Characteristics of a hostile work environment for the purposes of litigating claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983

To prevail in a “hostile work environment” action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983  the Plaintiff must set out claims alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment and demonstrate that his “workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment and create an abusive working environment.”  

The Circuit Court Appeals, Second Circuit held that Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim was based on the same conduct underpinning his racial discrimination and retaliation claims: his being given work orders to change light bulbs and, from time to time, receiving work orders for items not in need of repair. 

The Circuit Court explained that such "identified conduct falls far short of the conduct required to sustain a hostile work environment claim." The Circuit Court then affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint.

The District Court had dismissed Plaintiff's claims, in part, because Plaintiff failed to identify any adverse employment action. The Circuit Court, agreeing with the District Court that the Plaintiff failed to identify an adverse employment action, affirmed the lower court's ruling and opined that it "need not address any of the other grounds identified by the District Court as supporting summary judgment". 

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.

Applying the Doctrine of Res Judicata

Federal district court dismissed Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. 

The U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the lower court's ruling explaining “res judicata bars re-litigation of a claim if :

    (1) the previous action involved an adjudication on the merits; [and]

    (2) the previous action involved the same parties or those in privity with them; [and] 

    (3) the claims asserted in the subsequent action were, or could have been, raised in the prior action.”

In this instance the Plaintiff and the Defendants were parties in both this case and the prior litigation and the prior action was decided on the merits through a motion to dismiss. 

The Circuit Court also noted that Plaintiff's current claims against Defendants could have been brought in the earlier action if they were not and, accordingly, the District Court properly determined that the claims against Defendants were barred by res judicata. 

As to another claim advanced by Plaintiff, the Circuit Court observed that "defamation claims against the attorneys relating to their work in the prior lawsuit are precluded by the common law litigation privilege," citing Martirano v. Frost, 25 N.Y.2d 505. The court opined that "a courtroom statement is absolutely privileged unless it is 'so outrageously out of context as to permit one to conclude, from the mere fact that the statement was uttered, that it was motivated by no other desire than to defame'”. 

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision.

Report by New York State Comptroller issued January 25, 2023 identifies school districts in fiscal stress

Fourteen school districts statewide were designated in some level of fiscal stress under State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s Fiscal Stress Monitoring System for the school year (SY) ending on June 30, 2022, down from 23 districts in fiscal stress the prior year. This is the lowest incidence of fiscal stress recorded for schools since the system’s inception in the 2012-13 school year.

“The number of districts designated in a fiscal stress category has fallen considerably over the past three years. This year there was a particularly steep drop because of significant increases in both federal and state aid,” DiNapoli said. “High need districts in urban and suburban areas, which typically have the highest incidence of fiscal stress, received some of the largest increases in aid. However, the federal aid is temporary so school district officials may face difficult operational and staffing decisions in determining how to best provide services to their students in the future.”  

The Comptroller’s Fiscal Stress Monitoring System was designed to identify issues that school districts, counties, cities, towns and villages are having with budgetary solvency, or the ability to generate enough revenues to meet expenses. The Comptroller releases fiscal stress scores for the various categories of government three times a year. School districts are given a fiscal stress score based on several factors: year-end fund balance, operating deficits and surpluses, cash position, and reliance on short-term debt for cash-flow. The higher the score the more severe the level of stress.

The monitoring system, which excludes New York City and the “Big Four” City School Districts of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers, found one school district in “significant fiscal stress,” which is the highest category - Mount Vernon City School District in Westchester County.

Five districts were designated as being in moderate fiscal stress. Only one of these, East Ramapo Central School District in Rockland County, saw a decrease in its stress score since last year. The remaining four – Arkport Central School District (Steuben County) Harrisville Central School District (Lewis County), New Suffolk Common School District (Suffolk County), and Roscoe Central School District (Sullivan County) – had score increases.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government passed three major multiyear grants of aid targeted to low-income school districts. In total, school districts included in FSMS reported receiving nearly $1 billion in temporary federal aid during SY 2021-22.

DiNapoli’s report also notes many school districts also saw a substantial increase in ongoing state aid. In State Fiscal Year 2021-22 Enacted Budget, the state committed to fully funding Foundation Aid for school districts by SY 2023-24. Total state aid reported by school districts (excluding New York City and the Big Four) increased from $13.8 billion in SY 2020-21 to $15 billion in SY 2021-22, an increase of $1.1 billion, or 8.5%.

Lists [Click on text set out in color to access the data.]

School Districts in Stress for Fiscal Year Ending 2022

Complete List of School District Fiscal Stress Scores

Report

Fiscal Stress Monitoring System: School Districts Fiscal Year 2012-22 Results

###

Track state and local government spending at Open Book New York. Under State Comptroller DiNapoli’s open data initiative, search millions of state and local government financial records, track state contracts, and find commonly requested data.

Amending the New York State Assembly maps

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirming an order entered by Supreme Court Justice Laurence L. Love which, to the extent appealed from, ordered New York State's Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC):

1. Initiate the constitutional process for amending the New York State Assembly maps;

2. Conduct public hearings consistent with Article III, §4(c) of the New York State Constitution; 

3. Make plans, data and information available for the public to view at least 30 days prior to the first public meeting; and

4. Submit to the legislature an Assembly redistricting plan or plans and implementing legislation by April 28, 2023.

This plan would be voted upon by the legislature in a single bill.

Justice Love further ordered that should either house of the legislature failed to approve the implementing legislation, or if the Governor vetoed such legislation," the IRC would, within 15 days and in no case later than June 16, 2023, prepare a second redistricting plan and implementing legislation.

In the event either the legislature failed to approve the second plan and implementing legislation, or if the Governor vetoed it, then the legislature would introduce such implementing legislation with any amendments deemed necessary.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

New York State Comptroller Thomas D. DiNapoli releases audits

On January 24, 2023, following audits were issued by State Comptroller DiNapoli:

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the full text of the audit report. 

 

Department of Health: Medicaid Program – Improper Payments for Brand Name Drugs  (2020-S-62)

The audit identified $1.1 million in Medicaid overpayments for brand name prescription drugs where generic drugs were available but not substituted. In addition, the audit found $1 million in potential cost avoidance associated with 27,455 Medicaid fee-for-service claims for drugs that appear to be generic but were paid using brand name pricing methods. 

 

Department of Health: Medicaid Program – Claims Processing Activity October 1, 2021 Through March 31, 2022 (2021-S-28) 

OSC’s audit of Medicaid claims processing activity identified over $22 million in improper Medicaid payments for claims that were not processed in accordance with Medicaid requirements. About $9.9 million of the improper payments had been recovered by the end of the audit fieldwork. The audit also identified 11 Medicaid providers who were charged with or found guilty of crimes that violated laws or regulations governing certain health care programs. Upon being advised of the providers, the Department removed them from the Medicaid program. 

 

New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation: Controls Over Equipment (Follow-Up) (2022-F-19)

The initial audit, issued in January 2019, determined that the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation’s (H+H’s) controls over its inventory of equipment needed improvement, as auditors found equipment tracking problems and record-keeping issues associated with relinquished, mass-retired, transferred and repaired assets. The follow-up found that H+H made some progress in addressing the issues identified. Of the six recommendations from the initial audit, H+H implemented two and partially implemented one; three recommendations were not implemented. 

 

Department of Civil Service: New York State Health Insurance Program – Payments by CVS Health for Pharmacy Services for Ineligible Members (Follow-Up) (2022-F-29)

The initial audit, issued in September 2021, found that nearly $30.7 million in pharmacy service claims were paid on behalf of ineligible members due to data transfer issues between the Civil Service and CVS systems and retroactive disenrollment of members. The follow-up found that Civil Service and CVS made progress addressing the issues identified in the initial audit; namely, Civil Service and CVS are working to develop a procedure for the recovery of these and future improper payments. Of the report’s six recommendations, two were implemented, three were partially implemented and one was no longer applicable. 

 

Department of Civil Service: New York State Health Insurance Program – Payments by UnitedHealthcare for Medical/Surgical Services for Ineligible Members (Follow-Up) (2022-F-30)

An audit issued in September 2021 found that United made a total of $5.7 million in improper payments for medical/surgical services on behalf of ineligible members. The follow-up found that Civil Service and United made significant progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit. United recovered about $500,000 of the $5.7 million in overpaid benefits originally identified, and Civil Service and United identified another $10.9 million in claims for ineligible members, of which about $4.9 million has been recovered. Of the initial report’s three audit recommendations, two were implemented and one was partially implemented. 

 

State Education Department: Oversight of Career and Technical Education Programs in New York State Schools (Follow-Up) (2022-F-17)

The initial audit, issued in December 2020, found that the department did not provide adequate oversight of CTE programs offered through the secondary school system to ensure they align with student goals and the needs of the State labor market – specifically, those occupations that are most in demand, fastest growing or highest salaried. Auditors also identified several common issues that are a deterrent to students’ enrollment in CTE and their successful completion of the program, further contributing to the lack of skilled employees in certain industries. The follow-up found that the department made limited progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial audit report. Of the initial report’s seven audit recommendations, three were implemented, one was partially implemented and three were not implemented. 

 

Department of Health: Improper Medicaid Payments for Misclassified Patient Discharges (Follow-Up) (2022-F-21)

The initial audit report, issued in August 2021, found the department did not have a process to identify and recover improper Medicaid payments for inpatient claims with incorrect patient status codes, resulting in $28 million in improper and questionable Medicaid payments for recipients who were reported as discharged from a hospital, but then admitted to a different hospital within 24 hours of the reported discharge (which often meets the definition of a transfer). The follow-up found that the department made some progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit report, but additional action is still required. Of the initial report’s four audit recommendations, one was implemented, two were partially implemented and one was not yet implemented.

###

Track state and local government spending at Open Book New York. Under State Comptroller DiNapoli’s open data initiative, search millions of state and local government financial records, track state contracts, and find commonly requested data.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals certifies a question concerning the NYCHRL and NYSHRL to the New York Court of Appeals

The federal district court in this action concluded that the New York City Human Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights Law "impact requirement could not be met by a nonresident Plaintiff whose only asserted geographical connection was that she was denied a promotion to a position in New York City and State."  Plaintiff appealed.

Explaining that this case presents an unresolved question of New York Law, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, reserving decision, and certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals:

Whether a nonresident plaintiff not yet employed in New York City or State satisfies the impact requirement of the New York City Human Rights Law or the New York State Human Rights Law if the plaintiff pleads and later proves that an employer deprived the plaintiff of a New York City- or State-based job opportunity on discriminatory grounds?

The Circuit Court also observed that the New York Court of Appeals was not limited to the question as stated hereinabove. Rather, said the Circuit Court, "the New York Court of Appeals may modify the certified question as it sees fit and may direct the parties to address other issues that it deems relevant to the circumstances presented in this appeal."

The Clerk of the Circuit Court was directed to transmit to the Clerk of the New York Court of Appeals "a copy of the Circuit Court's opinion and a complete set of briefs, appendices, and the record filed by the parties" in the Circuit Court of Appeals and noted that "this panel will retain jurisdiction to decide the case once we have had the benefit of the views of the New York Court of Appeals or once that court declines to accept certification."

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision.

Selected recent quasi-judicial decisions issued by the Commissioner of Education

Issuing a Certification of Good Faith pursuant to Education Law §3811[1]

An Education Law §3811[1] Certification of Good Faith requested by a Respondent in connection with an appeal to the Commissioner of Education is issued solely for the purpose of authorizing a board of education to indemnify such a Respondent for costs incurred in defending himself* in a proceeding arising out of the exercise of the Respondent’s powers or the performance of the Respondent’s duties as a board member, officer, employee or other actor described in §3811(1) unless the record establishes that the particular individual requesting such a certification acted in bad faith. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet.

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume62/d18201 

* §22 of New York State's General Construction Law, in pertinent part, provides that “Whenever words of the masculine or feminine gender appear in any law, rule or regulation, unless the sense of the sentence indicates otherwise, they shall be deemed to refer to both male or female persons.” Case summaries posted in NYPPL reflect this protocol.

School district officers and school district employees distinguished

The Petitioner in this Education Law §306 appeal sought the removal of the school district's records access officer [RAO]. Noting that the Commissioner of Education is authorized to remove “any trustee, member of a board of education, clerk, collector, treasurer, district superintendent, superintendent of schools or other school officer,” i.e.  an “elective or appointive officer in a school district whose duties generally relate to the administration of affairs connected with the public school system”,  the Commissioner explained that the RAO is not a “school officer” listed in §306(1) but rather a school district employee. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Education has no authority to remove the RAO from the position under color of §306(1). Although all public officers are public employees, not all public employees are public officers.

Click HERE to access this Decision of the Commissioner of Education

Discontinuing the services of a probationary teacher

The New York City Department of Education may discontinue the employment of a probationary teacher pursuant to Education Law §2573(1)(a) at any time and for any reason absent the teacher's establishing that "the termination was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, violative of a statute, or done in bad faith”* (Matter of Frasier v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 71 NY2d 763, 765 [1988]; see Education Law §§ 3012-c [1], 3012-d [9]; 8 NYCRR § 30-2.1 [b]; Kahn v New York City Dept. of Educ., 18 NY3d 457 [2012]; Appeal of H.H., 56 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,033; Appeal of Nicholaou-Guirguis, 32 id. 439, Decision No. 12,879).  The Commissioner has defined “bad faith” as “[d]ishonesty of belief, purpose, or motive” (Appeals of Prisinzano, 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,195, citing Black’s Law Dictionary [11th ed. 2019]). Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume62/d18212

* In contrast see http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume62/d18211, reporting the decision of the Commissioner of Education in an appeal in which the Commissioner found that the record supported a finding that the educator's probationary appointment was discontinued in bad faith. 

Election of remedies

Petitioner’s originally commenced a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules in Supreme Court. Supreme Court dismissed the Article 78 proceeding based on the understanding that Petitioner would have an opportunity to pursue her claim via an Education Law §310 appeal to the Commissioner of Education. The court had deferred to the Commissioner of Education and denied the Article 78 petition "without prejudice to renew [the claim] before the Commissioner of Education.” The Commissioner ruled that "[given] this language, it would be inconsistent with the court’s decision to dismiss this Education Law §310 appeal based on an election of remedies [argument as the school district] successfully moved to dismiss the Article 78 petition on the ground of primary jurisdiction and filed its motion approximately four months after petitioner’s union declined to pursue a grievance." In the words of the Commissioner, the school district "... had the opportunity to move to dismiss the Article 78 petition based on election of remedies but chose not to do so" and declined to dismiss Petitioner's §310 appeal based on the school district's election of remedies argument at this stage of the dispute. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume62/d18216

Banning an individual from school district property

Local school boards “exercise ultimate authority for access to students, school buildings and school property generally” (Matter of Lloyd v Grella, 83 NY2d 537, 547 [1994], rearg denied 83 NY2d 1001 [1994]).  School boards may impose reasonable restrictions on individuals’ access thereto (compare Appeal of Anonymous, 48 Ed Dept Rep 503, Decision No. 15,931 [reasonable restrictions upheld] and Appeal of Anonymous, 44 id. 260, Decision No. 15,167 [same] with Appeal of Anonymous, 48 id. 266, Decision No. 15,855 [“total ban” for indefinite period of time annulled]). Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume62/d18218

NYPPL's public personnel law handbooks

NYPPL's public personnel law handbooks, listed below, available for purchase from BookLocker, LLC.

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State set out as an e-book. For more about this electronic handbook, click HERE. 

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances- The text of this publication focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click HERE. 

Disability Benefits for fire, police and other public sector personnel - an e-book focusing on retirement for disability under the NYS Employees' Retirement System, the NYS Teachers' Retirement System, General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and similar statutes providing benefits to employees injured both "on-the-job" and "off-the-job." For more information about this e-book click HERE. 

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual -This e-book reviews the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. Click HERE for more information.

Selected judicial and quasi-judicial decisions issued during the week ending January 14, 2023

The Doctrine of Laches may bar granting an applicant workers' compensation benefits

Applying the doctrine of laches may be triggered within the context of a workers' compensation claim when a party is deemed guilty of the "failure to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, accompanied by other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party" (Matter of Fuller v Jackson, 205 AD3d 1291) and the Workers' Compensation Board's determination regarding the applicability of the laches doctrine "will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Trombino v FMB Inc., 210 AD3d 1212. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet:

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00138.htm

Governmental function immunity

A governmental entity is not entitled to governmental function immunity when engaged in a proprietary function at the time of an accident (see Wittorf v City of New York, 23 NY3d 473; Applewhite v Accuhealth, Inc., 21 NY3d 420). Nor is a governmental entitled to qualified immunity, in the absence of any evidence in the record that a study of the risks involved had been conducted (see Turturro v City of New York, 28 NY3d 469). Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet:

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00055.htm

Determining if a settlement agreement is binding

A settlement agreement signed by an attorney may bind a client even where it exceeds the attorney's actual authority, if the attorney had apparent authority to enter into the agreement (see Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; Popovic v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 180 AD2d 493 [1st Dept 1992]). Under the relevant circumstances in this action, plaintiffs' attorney had, at least, apparent authority to enter into the settlement agreement, and it is binding upon plaintiffs (see Hallock, 64 NY2d at 231). The Appellate Division also opined that plaintiffs implicitly ratified the settlement agreement by making no formal objection for nearly two years before asserting that the attorney's acceptance was unauthorized (see Hawkins v City of New York, 40 AD3d 327). Further, said the court, plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that the settlement agreement was the result of fraud, collusion, or mistake. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet:

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00174.htm

Touching all the bases when a union wishes to initiate litigation on behalf of its members

An organization such as a union wishing to file a claim on behalf of its members must:

[1] establish that it has organizational standing to bring such claim; 

[2] show that at least one of its members would have standing to sue; 

[3] that it is representative of the organizational purposes it asserts; and 

[4] that the case would not require the participation of individual members. 

Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_07484.htm

Demanding documents pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law The New York's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] requiring that documents requested pursuant Public Officers Law §89(3)(a) be "reasonably described" serves to enable an agency to locate and identify records in question and places the initial burden on the person or entity making a FOIL request to provide a reasonable description of the record[s] sought for this purpose. In the event the custodian of the record denies a FOIL request on this ground, the custodian bears the burden of establishing that the description[s] were insufficient for purposes of locating and identifying the document[s] sought. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00015.htm

 

 

Selected judicial and quasi-judicial decisions issued during the week ending January 7, 2023

Statute of limitations to initiate a §75 disciplinary action

Disciplinary proceedings brought under §75 of the Civil Service Law must generally be commenced within 18 months after the alleged misconduct occurred. A statutory exception, however, provides that the 18-month limitations period is inapplicable when the misconduct "would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime". Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet: 

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00021.htm

Entities bringing a claim on behalf of its members

An organization such as a union wishing to file a claim on behalf of its members must [1] establish that it has organizational standing to bring such claim; [2] show that at least one of its members would have standing to sue; [3] that it is representative of the organizational purposes it asserts; and [4] that the case would not require the participation of individual members. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet: 

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_07484.htm

Substantial evidence

Substantial evidence is "a minimal standard that requires less than a preponderance of the evidence and demands only the existence of a rational basis in the record as a whole to support the findings upon which the determination is based" (see Matter of Blamah v New York Off. of the State Comptroller, 207 AD3d 905. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet: 

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00021.htm

Demanding documents pursuant to New York State's Freedom of Information Law

The New York's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] requiring that documents requested pursuant Public Officers Law §89(3)(a) be "reasonably described" serves to enable an agency to locate and identify records in question and places the initial burden on the person or entity making a FOIL request to provide a reasonable description of the record[s] sought for this purpose. In the event the custodian of the record denies a FOIL request on this ground, the custodian bears the burden of establishing that the description[s] were insufficient for purposes of locating and identifying the document[s] sought. Click on the URL below to access this decision posted on the Internet:

 https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00015.htm

Judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative decisions and similar squibs

 

Selected "Squibs*" of judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative decisions and similar materials are listed below in alphabetical order. As used here, the term "squib" describes a brief summary of a single case or a single point of law in a decision.

* Squib© Copyright 1997-2022, airSlate Legal Forms, Inc. d/b/a USLegal.

                          

 SEE "RESEARCH TOOL" IN THE SIDEBAR FOR SUGGESTIONS FOR SEARCHING THIS BLOG.

Click on the text highlighted in COLOR to access the source of these Squibs.  

 

Abolishing a position for economic reasons http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume57/d17142

 

Absent a statutory or negotiated administrative hearing procedure, an appointing authority may delegate decision-making authority to the hearing officer http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_04085.htm

Existence of a special duty serves to overcome governmental function immunity by establishing an exception to the rule that a municipality, in performing a governmental function, owes a duty only to the public at large, and not to any particular individual.

Click the following URL to access this decision posted on the Internet at:  https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_06918.htm  

Arbitrating disputes involving General Municipal Law §207-a benefits pursuant to an arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement.

Click the following URL to access this decision posted on the Internet at:  https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_07095.htm

NYPPL's public personnel law handbooks, listed below, are available for purchase from BookLocker.com, Inc

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State set out as an e-book. For more about this electronic handbook, click HERE. 

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances- The text of this publication focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click HERE. 

Disability Benefits: payable to firefighters, police officers and other public sector personnel - an e-book focusing on retirement for disability under the NYS Employees' Retirement System, the NYS Teachers' Retirement System, General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and similar statutes providing benefits to employees injured both "on-the-job" and "off-the-job." For more information about this e-book click HERE. 

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual -This e-book reviews the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. Click HERE for more information.