A disability that causes or contributes to an employee’s decision to retire constitutes an involuntary withdrawal from the labor market

A disability that causes or contributes to an employee’s decision to retire constitutes an involuntary withdrawal from the labor market Matter of Jimerson v New York City Police Dept., 2010 NY Slip Op 06729, Decided on September 30, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

Delores Jimerson was employed as a senior administrative aide by the New York City Police Department. In May 2002, claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits claiming injuries to her hands, neck and back due to repetitive movement associated with her employment. A work-related injury to the neck and back was ultimately established.

Jimerson continued to work for the Police Department but ultimately claimed that she was totally disabled from working.*

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that Jimerson had voluntarily removed herself from the labor market and denied her additional workers' compensation benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently affirmed the Administrative Law Judge’s determination that Jimerson had voluntarily removed herself from the labor market.

In response to Jimerson appeal, the Appellate Division commented that "Whether a claimant has voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market is a factual issue for the Board to resolve and, if supported by substantial evidence in the record, the Board's resolution of that issue will not be disturbed." However, the court continued, “It is well settled … that "a retirement is an involuntary withdrawal if the claimant's disability caused or contributed to the decision to retire."

Reviewing the record, the Appellate Division said that it did not find substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that Jimerson had voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. Although, said the court, the Board found that Jimerson "was able to perform her regular job duties without restriction on a full-time basis until removing herself from the labor market," there is a complete absence of evidence to support such finding. Indeed, the decision notes that “there is substantial evidence to the contrary.”

The Appellate Division then reversed the Board’s determination and remanded the matter to it for “further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.”

* Jimerson retired in November 2006.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06729.htm
NYPPL

Asserting rights not covered by the Taylor Law collective bargaining agreement

Asserting rights not covered by the Taylor Law collective bargaining agreement
CSEA v Nassau Co., App. Div., 2nd Dept., 264 AD2d 798, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 94 NY2d 759

Clearly, a public employee union may, under appropriate circumstances, file a lawsuit, or demand arbitration, for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement. May an employee organization representing public employees sue on the basis of alleged violations of rights not included in a Taylor Law agreement?

In Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Association v City of Geneva, 92 NY2d 326, the Court of Appeals said a public sector labor union may assert rights not covered in its collective bargaining agreement if it can show that:

(a) one or more of its members has standing to sue;

(b) the interests sought to be protected are sufficiently germane to the union to satisfy the court that the union is an appropriate representative of those interests; and

(c) Individual members of the organization” are not required to assert the claim in for the tribunal to provide complete relief.

In this instance, CSEA sued, seeking reinstatement and back pay for members of its collective bargaining unit laid off as a result of Nassau County’s 1992 budget difficulties. Its theory: the layoff was breach of its collective bargaining agreement with the county.

The Appellate Division affirmed a lower court’s ruling that CSEA lacked standing to maintain the action. While couched in terms of a contract violation, the court said that there was no underlying contract provision involved.

As to CSEA’s standing under the Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Association doctrine, the court found that it failed to meet the third test set by the Court of Appeals since the participation of the individuals affected was required in this instance.

The case arose as the result of the county administration terminating or demoting some 2,000 employees in response to its 1992 “budget crisis.” One employee who was affected by this, Joseph E. Torre, successfully challenged the action taken against him as violative of the doctrine of legislative equivalency [Torre v County of Nassau, 86 NY2d 421].

Simply stated, the doctrine holds that “a position created by a legislative act must be abolished by a correlative legislative act.” In other words, a county administrator may not unilaterally abolish a position created by the legislature.

A number of county workers affected by the abolition of positions in 1992 have attempted to interpose legislative equivalency claims in an effort to attain reinstatement and back salary.

When CSEA alleged a breach of the controlling Taylor Law agreement in an effort to win reinstatement for individuals in the collective bargaining unit laid off in 1992, the court said that “it is clear that, in reality, the CSEA is attempting to assert a Torre legislative equivalency claim on behalf of all aggrieved employees.” Since it is “the nature and origin of the wrong, the substance and not the form, which controls,” the Appellate Division held that the lower court’s dismissal of CSEA’s petition was correct.

According to the ruling, “the claimed wrong and the rights sought to be enforced arise outside the four corners of the collective bargaining agreement.” Therefore, CSEA had to show that it satisfied the three-prong test set out in the Aeneas McDonald decision in order to maintain the action. The Appellate Division said that CSEA failed to meet the “third prong of the test.”

The Appellate Division ruled that the individual circumstances of each employee would have to be considered to determine whether or not the Torre rule was violated.

The court noted that it had earlier addressed the issue in Weitzenbergh v Nassau County Department of Recreation and Parks, 249 AD2d 538. It denied class action status in the Weitzenbergh case, noting that “there were numerous differences among members of the proposed class and no evidentiary support for the proposition that their positions were improperly abolished under the doctrine of legislative equivalency.”
.

Suing for damages for on-the-job personal injury pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 205-e and the firefighter’s rule

Suing for damages for on-the-job personal injury pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 205-e and the firefighter’s rule
Flynn v City of New York, App. Div., First Department, 258 AD2d 129
[Decided with Marron v City of New York, App. Div., First Department]

Section 205-e of the General Municipal Law grants police officers, or their representatives, the right to bring legal action to recover damages for personal injuries or death resulting from another person’s negligence in failing to comply with statutory or regulatory requirements. In addition, Section 205-e provides that “liability may be based on a fellow officer’s conduct,” [see Gonzalez v Iocovellosi, 249 AD2d 143].

In the Flynn and Marron cases the question was whether officers injured in a riot could sue the department under Section 205-e if they could show that their injuries stemmed from a commanding officer’s failure to follow provisions set out in a police department’s training manual and its patrol guide.

The Appellate Division concluded that a “Police Department’s training manual and Patrol Guide provisions cannot serve as the basis of such a claim.” It said that suing pursuant to Section 205-e is limited to the negligent non-compliance with the requirements of any governmental statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements, citing Desiderio v City of New York, 236 AD2d 224.

Kevin Flynn and Steven Marron, both New York City police officers, claimed that the injuries they suffered during a street disturbance were the direct result of Deputy Inspector Michael Julian’s order not to bring any “hats [or] bats” and other protective gear “traditionally used by police in riot situations” despite their availability in a nearby police van. Julian was the commanding officer of their precinct and the officer in charge.

Flynn contended that General Municipal Law Section 205-e applied because the “mandates and requirements” of the Police Department’s Patrol Guide and the Department’s “temporary and standard operating procedures” were not followed.

Disagreeing with Flynn’s argument, the Appellate Division said that “[t]he facts here present a compelling case for the application of the firefighter’s rule.” The rule recognizes that public safety work is inherently dangerous, and is a general bar to officers suing for line-of-duty injuries. The court said that both Flynn and Marron “knew that the crowd was rioting and were well aware of the dangers presented.”

This situation, according to the decision “is hardly a case where ... a patrolman was injured in the line of duty merely because he or she happened to be present in a given location, but was not engaged in any specific duty that increased the risk of receiving [the] injury”. The court said that the “record indisputably discloses” that both Flynn and Marron were performing a police function that put them at a heightened risk of injury.

Although the Court of Appeals did not consider the issue of whether an internal departmental guide or training manual constitutes a governmental rule or requirement in the Desmond case [Desmond v City of New York, 88 NY2d 455], it held that Section 205-e was not “intended to give police officers a right to sue for breaches of any and all governmental pronouncements of whatever type and regardless of how general or specific those pronouncements might be.”

The Appellate Division said that in enacting Section 205-e the Legislature did not intend to “upset the settled view that the violation of internal agency memoranda or manuals imposing a higher standard of care on a defendant than that imposed by law could not be the basis of liability against governmental entities.” Thus, said the court, the Supreme Court judge should have granted the City’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Flynn’s and Marron’s petitions.

The Appellate Division characterized the City’s patrol guide and its training manual as follows:

Neither the Patrol Guide nor the training manual constitutes a well-developed body of law and regulation. They do not even constitute formal rules of the Police Department. The Patrol Guide is an internal manual intended solely for members of the Police Department. It is a compilation of hundreds of pages of guidelines covering every aspect of police life and conduct, including subjects as diverse as personal appearance, financial restrictions, vacation policy, residency requirements and salute courtesies. The Guide serves as the vehicle by which the Police Department regulates itself. That, in some circumstances, certain provisions of the Patrol Guide may also affect the public does not undermine its essentially intra-agency character.

============================================
If you are interested in learning more about layoff procedures involving employees in the public service in New York State please click here: http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/
============================================
.

Involuntary placement of employee on medical leave

Involuntary placement of employee on medical leave
Evans v NYS Dept. of Health et al, 2nd Cir., No. 98-7160(L)

Due process requirements generally prevent public employers in New York State from removing employees or placing them on leave without a hearing. Exceptions are permitted under Section 72 of the Civil Service Law, which permits public employers to place individuals on involuntary medical leave without first having a hearing in cases in which the appointing authority determines that the continued presence of the individual on the job constitutes a hazard to the employee, or his or her co-workers or to the public. [Section 72.5]*

Brenda Evans charged that the State Department of Health had violated her constitutional right to due process when she was involuntarily placed on medical leave pursuant to Section 72.

Evans suffered a seizure and initially actually placed herself on medical leave. As it frequently the case in such situations, however, Evans viewed her medical leave being converted into “involuntary sick leave” when the appointing authority refused to allow her to return to duty unless she underwent a medical evaluation and was found qualified to do so.

The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York found in favor of the department. The ruling suggests that if an employer follows the procedures mandated by Section 72, its actions will pass judicial scrutiny on due process grounds. The court noted that the law allows the employer to place the employee on involuntary medical leave following a medical examination as long as the individual has a “right to a subsequent hearing.”

The Rules of the State Civil Service Commission provide that employee on sick-leave may, as a condition for return, be required to undergo medical examination [4 NYCRR 28-1.3(e)]. Conceding that Evans had an “important interest in continued employment,” the Circuit Court concluded that such an interest is limited where the employee is placed on medical leave rather than terminated.*

“[I]n determining what process is due, account must be taken of the length and finality of the deprivation” said the court. “On the facts of this case,” the court held that “it was reasonable to believe that [Evans] had been afforded due process.” The decision notes that prior to the seizure, Evans’ examining physician had recommended that she be placed on medical leave. But the department, consistent with the mandates of Section 72, initially allowed her to remain at work pending a hearing.

Applying a balancing test, the decision states that “[o]n the other side of the scale,” the appointing authority took reasonable steps to assure itself that placing Evans on medical leave was appropriate. “In light of those factors, and the State’s strong interest in protecting itself against disruptive employee behavior, it was reasonable to believe that [Evans] had been afforded due process.”

The Circuit Court said that “[t]o determine the process due [issue], we must weigh (1) the private interest affected by the official action; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used, and the probable value of additional or different procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest,” citing Mathews v Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319.

In addition, Evans filed claims under 42 USC. Sections 1981, 1983 and 1985 alleging interference with her constitutional free speech, property and contract rights and that she was subjected to a hostile work environment. Named as defendants were various state entities. The decision notes that “neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under Section 1983,” citing Will v Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58.

Evans also ran in a wall in her effort to sue certain named officials “in their respective personal capacities.” Her attempt to sue these officials in their “personal capacity,” said the court, is barred by the qualified immunity held by these officials.

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability if their conduct either: (1) “did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known, or” (2) “it was objectively reasonable to believe that [their] acts did not violate these clearly established rights.”

* Civil Service Law Section 72 provides for leaves of absence resulting from non-work related injury or illness. Civil Service Law Section 71 [Workers’ Compensation Leave] provides for leaves of absence required as the result of a work-connected injury or illness.

* Section 73 of the Civil Service Law authorizes the “termination” of an individual who has been continuously absent on Section 72 leave for at least one year. However, this “termination” is not the same as a “dismissal” since the individual has an absolute right to return to the position, or a similar position, or be placed on a preferred list, if he or she applies for reinstatement within one year after his or her disability ends.
.

Designating employee as managerial or confidential

Designating employee as managerial or confidential
Lippman v PERB, App. Div., Third Dept., 263 AD2d 891

The designation of managerial and confidential employees within the meaning of the Taylor Law is important to both employers and unions. In the Lippman case the Appellate Division, Third Department, set out the criteria courts follow in reviewing determinations by the Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] concerning the designation of such personnel.

PERB denied a request by the Office of Court Administration to designate nine high-level, nonjudicial Unified Court System [UCS] employees as managerial or confidential pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 201(7).

Employees designated “managerial or confidential” are excluded from the definition of public employees and are generally not covered “by the myriad of rights and protections afforded to public employees under the Taylor Law.”

The nine individuals served in position with the Court of Appeals, the Law Reporting Bureau and the First and Second Appellate Divisions and were then in a negotiating unit represented by the Civil Service Employees Association, Local 1000.

The Appellate Division affirmed PERB’s determination denying the nine managerial or confidential status on the authority of Court of Appeals decision in Rosen v Public Employment Relations Board, 72 NY2d 42.

Although UCS contended that the incumbents should designated managerial “based upon their role in the policy-making process of the courts where they work,” PERB had found that the nine did not “formulate policy” nor did they have a major role in personnel administration as contemplated by Civil Service Law Section 201(7)(a).

PERB’s “long-standing definitions of policy formulation” includes both “a person who has the authority or responsibility to select among options and to put a proposed policy into effect,” and a person “who participates with regularity in the essential process which results in a policy proposal and the decision to put such a proposal into effect.”

UCS contended that “employees need not be the ultimate decision makers to be designated as managerial policy formulators, and that it is sufficient if they assist the ultimate decision makers.” PERB, said the court, has recognized that the “definition of a policymaker is, and must be, sufficiently broad to include those relatively few individuals who directly assist the ultimate decision makers in reaching the decisions necessary to the conduct of the business of government.”

However, every employee who advise the ultimate decision makers is not automatically a policy formulator to be designated as managerial and excluded from the Taylor Law’s protections. Rather, the employer must demonstrate that the particular employee participates in the essential processes by which the employer makes its decisions regarding the department’s mission and the means by which those policy objectives can best be achieved.

The court said that it would defer to the expert charged with administering the Taylor Law -- PERB -- in view of its expertise with respect to the fundamental policies underlying that law.*

As to the standard the Appellate Division used: “‘[s]o long as [PERB’s] interpretation is legally permissible and so long as there is no breach of constitutional rights and protections ... ‘“, the court said it would accept PERB’s construction if reasonable and not arbitrary or irrational, [Village of Lynbrook v PERB, 48 NY2d 398].

The Court said that “[t]he determination of who “directly assists” the ultimate decision makers necessarily involves drawing distinctions and lines among employees based, inter alia [among other things], upon the nature, timing and level of their involvement in the decision-making processes, and upon the practices and hierarchy of the employer.”

Based on the record before it, the Appellate Division concluded, PERB acted rationally in making such distinctions and determinations regarding these employees.

What about “supervisory employees working with or for managerial employees.” The decision notes that such personnel “are not automatically or presumably confidential employees within the meaning of Civil Service Law Section 201(7)(a)(ii).” “Indeed,” said the court, “knowledge of personnel or disciplinary matters is often inherent in supervisory positions and does not warrant a confidential designation where it is limited and does not encompass labor relations information significant to the basic mission of the employer.”

* In contrast, the Appellate Division pointed out that “where ... the question is one of pure statutory construction,” dependent only on accurate understanding of the legislative intent, judicial review is less restricted as “statutory construction is the function of the courts.”
.

Increasing workday hours held to adversely affect employee leave credits

Increasing workday hours held to adversely affect employee leave credits
Nagy v Board, Sup. Ct., Conn, #16003

Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled that increasing the workday hours of state employees from seven hours to eight hours per day “devaluates” their accrued annual and sick leave credits. The remedy: increase the value of the employees’ annual and sick leave credits pro rata to the increase in their workday.

Two state assistant attorney generals, Robert A. Nagy and Hugh Barber, sued Connecticut contending that their standard seven-hour workday had been gradually lengthened to eight hours and this resulted in the devaluation of their previously earned leave accruals. The basic argument advanced by Connecticut: the relevant law provided for granting, and using, vacation and sick leave in “hour units” and therefore employees were to be charged on an “hour for hour” bases regardless of the employees’ rate of leave credit accumulation.

Nagy and Barber, on the other hand, contended that Connecticut’s interpretation resulted in their having to use eight hours of credit to cover a day of absence despite the fact that they had previously been limited to accruing credits based on a seven-hour workday: that is, they had accrued a day of credit equated to seven hours of leave time but were now required to use eight hours of leave time credit if they were absent for a day.

The court agreed and in effect held that Nagy and Barber were being “overcharged” leave credits for each “eight-hour day” of absence under the circumstances. It directed Connecticut to correct the situation.
.

Governor Paterson names New York State’s Chief Diversity Officer

Governor Paterson names New York State’s Chief Diversity Officer
Source: Office of the Governor

N.B. On October 1, 2010 Governor David A. Paterson announced that Carra Wallace has declined the appointment to the position of Chief Diversity Officer of New York State.

The Governor has asked Charlotte Hitchcock, his Chief of Staff, to assume the duties of this statutory role until December 31. In conjunction with the Governor's Counsel's office, Ms. Hitchcock was the point person for negotiations with the Legislature on the successful passage of this bill.

Governor Paterson had initially appointed Carra Wallace as the State’s first Chief Diversity Officer effective October 15, 2010. This position in the Executive Chamber was established pursuant to §4-a of the Executive Law.*

The Chief Diversity Officer is one of three positions in the Executive Chamber created by law. The other two are the “Secretary to the Governor” and the “Counsel to the governor.”**

According to the Office of the Governor, the Chief Diversity Officer's responsibilities include:

• Advising the Governor and the agencies regarding any measures necessary to ensure full compliance with Article fifteen-a of the Executive Law, the statute governing contracting with minority and women's business enterprises;

• Engaging in other actions assigned to him or her by the Governor relating to diversity in hiring or promotion of the State workforce and in encouraging diversity practices;

• Advising and assisting the Governor in formulating policies relating to workforce diversity and minority and women's business enterprises;

• Working with the director of the Division of Minority and Women's Business Development to prepare an annual plan for ensuring full compliance with article fifteen-a;

• Serving as a member of the State procurement council;

• Serving as the Governor's liaison with organizations representing minority and women-owned business enterprises and other organizations related to diversity in the State workforce and in State contracting;

• Serving as the Governor's liaison to the small business advisory council for issues related to the creation of a diverse workforce and State procurement practices relating to minority and women-owned business enterprises; and

• Reviewing and consulting with the director of minority and women's business development regarding policies relating to minority and women-owned business enterprise contract specialists at State agencies.

* §4-a of the Executive Law takes effect October 13, 2010.

** See §4 of the Executive Law.
.

OATH hearing officer denies 9-month postponement of disciplinary hearing while individual is on §72 disability leave

OATH hearing officer denies 9-month postponement of disciplinary hearing while individual is on §72 disability leave
New York City Department of Consumer Affairs v Santamaria, OATH Index #2455/10
NYPPL
The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs filed §75 disciplinary charges against Randi Santamaria alleging various acts of insubordination and “carelessness.” After several adjournments by both parties, Consumer Affairs asked the Administrative Law Judge to go forward with the disciplinary hearing scheduled for August 19 and 20, 2010.

Santamaria, however, had earlier requested leave under the Family Medical Leave Act based upon her mental health, her second request for such leave within the last two years. Consumer Affairs then had Santamaria evaluated by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist found Santamaria “mentally unfit to work” and Consumer Affairs placed her on “a one-year involuntary leave under §72 of the Civil Service Law” effective May 13, 2010.

Prior to the scheduled disciplinary hearing Santamaria’s attorney asked for a stay of the §75 action based on Santamaria being place on §72 leave by the agency. Santamaria's attorney also stated that he was requesting a stay pending “the resolution" of the §72 proceedings and suggested that "should [Santamaria] not be able to return to work within the year, she could be terminated under §73 and the §75 case would be rendered moot.”*

Although OATH’s Administrative Law Judge John B. Spooner said that he was “skeptical of the legal soundness” of Consumer Affair’s decision “to proceed with a §75 proceeding immediately after finding an employee unfit and placing her out on involuntary leave, based upon the same acts charged in the misconduct case … nevertheless, [Santamaria's] request for a nine-month stay is problematic and cannot be granted.”**

Noting that an OATH Administrative Law Judge “possesses the power to adjourn an action ‘for good cause,’ lengthy adjournments due to another pending action have not been found to constitute sufficient cause and have generally been denied.”

Judge Spooner cited Department of Correction v. Noriega-Harvey, OATH Index No. 575/93, (“pendency of related litigation has apparently never been sufficient basis for grant of an indefinite adjournment of an OATH trial.”) and Department of Environmental Protection v. Bellach, OATH Index No. 1574/08 (denying respondent’s request for a stay of a disciplinary hearing during the pendency of criminal proceedings)” in support of his determination.

* This is not entirely accurate as an individual terminated from §72 leave pursuant to §73 of the Civil Service Law has the right to reinstatement to his or her former position in the event he or she applies for such reinstatement with the responsible civil service commission within one year after the termination of such disability. In the event the commission’s medical examiner certifies that the individual is physically and mentally fit to perform the duties of his or her former position, he or she is to be reinstated if a suitable position is available or place on a preferred list, depending on the situation.

** On this point ALJ Spooner said that at “the very least, the medical officer’s finding of unfitness in May 2010 would appear to significantly undermine the agency’s ability to establish, at a §75 hearing, that [Santamaria's] actions constituted intentional misconduct. At worst, seeking to punish an employee for conduct caused by a disability could arguably defy the entire policy underlying the legislature’s enactment of Civil Service Law §72 as an alternative to §75,” citing Dep’t of Housing Preservation & Development v. Chambart, OATH Index No. 380/84..

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/10_Cases/10-2455md.pdf

Electronic document preservation

Electronic document preservation
Information concerning the retention and preservation of electronic records prepared by the State and political subdivisions of the State is available at http://www.archives.nysed.gov/a/records/mr_erecords.shtml

Major topics addressed include:

1. Conducting a records inventory

2. Inventorying electronic records, [Electronic Records Inventory workshop];

3. Organizing electronic records;

4. Preservation of electronic records for the “long-term;” and

5. Security of electronic records including protecting records in the event of fire, flood, vandalism, viruses, hackers and “hard drive crashes.”

The staff of the New York State Archives note that “Computers and other electronic devices create many of the new records we use today.” Also noted is the fact that “These records, although electronic in format, are the same as records in other formats. Electronic records show how you conduct business, make decisions, and carry out your work. They are evidence of decisions and actions. Fundamental records management principles apply to electronic records and all other record formats.”

Workshops addressing the basics concerning the care of electronic records are offered by the Office of the State Archives and are listed on the Internet at Managing Electronic Records .

The State Archives administers the Local Government Records Management Improvement Fund (LGRMIF) to assist local governments manage their records, including their electronic record-keeping systems. Contact the State Archives at (518) 474-6926 or via e-mail, or contact your Regional Advisory Officer for information concerning such assistance.
.NYPPL

EEOC alleges female employee “pressured to enter into a sham marriage” constitutes sexual harassment

EEOC alleges female employee “pressured to enter into a sham marriage” constitutes sexual harassment
Source: Posted on the Internet in CCH Workday. Reproduced with permission. Copyright© CCH 2010, All rights reserved. If you wish to become a subscriber to CCH Workday, please go to http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/

“This is definitely not the garden-variety sexual harassment case — compelling employees to marry is a new twist,” said regional attorney Robert Canino of the EEOC’s Dallas district office.

“Asking women to marry as a part of their job duties or terms of employment is not only illegal under Title VII, but if the idea is to circumvent the immigration laws of the United States, the discriminatory treatment also puts the employees themselves in jeopardy of violating federal laws.”

The CCH item reports:

"Courtesy Building Services, a Texas-based janitorial and maintenance service, violated Title VII by subjecting a female employee to sexual harassment, including being pressured to marry a stranger from Thailand to promote his efforts toward citizenship, the EEOC charged in a recent lawsuit.

"According to the agency, Operations Manager Melissa Gaona was subjected to unlawful sexual harassment starting in 2005. In addition to lewd remarks said to her or in her presence by management personnel, she was asked by a manager to enter into marriage with a stranger, a non-citizen, to enhance his opportunity to achieve citizenship.

“Enduring supervisors’ comments about women’s bodies and accounts of visits to the local strip clubs shouldn’t be a job requirement,” said EEOC supervisory trial attorney Toby Wosk Costas.

“And pressuring a worker to enter into a marriage she doesn’t want, for ulterior motives, is simply unconscionable. It adds up to a hostile work environment that certainly violates federal laws against discrimination.

"In a suit filed in the Northern District of Texas, the EEOC seeks relief for Gaona as well as injunctive relief, including a court order to prevent the company from engaging in similar discriminatory conduct in the future; compensatory damages for emotional harm; and punitive damages to deter future acts of employment discrimination."
.NYPPL

School board not required to adjusting teaching schedules to avoid a layoff

School board not required to adjusting teaching schedules to avoid a layoff
Soukey v Cohoes City School Dist., Commissioner of Education Decision 14,106

Faced with a reduced work schedule or a perhaps layoff, a teacher may ask the school board to adjust the schedules of other teachers in order to retain him or her in a full-time position. Is the school board obligated to honor such a request?

This was one of the elements in Donna Soukey’s appeal to the Commissioner of Education. Soukey, tenured as a health teacher, was employed in a 6/10’s health teacher position following the abolishment of a full-time health teacher position by the district. Soukey was the least senior tenured health teacher at the time.

Soukey argued that the district “could have adjusted the schedules of other teachers ... to facilitate her assignment to classes within her various certification areas in order to retain her in full-time service.” She provided the Commissioner with examples of how the district could have accomplished this.

The Commissioner pointed out that a school board is “not required to shuffle the schedules of teachers in tenure areas other than health merely because [she] happens to hold certification in those areas.”

Noting that Soukey was the least senior teacher in the health tenure area, the Commissioner said that her services as a full time teacher were properly reduced. Commissioner Mills concluded that Cohoes was not required to make scheduling adjustments that would affect teachers’ services in any other tenure area in an effort to retain Soukey as a full-time employee.

The major element in Soukey’s appeal was her claim that she was not the least senior teacher in the health tenure area. The Commissioner ruled that there was nothing in the record to support overturning the district’s seniority determinations with respect to the several teachers in the health tenure area involved in this appeal.

Another aspect of the appeal concerned Soukey request for “reimbursement for the costs of bringing this appeal” as part of the relief she sought. The Commissioner responded by pointing out that he “lacks authority to award such costs and attorney’s fees in an appeal under Education Law Section 310” and dismissed this branch of Soukey’s appeal as well.

============================================
If you are interested in learning more about layoff procedures involving employees in the public service in New York State please click here: http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/
============================================
NYPPL

Considering employee sick leave bank requests

Considering employee sick leave bank requests
Pocantico Hills CSD v Teachers Assoc., App. Div., 2nd Dept. 264 AD2d 397, Motion to appeal denied, 94 NY2d 759

The Taylor Law Agreement between the Pocantico Hills Central School District and the Pocantico Hills Teachers Association provided for a sick leave bank for use by teachers absent as a result of an “extended, serious illness or serious injury.”

Two teachers applied for contract sick leave bank credits in connection with their respective “extended post-pregnancy leave.” The district and the association deadlocked over the question of approving the use of sick leave bank credits for this purpose. The Taylor Law agreement provided that in the event the parties could not agree with respect to a request for use of sick leave bank credits, the question was to be referred to a mutually agreed upon physician. The physician selected by the parties concluded that the teachers’ pregnancies did not constitute “extended, serious illness or serious injury” within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the agreement.

Relying on this determination, the district denied both applications to use the sick leave bank for these pregnancy-related absences.

The association demanded that the issue be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the contract grievance procedure. The district objected and obtained an order from a State Supreme Court judge staying the arbitration [see Article 75, Civil Practice Law and Rules].

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination. It said that the teachers’ eligibility for sick leave bank credits had been determined in accordance with the tie-breaking provisions of the agreement.

The court ruled that the grievance procedure, which expressly limited arbitration to grievances arising from the violation of specific terms and provisions of the agreement, was not available to the association in this instance.

The Appellate Division said that under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court judge had correctly determined that the denials of the applications filed by the two teachers fell outside the arbitration provisions of the agreement and thus its issuing a stay was appropriate.

Two additional arguments were advanced by the Association in support of its position. It contended that:

1. The provisions of the agreement relating to the sick leave bank are ill-suited to pregnancy-related leaves; and/or

2. Special consideration should be given to pregnancy-related leave requests.”

The Appellate Division rejected both of the arguments, commenting that these constituted “a matter for negotiation, not arbitration.”

If, on the other hand, the physician determined that the teacher suffered an “extended, serious illness or serious injury,” presumably the individual would be deemed eligible for sick leave bank credits notwithstanding the fact that the particular medical condition in question was pregnancy-related.
.NYPPL

Determining a union’s right to arbitrate

Determining a union’s right to arbitrate
Batavia CSD v Batavia Teachers’ Assn., App. Div., Fourth Dept., 265 AD2d 806
Jefferson County v Jefferson Co. Deputy Sheriff’s Assn., App. Div., Fourth Dept., 265 AD2d 802

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, handed down two rulings that addressed efforts by public employers to prevent the arbitration of grievances filed by unions on behalf of members.

The Batavia Case

The Batavia Teachers’ Association demanded arbitration of grievances it filed on behalf of two certified teachers who were not selected to fill vacant interscholastic coaching positions. The association contended that [1] the district’s selection procedure violated the negotiated agreement’s contract provisions dealing with appointment to coaching positions and [2] uncertified applicants were “improperly appointed when certified candidates were available.”

Essentially the school district asked for the stay of arbitration because “public policy prohibits an arbitrator from reviewing the Board’s hiring decisions.”

Here, however, the Appellate Division viewed this argument as irrelevant under the circumstances. It said that the association was not seeking to arbitrate the school board’s exercise of discretion in making those hiring decisions. Rather, said the court, the association claimed that the Board did not adhere to its procedural obligations in making its hiring decisions.

Accordingly, although part of the relief sought by the two employees was their respective appointment to the coaching positions, the Appellate Division ruled that public policy did not prohibit submission of these two grievances to arbitration, affirming a state Supreme Court justice’s ruling denying the district’s petition to stay the arbitration.

In Port Washington Union Free School District v Port Washington Teachers Association, 45 NY2d 411, the Court of Appeals said that “[a] stay of arbitration on [public] policy grounds is ‘premature and unjustified’, even though the remedy sought may not, due to [public] policy concerns, be enforceable, where it is possible that the arbitrator may use his broad powers to fashion a remedy ‘adequately narrowed to encompass only procedural guarantees’”.

Accordingly, in determining whether a public sector grievance is subject to arbitration, the court must first determine is whether or not arbitration of the subject matter of the grievances is authorized by the Taylor Law. As the Court of Appeals said in Liverpool CSD v United Liverpool Faculty Asso., 42 NY2d 509, if the demand for arbitration passes this first test, the court must then determine if the parties appear to have agreed “by the terms of their particular arbitration clause to refer their differences in this specific area to arbitration.”

Finding that the collective bargaining agreement contained a broad arbitration clause and that there was a “reasonable relationship” between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, the Appellate Division concluded that the two grievances should be submitted to an arbitrator. The court commented that once the arbitrator assumes jurisdiction over the grievances, he or she will:

1. Make “a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the Taylor Law agreement; and

2. Determine whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within such substantive provisions.


The Jefferson County Case

Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff Gary M. Belch was found guilty of disciplinary charges by an arbitrator. The sheriff, however, imposed a harsher penalty than the one recommended by the arbitrator. As a result, the union served a demand for arbitration, claiming that the sheriff had imposed the heavier penalty in retaliation for Belch’s exercising his right to submit the disciplinary action to arbitration.

The Appellate Division ruled that the County’s petition for a stay of the arbitration should be denied. Although Jefferson County contended that the Sheriff’s decision to increase the penalty recommended by the arbitrator is not subject to further arbitration, the court said it disagreed.

According to the ruling, “the allegation of retaliation is covered under the agreement’s definition of grievance,” and thus the proper procedure to address a grievance is arbitration. The court said that with respect to other grounds for staying the arbitration advanced by the county, “it is for the arbitrator to determine whether this arbitration is barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata.”

There was a technical element to this appeal that should be noted. The county’s petition was initially rejected by a State Supreme Court justice on the grounds that it was untimely. The Appellate Division, however, observed the union’s demand for arbitration was served on the sheriff, rather than the proper party -- the county.

Why wasn’t service on the sheriff proper? Because, said the court,” the sheriff was neither a party to the collective bargaining agreement nor an individual designated to accept service on behalf of [the county].”

This failure to comply with the service provisions of Section 7503 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules tolled the time limit for service of a petition to stay arbitration. The county was subsequently properly served with the demand and therefore its motion to stay the arbitration was held timely as measured from the date of “proper service” on it.

Why it is necessary for a party to go to court to obtain a stay of arbitration? Because if it refuses to participate in the arbitration and does not have the authority of the court in the form of a “stay of arbitration,” the arbitration can proceed “in absentia.” For example, in Hall v Environmental Conservation, 235 AD2d 757, the Appellate Division ruled that an arbitrator may [1] proceed with a disciplinary arbitration notwithstanding the fact that the appointing authority refused to participate in the proceeding and [2] thereafter make a final, binding determination.

On the other hand, in Suffolk County v SCCC Faculty Association, the Appellate Division pointed out that if a party participates in arbitration when “it did not have to,” it cannot later seek to vacate the arbitration award “because it was not required to submit to the arbitration of the issue.”
.NYPPL

Appointment to the position of detective

Appointment to the position of detective
Ryff v Safir, App. Div., First Dept., 264 AD2d 349

The Ryff case sets out some standards that the Appellate Division, First Department, said should be considered in determining if a police officer who has temporarily served as a detective for at least 18 months is entitled to hold that title on a permanent basis without further examination.

Kevin T. Ryff, a New York City Police Department Harbor Unit Vessel Theft Team member, had been recommended for Detective Third Grade status by his commanding officer.

The recommendation reflected the commanding officer’s view that the duties of members of the Vessel Theft Team mirrored the investigative duties of the Detective Bureau investigators in the Auto Crime Division Special Operations Squad. Auto Crime Squad members were promoted to Detective Third Grade after 18 months of service.

New York City’s Administrative Code Section 14-103(b)(2) provides that any person who has received permanent appointment as a police officer and is temporarily assigned to perform the duties of a detective shall, whenever such assignment exceeds eighteen months in duration, be appointed as a detective and receive the compensation ordinarily paid to a detective performing such duties.*

The commissioner, however, rejected the recommendation, indicating that “the 18-month rule does not apply to the Harbor Unit Vessel Theft Team because that unit is not included in the ‘historical career path program’ it has for detective.” Ryff, however, persuaded a State Supreme Court judge to direct the commissioner to designate him a Detective Third Grade retroactive to the date he had completed 18 months of investigative service, with accompanying seniority and benefits. The Supreme Court judge ruled:

1. The commissioner “no longer has discretion to determine whether a particular assignment equals a detective function” and

2. It is the nature of the duties performed and whether they are equivalent to detective functions, not the specific unit in which they are performed, which is determinative” of whether the officer is entitled to be designated Detective Third Grade.

The Appellate Division, however, vacated the lower court’s order. Although the Supreme Court judge concluded that since Ryff “had performed “investigatory duties” for more than 18 months while with the Vessel Theft Team of the Harbor Unit, he was entitled to be designated as a Detective Third Grade with the requisite benefits,” the Appellate Division ruled that such a decision was premature. It said that a hearing was required to resolve two basic issues:

1. Does the scope of Administrative Code Section 14-103(b)(2) rest on the nature of the work performed and, if so,

2. Did Ryff’s work include “investigatory duties”?

Finding that the record was insufficient to determine whether the investigative duties actually performed by Ryff were comparable to those carried out by police officers who received detective status upon completion of 18 months of investigative duties performed in other units, the Appellate Division remanded the matter for a hearing to determine these two critical issues.**

This ruling suggests that such determinations must be made on a “case-by-case” basis and simply relying on the “official job description” will not be viewed by the courts as sufficient.

* New York State Civil Service Law Section 58.4(c), to the extent that it provided that sworn officers of municipal jurisdiction other than the City of New York were to be deemed “permanently appointed” as a detective after having temporarily served as a detective for at least 18 months, was held to violate Article 6, Section 5 [the “merit and fitness” requirement] of the State Constitution [Wood v Irving, 85 NY2d 238, 1995]. Chapter 134 of the Laws of 1997 was adopted in an effort to meet this criticism by the Court of Appeal, wherein the legislature stated “that an individual who performs in an investigatory position in a manner sufficiently satisfactory to the appropriate supervisors to hold such an assignment for a period of eighteen months, has demonstrated fitness for the position of detective or investigator within such police
or sheriffs department at least as sufficiently as could be ascertained by means of a competitive examination.”

** Ryff served as a member of the Police Department’s Harbor Unit’s Vessel Theft Team from April 4, 1995 to February 28, 1997, when he retired.
.NYPPL

AIDS phobia

AIDS phobia
Libasci v Rockville Centre Housing Auth., NYS Supreme Ct., Nassau County, [Not selected for inclusion in the Official Reports]

Libasci and a fellow Rockville Centre sanitation worker, Joseph DeJesus, were removing trash from the Rockville Housing Authority when an insulin needle protruding from a trash bag stuck Libasci.

Libasci was treated at the South Nassau Communities Hospital Emergency Room and given a tetanus shot. Subsequent blood tests were negative for infectious diseases.

On February 18, 1997, Libasci sued for negligence based what State Supreme Court Justice McCaffrey described as “AIDS phobia.”

Justice McCaffrey said that “[I]n order to maintain a cause of action for damages due to the fear of contracting AIDS a rational belief of infection, standing alone, is inadequate. A plaintiff who has not tested seropositive must offer proof of ‘actual exposure’, that is of both a scientifically accepted method of transmission of the virus (in this case a needle puncture) and that the source of the allegedly transmitted blood or fluid was in fact HIV-positive...,” citing Brown v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 225 AD2d 36.

The court said that summary judgment in favor of the authority was justified because Libasci acknowledged that he “does not know the original owner of the needle or of his or her medical condition” and there was no admissible evidence to demonstrate that the needle was infected.
.
NYPPL