Type in a key word or two concerning the subject or issue in which you are interested in the box at the upper left and tap enter to access any relevant material posted.


Wednesday, September 14, 2016

From the Law Blogs


From the Law Blogs

Posted in Wolters Kluwer's WorkDay http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/

[Internet links highlighted in color]

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, affirms jury’s finding that “agency reorganization” was pretext for unlawful termination of assistant county solicitor

Declining to decide whether there is a “reorganization exception” to procedural due process requirements when a government employee with a protected property interest loses her job in a “reorganization,” the Third Circuit found that such an exception would not apply here because the evidence indicated the assistant county solicitor’s termination was based not on identity-neutral, cost-driven reasons, but on the defendants’ knowledge of her and of the people who would occupy the part-time positions created to replace her full-time position. Essentially, the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the reorganization was pretext for unlawful termination. The appeals court affirmed the $94,232 award on the employee’s Section 1983 claim and affirmed the award of $186,018 in attorneys’ fees and costs (Mancini v. Northampton County).

Ms. Park’s article is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/index.php/news/jury-found-reorg-was-pretext-to-oust-county-attorney-94k-award-upheld/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CCH-Workday+%28WK+WorkDay%29 


© 2016 CCH Incorporated. All rights reserved. The foregoing summary is reprinted with permission. This article was published in Wolters Kluwer Daily Reporting Suite on September 14, 2016. For more information, please click here [http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/files/DailiesReprintPermissionsAfter7Days.pdf]



Virginia courts find the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 does not entitle returning military personnel to a 2-year convalescence period after reemployment

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA 38 U.S.C. 4301-4335) [USERRA] afford returning service members protection only during the act of rehiring, ruled the Virginia Supreme Court, in affirming a state trial court’s grant of summary judgment against a deputy sheriff who claimed that her employer failed to sufficiently accommodate her service-related disabilities. The county sheriff’s office met its obligations under USERRA by promptly reemploying the plaintiff in the same position she held prior to leaving for service, the court found. It also determined that the sheriff was not required to allow her a two-year convalescence period following reemployment before terminating her employment (Huff v. Winston).

Ms. Hackeroff’s article is posted on the Internet at: http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/index.php/news/returning-service-member-not-entitled-to-2-year-convalescence-period-after-reemployment/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CCH-Workday+%28WK+WorkDay%29 

© 2016 CCH Incorporated. All rights reserved. The foregoing summary is reprinted with permission. This article was published in Wolters Kluwer Daily Reporting Suite on September 14, 2016. For more information, please click here [http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/files/DailiesReprintPermissionsAfter7Days.pdf]



United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, rules supervisors of county employee are immune from lawsuit alleging deliberate indifference to a known workplace danger

Although the widow of a health district employee who died due to workplace exposure to toxic mold had shown a violation of a due process right to be free from state-created danger, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit nonetheless reversed an order denying qualified immunity to two of the employee’s superiors because it was not clearly established, at the time of their allegedly unconstitutional actions, that the state-created danger doctrine applied to claims based on workplace conditions. Judge Noonan dissented and Judge Murguia dissented in part (Pauluk v. Savage).

Ms. Park’s article is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/index.php/news/supervisors-immune-from-suit-claiming-deliberate-indifference-to-known-danger-of-workplace-toxic-mold/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CCH-Workday+%28WK+WorkDay%29 

© 2016 CCH Incorporated. All rights reserved. The foregoing summary is reprinted with permission. This article was published in Wolters Kluwer Daily Reporting Suite on September 14, 2016. For more information, please click here [http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/files/DailiesReprintPermissionsAfter7Days.pdf]
 

Handbooks focusing on State and Municipal Public Personnel Law continue to be available for purchase via the links provided below:

The Discipline Book at http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances at http://nypplarchives.blogspot.com

The Disability Benefits E-book: at http://section207.blogspot.com/

Layoff, Preferred Lists at http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/

Caution:

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.

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 in this blog is presented with the understanding that the publisher is not providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader should seek such advice from a competent professional.

Items published in NYPPL may not be used for commercial purposes without prior written permission to copy and distribute such material. Send your request via e-mail to publications@nycap.rr.com

Readers may share material posted in NYPPL with others provided attribution to NYPPL is given.

Copyright© 1987 - 2017 by the Public Employment Law Press.



___________________



N.B. From time to time a political ad or endorsement may appear in the sidebar of this Blog. NYPPL does not have any control over such posting.

_____________________

.