An appointing authority may designate another individual to review a disciplinary hearing officer’s report and make the final determination

An appointing authority may designate another individual to review a disciplinary hearing officer’s report and make the final determination

Guynup v County of Clinton, 2011 NY Slip Op 09243, Appellate Division, Third Department

A lieutenant employed by the Clinton County Sheriff's Department, Terry Guynup was served with four charges alleging various acts of misconduct, incompetence and insubordination in violation of Department rules and regulations.*

A Civil Service Law §75 Hearing Officer found Guynup guilty of two of the charges filed against him but dismissed the remaining two charges. As to the penalty to be imposed, the Hearing Officer recommended that Guynup be required to participate in an employee assistance program and be suspended without pay for 30 days.

David Favro, the Clinton County Sheriff, disqualified himself from the proceeding and designated the Clinton County Administrator, Michael E. Zurlo, to review the Hearing Officer’s findings and recommendations.**

Zurlo accepted the Hearing Officer’s findings but, in addition, found Guynup guilty of one additional charge. Zurlo, however, rejected the Hearing Officer’s recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed and ruled that Guynup should be terminated from his position with the Sheriff’s Department.

Subsequently Zurlo's determination that Guynup was guilty of the additional charge was set aside by the Appellate Division [see Guynup v. County of Clinton, 74 A.D.3d 1552] and the matter remitted to Zurlo for a new determination as to the penalty to be imposed on the surviving two charges. Zurlo again decided that Guynup should be terminated from his position and again Guynup appealed.

The Appellate Division, noting that its review of such an administrative determination is "limited to whether the penalty is so disproportionate as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness" said that Guynup’s conduct, especially when committed by an individual who occupies a senior position in law enforcement, was "clearly at odds with the strict discipline necessary to effectively operate a [Sheriff's Department]" where he is employed and supports the decision imposing termination as his penalty” and sustained Zurlo’s decision to terminate Guynup.

* One of the charges alleged that Guynup was guilty of incompetence because he could not carry a firearm and thus “could not faithfully execute his official responsibilities as an officer within the Department.”

** If a conflict exists that may implicates the appointing authority's ability to be fair and impartial, a third party with “supervisory authority over that particular employee” may be designated to review a Hearing Officer's report and, upon such a review, make determinations concerning the employee's status” [Gomez v Stout, 13 NY3d 182].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09243.htm

Unpaid employer's retirement contributions for its employees plus accrued interest must be paid to the NYS Employees’ Retirement System

Unpaid employer's retirement contributions for its employees plus accrued interest must be paid to the NYS Employees’ Retirement System

DiNapoli v Town of New Scotland, 2011 NY Slip Op 09247, Appellate Division, Third Department

When Walter Myers, then an employee of the Town of New Scotland, applied for service retirement benefits from the Retirement System [ERS], ERS discovered that New Scotland had not paid certain employer contributions due the System on behalf of Myers for the period September 1, 1972 through March 31, 1973.*

ERS sent the Town its annual invoice determination for employer contributions in which included a charge in the amount of $10,310 for "prior years adjustment," reflecting the cost of Myers' service credit for the disputed period, plus interest. New Scotland declined to pay the “prior years adjustment” and ultimately ERS sued the Town to recover the amount it alleged it was due pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law §17(e).

Supreme Court ruled that ERS’ claim was subject to the six-year Statute of Limitations set out in CPLR §213. It then granted ERS’ motion for summary judgment finding that its petition demanding the “prior years adjustment” was timely filed. The Appellate Division agreed with Supreme Court that the six-year Statute of Limitations controlled and that whether ERS’ action was timely “turns on when the cause of action against [the Town] accrued.”

Noting that RSSL §17 requires ERS to annually "determine the amount which each participating employer is required to pay to the [R]etirement [S]ystem to discharge its obligations" for the fiscal year, which amount shall include "any additional obligation, plus interest on such amount, for fiscal years preceding the current fiscal year," the Appellate Division explained that as there is “no limit is placed on how far back in time [ERS] may bill for such obligation.”

As ERS sent the Town its annual invoice in November 2007, in which it included the “prior year's adjustment” at issue, ERS’ cause of action accrued on or about February 1, 2008 when the Town failed to make the payment reflecting the cost of Myers' service credit as required by law.

Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, ERS’ action was timely and while payment of ERS’ assessment has “potentially significant fiscal effects” on the Town due to the unanticipated obligation to pay interest computed over such a lengthy period of time, the Retirement and Social Security Law clearly “requires that such interest be assessed.”

Finding that ERS established a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and that the Town failed to raise any questions of fact, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to ERS.

* Myers had been initially employed by the Town on September 1, 1972. He then applied for membership in ERS on March 31, 1973.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09247.htm

School district not required to provide tuition-free education to certain nonresident children

School district not required to provide tuition-free education to certain nonresident children

Board of Education of the Garrison Union Free School District v Greek Archdiocese Institute of St. Basil, 2012 NY Slip Op 00023, Court of Appeals.

In this appeal the Court of Appeals was asked to determine if a school district was obligated to pay for the educational costs of the children living in a child care institution located within the district's boundaries.

The court ruled that a school district is not obligated to provide a tuition-free education to those children determined to be nonresidents of the school district.

The Court of Appeals, citing Education Law §3202[6], explained that "St. Basil is an 'institution for the care, custody and treatment of children' and the Education Law specifies that children living in such institutions are not deemed residents of the school district in which the institution is located purely by reason of their presence in the institution". Further, said the court, "The issuance of a license to operate a child care institution does not change the residence of the children living there."

The text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_00023.htm

Nontenured policymaker in the public service ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if he or she is terminated by the appointing authority

Nontenured policymaker in the public service ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if he or she is terminated by the appointing authority

Matter of Matter of Briggs (Commissioner of Labor), Decided on December 22, 2011, Appellate Division, Third Department

Daniel L. Briggs was appointed the County Manager for Sullivan County in 2000. When, in 2005, the County Legislature terminated his employment, Briggs filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits.

Ultimately the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ruled that Briggs was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits and Briggs appealed.

Citing Labor Law §565.2(e), the Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s ruling, pointing out that a claimant is ineligible to file a claim for unemployment insurance benefits when he or she is employed by a governmental entity in a "major nontenured policymaking or advisory position."

The court concluded that Briggs employment as County Manager was as a nontenured policymaker or advisor as his duties included appointing and supervising department heads, developing policy and procedural recommendations for the County Legislature, performing advisory oversight of the County Auditor and preparing the operating and capital budgets for the employer.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09224.htm

Agency's decision annulled because it failed to follow its own rules requiring notice to be given to the parties that could be affected by the ruling

Agency's decision annulled because it failed to follow its own rules requiring notice to be given to the parties that could be affected by the ruling

City of Saratoga Springs v City of Saratoga Springs Civ. Serv. Commn., 2011 NY Slip Op 09246, Appellate Division, Third Department

When the Mayor of the City of Saratoga Springs initiated the reorganization of the City’s Building Department, the City of Saratoga Springs Civil Service Commission approved the Mayor's request to [1] revise the job description of Assistant Building Inspectors (ABI) to include permitting the incumbents to issue building permits when so assigned to do so by the Mayor and [2] reclassify the vacant position of building inspector to Zoning and Building Inspector (ZBI).

When the Mayor failed to appoint anyone to the ZBI position the Commission unilaterally reversed its earlier action and abolished the ZBI title. In addition, the Commission removed the Mayor's power to assign ABIs authority to issue building permits and limited the ABIs’ authority to assume the duties of the building inspector to a temporary basis for a period of not to exceed three months.*

The City of Saratoga Springs reclassified the position of Building Inspector and changed the title of that position to Zoning and Building Inspector (ZBI) based a request submitted by the Mayor of the City of Saratoga Springs.

When the Mayor failed to fill the ZBI position, the Commission unilaterally reversed its earlier action and abolished the ZBI title. The Commission also removed the Mayor's power to assign ABIs authority to issue building permits and it limited the ABIs’ to performing the duties of the building inspector on a temporary basis, not to exceed three months in duration.

The City filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and an action for declaratory judgment seeking to annul the changes that Commission made to the positions of ZBI and ABI. The Commission opposed the City’s action, contending that the City [1] had violated Civil Service Law §61(2) by requiring ABIs to perform the functions of the building inspector which the Commission said constituted out-of-title work.

Supreme Court said that while the Commission “did not technically reclassify the positions of ABI or ZBI,” its actions nonetheless should be annulled because they were taken without providing notice to the appointing authority — the mayor — and the incumbent ABIs.

In addition, the court dismissed Commissions out-of-title claim, finding that City had acted “within its authority in having ABIs perform the functions of the building inspector” and that the Commission “lacked standing to assert a violation of Civil Service Law §61(2).”

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s ruling, holding that “regardless of the appropriate nomenclature, the material changes that [the Commission] made to these positions required notice,” pointing out that the Commission’s rules provide that it "shall give reasonable notice of any proposal or application for a change in classification to the appointing officer and to the employee or employees affected thereby."

As the Commission had unanimously voted to approve a motion to "classify" the position of ZBI, the Appellate Division ruled that when decided to eliminate that position, such action constituted a "change in classification" requiring notice.

The same, said the court, was true with respect to ABI positions.

Rejecting the Commission’s argument that the notice provisions are applicable only when a position is moved from one class to another, as opposed to where, as here, the duties of a position are materially changed, the court said that “Supreme Court properly granted the petition and annulled [the Commission’s] actions in abolishing the ZBI position and revising the ABI job specifications.”

As to the Commission’s out-of-title claim, the Appellate Division said that such a violation of Civil Service Law §61(2) exists when "an employee has been assigned to perform the duties of a higher grade, without a concomitant increase in pay, frequently, recurrently and for long periods of time." However, noted the court citing Haubert v Governor's Off. of Empl. Relations, 284 AD2d 879, "[n]ot all additional duties constitute out-of-title work but, instead, the question is whether the new duties are appropriate to [the employee's] title and/or are similar in nature to, or a reasonable outgrowth of, the duties listed in [the employee's] job specifications."

The opinion then observes that  "Significantly, an employee's performance of overlapping functions of an absent supervisor has not been found to establish a violation of Civil Service Law §61(2) where such functions were substantially similar to those detailed in his or her job description."

* §64 of the Civil Service Law permits temporary to be made for a period not exceeding three months when the need for such service is important and urgent. A temporary appointment may be made for a period exceeding three months under special circumstances as set out in the statute.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09246.htm

A school district may required a teacher suspected of being medically unfit to perform assigned teaching duties to report for a medical examination

A school district may required a teacher suspected of being medically unfit to perform assigned teaching duties to report for a medical examination

Seraydar v Three Vil. Cent. School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 09336, Appellate Division, Second Department

A teacher employed by the Three Village Central School District was relieved of her teaching duties and directed to submit to a medical examination pursuant to Education Law §913 but the teacher neither appeared for the examination as scheduled nor for a rescheduled examination.Instead the teacher filed an Article 78 petition seeking judicial review the District's determination to require the teacher to submit to a §913 examination. 

Supreme Court dismissed the teacher’s petition, ruling that the District's directive requiring the teacher to undergo the examination was not arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unreasonable.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling explaining that "Teachers in this State are generally required to submit to an examination to determine their physical and mental fitness to perform their duties.”

The court said that school districts have "an interest in seeing that [their] teachers are fit," and "it is not unreasonable to require teachers to submit to further testing when school authorities have reason to suspect that they are currently unfit for teaching duties."

Finding that there was “there is ample evidence in the record” providing the District with reason to suspect that the teacher may be unfit for to perform assigned teaching duties, the Appellate Division said that the §913.examination should be scheduled on notice to the teacher.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09336.htm

Exhausting one's administrative remedy

Exhausting one's administrative remedy

Sabino v DiNapoli, 2011 NY Slip Op 09244, Appellate Division, Third Department

Anthony J. Sabino, an attorney, provided legal services to a number of political subdivisions of the State including serving with the Town of Oyster Bay, and Bethpage Water District. Both Oyster Bay and Bethpage had reported Sabino as an employee to the New York State Employees’ Retirement System [ERS].

In 2008, Comptroller promulgated regulations to provide guidance to the ERS as to whether individuals providing professional services such as those provided by Sabino should be deemed employees or as independent contractors. Significantly, independent contractors were not eligible for member service credit for the services provided to a public employer as an independent contractor.

After reviewing Sabino's status with the Water District, ERS determined that Sabino was an independent contractor and revoked a portion of his service credits in the Retirement System. Sabino was advised he was entitled to an administrative hearing if he wished to contest ERS' determination revoking such member service credit with the System.

In addition to requesting such a hearing,  Sabino filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order annulling ERS’ determination. Sabio contended that ERS had violated his rights under Article V, § 7 of the New York State Constitution and the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution by retroactively applying new standards and factors that were not in effect at the time he became a member of the Retirement System.

ERS moved to dismiss Sabino’s petition contending that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Supreme Court granted ERS’ motion, rejecting Sabino’s argument that “he was excused from the exhaustion requirement” because he had raised constitutional issues and that pursuing the available administrative remedy would be futile because he could not factually dispute the factors enumerated in support of ERS' determination. Sabino appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Affirming the lower court’s decision, the Appellate Division said that “It is well settled that a party seeking to challenge the action of an administrative agency must first exhaust available administrative remedies.” 

Noting that in some instances a party may be excused from comply with the exhaustion requirement, such as when “a party asserts a constitutional challenge to an agency's action” or "when resort to an administrative remedy would be futile," the Appellate Division said that merely asserting that a constitutional right is involved will not excuse an individual's failure to pursue established administrative procedures that can provide adequate relief.

In this instance, said the court, there was a factual issue as to whether the regulation represents a meaningful and substantial change in ERS’ policy or was it merely the codification of existing policy. Such a determination, explained the Appellate Division, involves interpretation of the Retirement System's own regulations and should be left, in the first instance, to the administrative agency "so that a clearer formulation of and the rationales for agency policy may be fully aired."

As there was nothing in the record "which clearly indicates that [ERS has] predetermined the issue . . . or [has] construed the relevant regulation in a way that would dictate an adverse result of an administrative hearing,” the court concluded that Sabino has “failed to make the requisite showing that pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile" and thus Supreme Court properly granted ERS' motion to dismiss the petition, without prejudice.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09244.htm 

Aggrieved individual’s request for reconsideration of an administrative decision does not toll the running of the statute of limitations

Aggrieved individual’s request for reconsideration of an administrative decision does not toll the running of the statute of limitations

Matter of Cowan v Kelly, 2011 NY Slip Op 08294, Appellate Division, First Department

It is “black letter law” that an individual seeking to file a petition pursuant to CPLR 78 proceeding against a body or officer challenging an administrative decision must file the petition within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the aggrieved individual. When does such a determination become final and binding on the individual? When, said the Appellate Division citing Yarbough v Franco, 95 NY2d, the individual has received notice of the administrative determination and “has been aggrieved thereby."

Supreme Court rejected Richard Cowan’s 78 petition challenging an administrative decision, holding it was untimely as it had been filed more than four months after the decision had become “final and binding” on him. The Appellate Division agreed and dismissed his appeal from the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Cowan, said the court, “became aggrieved by and received notice of the [Kelly’s] determination” and had to file his petition within four months of that date, which he failed to do.

The Appellate Division rejected Cowan’s argument that had not become aggrieved until he failed to receive a response to a memorandum he had sent seeking to have the administrative determination changed. The court explained that his memorandum “constituted nothing more than a request for reconsideration of [Kelly’s] determination of his status, and therefore, did not toll or revive the statute of limitations.”

Sometimes there is a question concerning the “service” of a final administrative decision with respect when the statute of limitations commences to run. This was the underlying issue in Kalinsky v SUNY at Binghamton, 214 A.D.2d 860. The general rule is that:

1. If an individual is not represented by an attorney, the statute of limitations begins to run when the individual is served with the administrative determination.

2. If an individual is represented by an attorney, the administrative body may send a copy of the determination to the individual but the statute of limitations begins running upon service of the individual’s attorney.

3. If the individual is represented by a person who is not an attorney, the administrative body may send a copy to the representative but it must serve the individual to start the statute of limitations running.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_08294.htm

Termination of an employee during the probationary period

Termination of an employee during the probationary period

Matter of Matter of Deitch v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 09322, Appellate Division, Second Department

Terence J. Deitch, a probationary police officer, was terminated from his position without a hearing. Deitch sued and Supreme Court directed the New York City Police Department to “reinstate [Deitch] and directed a hearing on the issue of the [Deitch’s] damages” that resulted from his dismissal from his position.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s determination and denied Deitch’s petition.

The Appellate Division explained that "A probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of any demonstration that the dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law."

Further, said the court, the individual ”bears the burden of establishing bad faith or illegal reasons by competent evidence."

Finding that Deitch failed to establish that his termination was made in bad faith or was otherwise illegal or arbitrary and capricious, the Appellate Division ruled that the Supreme Court should have denied Deitch’s petition and confirmed the Department’s decision to terminate him.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09322.htm

Individual’s letter of resignation and settlement agreement contingent on appointing authority’s approval may be rescinded while such approval is pending

Individual’s letter of resignation and settlement agreement contingent on appointing authority’s approval may be rescinded while such approval is pending

Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. Inc., A.F.S.C.M.E., Local 1000, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v Baldwin Union Free School Dist., 84 AD3d 1232

Francesco Pignataro filed an Article 78 petition seeking a court order allowing him to revoke his letter of resignation from his position of school custodian and the settlement agreement he submitted to his then former employer, the Baldwin Union Free School District.

The agreement, in pertinent part, stated that: (1) it was in settlement of the grievance for available leave accruals; (2) Pignataro would be paid $50,000 for accumulated leave days from October 1, 2007; and (3) Pignataro "shall" submit a letter of resignation for purpose of retirement, to be effective as of the close of business on August 12, 2009.

Significantly, the agreement also stated that it was subject to Board approval and in the event the Board "does not approve this agreement, such resignation shall be deemed withdrawn, and Mr. Pignataro shall remain an employee of the District.*

Prior to the Board’s approving the agreement Pignataro sent a letter to the district stating that he rescinded his resignation and the "proposed settlement". Notwithstanding this, the Board, by its President, signed the settlement agreement, and thereby refusing to permit Pignataro to “withdraw his resignation”** and repudiate the settlement agreement.

Supreme Court ruled that the settlement agreement was binding on Pignataro and under its terms he was not able to repudiate the settlement, rescind his resignation nor revive his employment with the District.

The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that “[c]ontrary to the Supreme Court's holding, the settlement agreement was not binding on Pignataro when he sought to withdraw his resignation and to reject the settlement.”


The court explained that "[a]s Pignataro withdrew his resignation and rejected the terms of the settlement agreement before the Board had accepted the terms of the settlement, there was no enforceable settlement agreement and Pignataro … was entitled to revoke his offer to settle his grievance.”

Accordingly, Pignataro’s revocation of the offer to settle prior to the Board’s approval of the settlement agreement terminated the Board's power to accept it. Thus, said the court, Pignataro effectively revoked the settlement and rescinded his resignation and thus he is entitled to reinstatement to his former position with the school district.

* The agreement provided that in the event the Board rejected the agreement, Pignataro's leave entitlements would be restored to him, "retroactive to July 17th 2009"; the District, Board, and its employees would be released from "all actions, suits, charges, claims, grievances, etc.,” and all pending arbitrations and grievances filed on behalf of Mr. Pignataro shall be withdrawn with prejudice."

** Typically once the employee has delivered his or her resignation to the appointing authority or its designee, he or she may not withdraw or rescind the resignation without the approval of the appointing authority. For example, 4 NYCRR 5.3(c), which applies to employees in the classified service of the State and public authorities, public benefit corporations and other agencies for which the Civil Service Law is administered by the State Department of Civil Service, provides that “A resignation may not be withdrawn, cancelled or amended after it is delivered to the appointing authority, without the consent of the appointing authority.” Many local civil service commissions and personnel officers have adopted a similar rule. 

Failure to preserve “First Amendment” argument in the course of arbitration bars appeal on that ground

Failure to preserve “First Amendment” argument in the course of arbitration bars appeal on that ground

Matter of Adolphe v New York City Bd. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 08203, Appellate Division, First Department

           

The Appellate Division ruled that Marsiste Adolphe improperly raised his First Amendment argument for the first time in his petition appealing an arbitration award before the court because he failed to preserve his First Amendment claim in the arbitration proceding. Further, said the court, were it to consider his First Amendment argument, “we would find it without merit.”

As to Adolphe’s claim that the hearing officer's decision was based on mistakes of law and a disregard of the evidence, the Appellate Division held that such an argument “is unavailing,” as these are not grounds for vacating an arbitration award set out in Article 75 of the CPLR.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_08203.htm

Concerning politically motivated termination

Concerning politically motivated termination

Martin Gordon, et al., v County of Rockland, 110 F.3d 886

Allegations that an employee was dismissed because of political affiliation -- or lack thereof -- has generated many lawsuits.

The Gordon case is instructive because it sets out the views of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes New York State, concerning the standards to be applied in determining if a politically motivated termination violates the constitutional rights of the individual. 

The case arose after Rockland County fired three Assistant County Attorneys -- S. Martin Gordon, Eric Ole Thorsen, and Joel J. Flick. Alleging that their terminations violated their First Amendment rights to political affiliation, the three sued in an effort to win reinstatement to their former positions. A U.S. District Court jury ruled in their favor and the County appealed.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found an error in the lower court's procedure and initiated a de novo review of the constitutionality of the dismissals. A review de novo is, in effect, "a new trial" of the matter.

The key issue was whether or not the Rockland County attorneys' were sufficiently non-political to entitle them to First Amendment protection from partisan political termination.

Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have ruled that certain policy-making and confidential employees are exempt from First Amendment protection and can be lawfully fired because of their political beliefs.

Two seminal cases on the legality of politically motivated dismissals are:

1. Elrod v Burns, 427 US 347. In Elrod the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the politically motivated dismissals of employees in the Cook County (Illinois) Sheriff's Office was an unconstitutional interference with the employees' First Amendment freedoms of political belief and political association because the individuals terminated were not incumbents serving in "policymaking positions;" and

2. Branti v Finkel, 445 US 507. The high court said that the exemption allowing politically motivated dismissals extended to confidential employees as well as policymakers. But because Branti was neither a policymaker nor a confidential employee, he was entitled to First Amendment protection. The high court said that in evaluating whether it is permissible to dismiss an employee on the basis of political affiliation, "The focus ... should be not on the policymaking aspect of a plaintiff's employment, but rather on whether "party affiliation is an appropriate requirement" for effective job performance.

In the Rockland case, the Circuit Court of Appeals examined the nature of the attorneys' jobs and whether or not party affiliation was an appropriate requirement for job performance.

The Court considered whether its assessment of job duties should be based on the men's written job descriptions or the duties actually performed. Citing several supporting decisions, the Circuit Court said the assessment should be based on the power vested in the individual by law and the power that is inherent in the office. In other words, the job description is what counts in determining whether an employee has First Amendment protection against politically motivated dismissals.

Gordon specialized in real property law, and handled Sewer Commission affairs; Thorsen provided general legal services to the Highway Department and gave legal advice to the County's Planning and Parks Agencies; and Flick was an attorney in the Office of Community Development who advised municipal governments within the County as to whether their actions were in compliance with federal law.

The Court found all three positions encompassed serving as a legal advisor to a particular segment of county government, and representing the County in that capacity. This suggested they were policy-makers. The Court also analyzed whether the jobs were inherently political, using these questions as tests:

a. Is there rational connection between shared ideology and job performance?

b. Is the employee in an exempt position and thus not subject to "civil service protection" under Section 75 of the Civil Service Law? [The Court cautioned that it does not presume employees are not entitled to First Amendment protection just because they are exempt from civil service protection. Also, it should be remembered that Section 75 covers many public employees serving in exempt or noncompetitive class positions who are honorably discharged veterans who served in time of war or who are certified as "exempt volunteer firefighters."]

c. Does the individual exercise technical competence or expertise that permits them to make independent judgment on policy matters?

d. Does the individual control or supervise others?

e. Is the individual authorized to speak in the name of policymakers?

f. Is the individual is perceived as a policymaker by the public?

g. Does the individual influence government programs?

h. Does the individual have contact with elected officials?

i. Is the individual responsive to partisan politics and political leaders?

The Court said a factor supporting a ruling that the three were protected by the First Amendment was that each was not in charge of a large group of employees. But, the Court also noted, Gordon, Thorsen, and Flick all had technical competence or expertise and each was a consultant to a specific policymaking board. Also influencing the decision was the Court's view that "the Legislature, which has perhaps the best knowledge of the responsibilities involved in the positions it created, designated these positions both as 'policymaking' and as exempt from civil service status." Of primary importance to the Court in resolving the issue, however, the fact that each of the three attorneys was empowered to act and speak on behalf of a policymaker, especially an elected official.

Another aspect of the Rockland County case concerned the fact that the County Attorney was not elected but rather appointed by the Legislature, which is itself elected.

In the words of the Court, "all three plaintiffs advised the Legislature or Commissions set up by the Legislature or County Executive, both of which are elected." The Court concluded that each of the attorney's "advice to and representation of top policymaking officials in the County" justified their dismissal for political reasons.

Why? The Court said that "it is difficult to fathom how such responsibilities can be undertaken and done well without their "political or social philosophy [making] a difference in the implementation of programs."

Although the three attorneys contended that did not make policy, the Court concluded that this factor was outweighed by the evidence that they can act in the stead of the County Attorney. Further, the Court said that their claim that they "only gave legal advice" had been earlier rejected as justification for an employee coming within the Branti exception, citing the Third Circuit's ruling in Ness v Marshall, 660 F2d 517.

In Ness the Circuit Court decided that the positions of City Solicitor and Assistant City Solicitor were not protected by the First Amendment despite the solicitors' argument that they performed only "purely technical legal work." The Court said that the duties the solicitors could perform -- "rendering legal opinions, drafting ordinances, [and] negotiating contracts -- define a position for which party affiliation is an appropriate requirement."

A fair conclusion, according the Gordon ruling, is that these Assistant County Attorneys, "because of the discretion with which they are charged, and because of their authority to act on behalf of the County, are politically accountable to the Legislature and the County Executive such that their loyalty helps ensure that the mandate of the electorate is effectively carried out." The Court reversed the jury's decision in Gordon, Thorsen, and Flick favor, holding the three exempt from First Amendment protection against politically motivated dismissal.

Out of title work

Out of title work

Rausch v Pellegrini, Appellate Division, 237 A.D.2d 771

Muzzillo v Mt. Vernon Civil Service Commission, 238 A.D.2d 424

Muzzillo v Mt. Vernon City School District, 238 A.D.2d 425

From time to time an employee will complain that he or she is performing out-of-title work. Typically an individual who is working out-of-title, except in situations constituting a "temporary emergency," must be compensated at the appropriate salary or grade level or the out-of-title work assignment discontinued. The Rausch and Muzzillo cases involve allegations of out-of-title work.

The Rausch Case

To handle out-of-title work complaints expeditiously, the collective bargaining agreement between the State of New York and the Civil Service Employees Association includes a grievance procedure for resolving out-of-title work complaints.

Henry Rausch, an employee of the State Department of Correctional Services [DCS], complained that although he was being paid the salary of a Correctional Facility Food Administrator I [FFA I], as the result of a reorganization of DCS's food service system he was actually performing the duties of an FFA II. He filed an out-of-title work grievance, contending that he should be paid at the salary grade of the higher level position.

Rausch's grievance was ultimately rejected by the Governor's Office of Employee Relations on the grounds that his duties had been modified in connection with the reorganization of the food service operations in Correctional Services. He brought an Article 78 action challenging the administrative decision denying his grievance.

A State Supreme Court judge annulled the administrative determination, holding that Rausch had been required to perform out-of-title duties and the State, in turn, appealed.

Commenting that assignment of out-of-title work, other than on an emergency basis, is clearly prohibited by the Civil Service Law Section 61.2, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Section 61.2 provides that "no person shall be appointed, promoted or employed under any title not appropriate to the duties to be performed and, except upon assignment by proper authority during the continuance of a temporary emergency situation, no person shall be assigned to perform the duties of any position unless he has been duly appointed, promoted, transferred or reinstated to such position" in accordance with the Civil Service Law and the rules adopted thereunder.

Although the State contended that Rausch's duties had been modified and thus he could not be viewed as working out-of-title, the Appellate Division essentially found that Rausch was performing the duties that had been the responsibility of his former supervisor, a Correction Facility Food Administrator II, [FFA II].

The decision notes that while an FFA I is responsible for food service operations for an assigned shift, Rausch was made responsible for all food service operations at the Greene Correctional Facility, duties typically those of an FFA II, after his former supervisor was reassigned to another facility in 1991.

The Court concluded that the extension of Rausch's duties to encompass responsibility for the entire food service operation at the facility, i.e., responsibility for all food service on all shifts, seven days a week, constituted out-of-title work.

The Muzzillo Case

Muzzillo and three co-workers, employed as stenographers by the Mt. Vernon City School District, complained that they were performing out-of-title work. The Mt. Vernon Civil Service Commission agreed, ruling that the duties the four were assigned justified the reclassification of their respective positions to senior stenographer.

When the District declined to reclassify their respective positions, Muzzillo and her co-workers sued.

In one action Muzzillo sought a court order directing the District to comply with the Commission's determination and reclassify their positions to Senior Stenographer or, in the alternative, to desist from requiring them to perform out-of-title work. In a second action, Muzzillo attempted to obtain a court order compelling the Commission to "enforce its determination" regarding the reclassification of their respective positions.

The Appellate Division sustained lower court rulings dismissing the petitions in both actions.

As to their law suit against the District, the Appellate Division found that the School Board, by resolution, had directed the District "to cease and desist from using [the stenographers] to perform duties inappropriate to their title." This would appear to have provided appropriate redress concerning the issue of District's assigning "out-of-title work" to the stenographers.

However, even if the Board's action did not resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the four, the Appellate Division ruled that their complaint was properly dismissed by the lower court. The Appellate Division commented that the four had failed to exhaust their administrative remedy, noting that they had not "availed themselves of the grievance procedure set forth in their collective bargaining agreement."

As to the action brought against the Civil Service Commission, the Appellate Division ruled that the School Board had acted appropriately by adopting a resolution directing the District to refrain from having the four stenographers perform out-of-title work.

The Appellate Division said that Muzzillo failed to show that the Commission is under a legal duty to enforce compliance with its determination that the four were performing senior stenographer duties. In other words, the Commission did not have any obligation to require the District to reclassify the positions merely because it found that the incumbents had been assigned to perform out-of-title work.

Although the School Board could have elected to provide for such reclassification, the Court action signals its view that discontinuing the assignment of out-of-title work is an appropriate alternative to reclassification of the positions.

The Appellate Division commented that although the Commission had urged the Board to reclassify their positions to senior stenographer, it was not required to compel the District to do so. In this regard, the Commission could exercise its discretion as to the action it would take to resolve the matter. In other words, the Commission had no legal duty to compel the reclassification of the positions in question and the fact that the School Board had acted to bar future out-of-title work constituted an appropriate resolution of the complaint.

On another point, Muzzillo had cited Sections 100.1.a and 102.3 of the Civil Service Law in support of her efforts to have the Commission act. Section 100.1.a deals with the certification of payrolls and bars the payment of salary or compensation were the responsible commission determines that an individual has been employed in violation of law. Section 102.3 authorizes the appropriate commission to sue to enjoin "any violation of the Civil Service Law."

Assuming, without deciding, that these provisions are relevant in these cases, apparently the Appellate Division decided that the action by School Board to prohibit further out-of-title work by the stenographers resolved the underlying issues involved.

Public policy considerations affecting arbitration

Public policy considerations affecting arbitration

Sullivan County v Sullivan County Employees Asso., 235 A.D.2d 748

One of the issues in this appeal heard by the Appellate Division concerned Sullivan County's claim that the arbitration of a grievance as demanded by the Sullivan County Employees Association violated of "public policy considerations" and should be stayed.

The Association had demanded arbitration when the County denied a grievance based on the Association's claim that its action modifying a Taylor Law contract with another collective bargaining unit had triggered the "parity clause" in its agreement. The "parity clause" provided that if another bargaining unit negotiated a salary increase, those increases would be operative for employees covered by the agreement.

The Appellate Division said that to invoke a violation of public policy as justification for staying arbitration, "the violation must amount to the equivalent of a gross illegality." Although Sullivan County claimed that "parity clauses" were illegal, the Appellate Division noted that "such clauses are not per se invalid but require a case-by-case analysis."

The Courts indicated that the matter was not yet ripe for judicial consideration, commenting that if "the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement may offend public policy, such a potential does not mandate a stay of arbitration." Rather, said the Court, if that turns out to be the case, the remedy is vacatur (reversal) of the award.

Law enforcement personnel may be prohibited from associating with persons suspected of illegal activities.

Law enforcement personnel may be prohibited from associating with persons suspected of illegal activities.

Matter of Matter of Hastings v City of Sherrill, 2011 NY Slip Op 09484, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The City of Sherrill’s Chief of Police, James T. Hastings, was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law alleging that he was involved with "person(s) notoriously suspected of illegal activities … outside [the Chief’s] official duties." The Chief was found guilty of the charges and was terminated from his position.

The person suspected of “illegal activities” with whom the Chief was “involved” was the Chief’s 29-year-old son.

The Appellate Division, sustaining the City’s determination, ruled that the departmental regulations that the Chief was found to have violated “did not impermissibly interfere with his constitutionally protected right of intimate association.” Citing Morrisette v Dilworth, 59 NY2d 449, the court said that "[I]t is well established that it is within the State's power to regulate the conduct of its police officers even when that conduct involves the exercise of a constitutionally protected right."

The court also commented that “in light of the age of Chief’s son and the absence of any evidence that his son was mentally incapacitated, this case does not involve the constitutionally protected interest in custodial relationships between parents and their children.”

Other decisions in which a police officer was served with administrative disciplinary charges alleging he or she had  associated with persons alleged to have been engaged in criminal activities include Brinson v Safir, 255 AD2d 247, leave to appeal denied 93 NY2d 805; Richardson v Safir, 258 AD2d 328 and Delgado v Kerik, 294 A.D.2d 227.

The Hastings decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_09484.htm