Tuesday, June 29, 2010
In this ruling the court sets out the basic rules concerning the rights of a provisional employee to continued employment as a provisional employee.
Monday, June 21, 2010
An employee’s “disciplinary probation status” may follow the individual to a new agency upon his or her transfer if the new employer wishes to condition the approval of the transfer on the continuation in such status.
Monday, June 14, 2010
In order to overcome the confidentiality requirements applicable to the personnel records of police officers, firefighters and certain other civil servants, satisfying each the following requirements.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Upon his retirement the County paid the retiree for accrued vacation in the amount of 630 hours. The retiree, however, contended that he was entitled to be paid for an additional 444 hours of accrued vacation time, or a total of 1074 hours of credit.
Out-of-title work Article 78 petition dismissed for failure to exhaust remedy provided in the collective bargaining agreement
CSEA complained that the library aide job assignments given to negotiating unit members violated the out-of-title prohibition contained in Civil Service Law Section 61.
If an appointing authority claims that it made a mistake in taking or confirming a personnel action, may it rescind the action or correct the error if the individual voices an objection?
A police officer's application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits was rejected by the New York Employees’ Retirement System because she failed to file a notice or report of the incident with her employer within 30 days of the event.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Distinguishing between “constructive criticism” and a “reprimand” in the nature of disciplinary action
Typically courts have viewed placing a memorandum in a personnel file that the writer characterizes as a “reprimand” or uses a phrase such as “you are hereby reprimanded” constitutes disciplinary action within the meaning of statutory disciplinary procedures, entitling a tenured individual to notice and hearing.
Employees of an entity providing services to a school district pursuant to a contract are not employees of the school district
The New York State Teachers Retirement System ruled that individuals employed were not entitled to member service credit because they were not employees of a participating employer or, alternatively, because they were not providing teaching services within the meaning of Education Law §501.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Although employee scored higher than a number of other applicants in a written test for promotion, he was passed over because he “did not do as well as other eligible job aspirants in the evaluative interview conducted by the Department’s promotion committee.”
Suing for damages for a "line of duty injury" suffered in the course of performing firefighter and police officer duties
The so-called Firefighters Rule, which has been extended to police officers,* bars firefighters and police officers from recovering for line of duty injuries that occur as a result of the specific risks inherent in performing the duties of firefighter or police officer.
Friday, June 04, 2010
An employee appealed, asking the court to annul the Village’s denial of his General Municipal Law §207-c benefits on the grounds that such denial was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and affected by error of law and fact.
Workers’ Compensation held the exclusive remedy available to an employee injured on the way to a work-related meeting
The Workers' Compensation Law provides the exclusive remedy “where, ... the employer and the landowner are essentially the same party and the plaintiff is injured while performing his [or her] job.”
Thursday, June 03, 2010
In general, a name-clearing hearing is to provide an employee who claims that he or she has been “stigmatized” by his or her employer with an opportunity to clear his or her name* The individual seeking such a hearing has the burden of proof in the proceeding.
Quid pro quo in the nature of the withdrawal of disciplinary charges not required to validate disciplinary settlement agreement
The agreement that the employee signed extended his one-year probationary period as a firefighter to 18 months. The Appellate Division said that it was not required that the settlement agreement constitute a quid pro quo for the dismissal of pending disciplinary charges, so long as employee’s waiver of rights to a pre-termination hearing was knowingly and freely made.
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.