his or her position.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/10_Cases/10-1472.pdf

Federal Court in Michigan holds plaintiff must exhaust local administrative review despite belief that hearing officer was selected by city attorney

Federal Court in Michigan holds plaintiff must exhaust local administrative review despite belief that hearing officer was selected by city attorney
Source: Administrative Law Professor Blog. Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2010, All rights reserved http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adminlaw/

Just because you think an administrative appeal would be useless doesn't mean that the courts will think it is useless. Dean Patty Salkin (Albany Law School) on her Law of the Land blog reports on a Federal District Court case that suggests one must be very, very careful before deciding that available administrative remedies would be useless and charging into the courts.

Dean Salkin’s report is posted on the Internet at: http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/federal-dist-court-in-michigan-holds-plaintiff-must-exhaust-local-administrative-review-despite-belief-that-hearing-officer-was-selected-by-city-attorney/

The general rule requires those objecting to administrative action to exhaust their administrative remedies before asking for judicial review.

There is an exception if further administrative steps would be futile and irreparable harm will result from the delay (as with a preliminary injunction).

Fear of bias, however well founded, does not mean that the agency will no-way do the right thing. It could have an attack of logic, or common sense, or honesty, or other insanity. Most agency decision makers, no matter how political, try to follow the rules. Even when the appellant is a whining publicity hound who contributed to the other party.

Edward M. “Ted” McClure

FMLA leave request does not insulate employee from unrelated disciplinary action

FMLA leave request does not insulate employee from unrelated disciplinary action
Source: The FMLA Blog - http://federalfmla.typepad.com/fmla_blog/ Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved by Carl C. Bosland, Esq. Reproduced with permission. Mr. Bosland is the author of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation.

Howard Gipson was employed as a plaint maintenance worker for Vought Aircraft Industries. He also served as the local union president.

In late 2004, Gibson underwent triple-bypass heart surgery. He was granted FMLA leave for the surgery. In October 2005, Gipson was removed as the local union president. Incident to that removal, his successor removed Gipson's personal effects from the union office and placed them in an adjacent lobby with instructions for Gipson to collect them. He did not.

Gipson's shift supervisor subsequently asked Gipson to remove his effects from the lobby. Gipson did nothing. His supervisor asked him a third time to remove his effects. Gipson replied that it was a union-related matter and that he would not comply without a written directive. His supervisor next gave him a verbal directive to remove his effects, and warned Gipson that failure to do so could result in discipline up to and including discharge. Gipson walked away. He went and saw the company nurse. She told him his blood pressure was slightly elevated. Gipson returned to his station, and told his supervisor he wanted to go home because he was in pain and needed his medicine. Gipson was asked one final time by the HR manager to retrieve his effects. Gipson declined stating that he had a very bad headache.

The company terminated Gipson on the spot for insubordination. Gipson sued alleging that his termination was in retaliation for exercising his FMLA rights. The Sixth Circuit disagreed.

The Court found that there was no a casual connection between is exercise of FMLA rights and his termination. The court opined: "As we have stated, an employee may not insulate himself from a pending dismissal by opportunistically invoking the FMLA."

Here, Gipson, the court found, could not demonstrate that his employer would not have dismissed him regardless of his alleged request for FMLA leave. The Court noted Gipson's admission that he flatly disobeyed the direct order of his supervisors, which "is indisputably grounds for termination."

The Court also cited the finding of the arbitrator that, in violation of a known work rule, Gipson failed to comply with his supervisor's three requests to move his effects, all of which were issued before Gipson had voiced his medical concerns to anyone. While he was not terminated until after Gipson asked for a medical pass to leave for the day, he had been warned prior to his request that failure to obey a direct order to move his effects would result in discipline, including discharge.

According to the Court, "the wheels of termination had already been put into motion before Gipson requested leave." A reasonable jury "could not conclude that it was Gipson's request for a medical pass, rather than Gipson's continuing insubordination, that provoked his firing."

Mr. Bosland Comments: Invoking FMLA leave does not protect an employee from unrelated discipline that is already in the pipeline. Note that the court considered the discipline to be in the pipeline even though formal discipline had not been proposed or issued. Rather, the court focused on whether the discipline would have occurred regardless of the employee's request for FMLA leave. In practice, the employer can demonstrate that it would have issued discipline notwithstanding the exercise of FMLA rights based on conduct that pre-dated the employee's invoking the need for FMLA leave.

Of course, by opportunistically invoking the FMLA, Gipson forced his employer to to go through the great time and expense of litigating the case before both an arbitrator and through the courts. Many employers would look to settle such a case. While that might not guarantee that Gipson would return to his job, a settlement to avoid the substantial expense of litigation might have allowed Gipson to resign with a neutral recommendation, and with a few dollars in his pocket.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0420n-06.pdf