New York Public Personnel Law: Workfare with a public agency not public employment

October 20, 2011

Workfare with a public agency not public employment

Workfare with a public agency not public employment

McGhee v City of New York, NYS Supreme Court, Ia Part 5, Justice Stallman, 2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 50332(U), [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

According to the ruling by Justice Stallman in the McGhee case, individuals receiving public welfare benefits while working for the City of New York under a Work Experience Program [Workfare] are not employees for the purposes of bringing a lawsuit under the State's Human Rights Law.

McGhee alleged that she had been sexually harassed during a Workfare assignment. The City, contending that Workfare participants are not employees, moved to dismiss McGhee's complaint.*

Justice Stallman dismissed McGhee's complaint. The court decided that under the facts of this case, McGhee's Workfare participation did not create any employment relationship between the participants and the City.

The court noted that "in a different context," the Court of Appeals concluded that Workfare participants were not "employees," citing Brukhman v Giuliani, 94 NY2d 387.

In Brukhman, the Court of Appeals ruled that the prevailing wage provision of the State Constitution -- Article I, Section 17 -- does not apply to Workfare participants because participation in the Workfare program is the statutory "condition of continued receipt of public assistance grants."

Section 330.5 of the Social Services Law specifically list certain limited circumstances under which Workfare participants are deemed "public employees" and categories of "work activities" under which public assistance recipients are to be given the benefits and protections of similarly-situated employees. None applied to McGhee.

However, McGhee did have a possible remedy available to her. Justice Stallman pointed out that she "could have filed a grievance concerning the alleged sexual harassment with the New York City Human Resources Administration, the local service district under the Social Services Law" and if dissatisfied with its ruling, she could have "appealed to the State for a fair hearing."

* A federal court had previously dismissed McGhee's Title VII harassment claim after finding that she was not an employee within the meaning of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. This Act mandated adoption of "Workfare" programs by public entities.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.

NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.