In 2014, Claimant accepted an appointment with the Employer as an associate professor and lecturer. The initial appointment was for three years, beginning in 2014, but the contract of employment provided that "[t]o give [Claimant] the security of at least two years of employment, the appointment will be reviewed annually for possible extension by another year". Claimant was also notified that, as a nontenured professor, he would be in a collective bargaining unit represented by the recognized employee representative, which had a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] with Employer.
As described in the Appellate Division's decision, in February 2018, Employer notified Claimant in writing that it had opened a disciplinary investigation of him and that, "effective immediately", he would be required to work from home on an "alternate assignment." Employer further told Claimant that he was prohibited from communicating with any of the Employer's current or former students or employees without the Employer's written approval. The alternative assignment letter cited the relevant section of the CBA, which provided that an "alternative assignment shall not be regarded as discipline." Claimant refused to sign the letter, but immediately ceased work on his research projects and grant requests, missed scheduled events and remained home.
Employer cancelled Claimant's access to Employer's facilities and blocked him from using his Employer email account.
A disciplinary investigation looked into allegations that Claimant, while attending an overseas conference, had engaged in unwelcome sexual conduct with a student of the Employer. Upon conclusion of the investigation, Employer recommended that Claimant attend a Title IX training session, but declined to file disciplinary charges against him. The following August Employer informed Claimant that it would not be renewing his employment and that Employer would terminate Claimant effective immediately and pay him the remainder of the term's one-year salary, an amount greater than $50,000.
Claimant subsequently filed a verified notice of claim against Employer initiating an action in the Court of Claims alleging, among other things, that Employer [a] had breached provisions of the relevant CBA; [b] terms of a contract with Claimant; [c] had wrongfully terminated him; and [d] had caused significant damage to his professional reputation and credibility.
Following a three-day nonjury trial, the Court of Claims issued a judgment in favor of Employer, dismissing the claim filed by Claimant. Claimant appealed.
The Appellate Division, citing Orser v Wholesale Fuel Distribs. CT, LLC, 173 AD3d 1519, leave to appeal denied, 34 NY3d 909, and other decisions, affirmed the Court of Claims' ruling, explaining that "When conducting a review 'of a nonjury trial verdict,'this Court . . . independently review[s] the probative weight of the evidence, together with the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, and grant[s] the judgment warranted by the record while according due deference to the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations".
The Appellate Division then said "To establish a cause of action for breach of contract, a party must establish the existence of a contract, the party's own performance under the contract, the other party's breach of its contractual obligations, and damages resulting from the breach" and in the event "a state agency contracts for value exceeding [$50,000], the contract is not enforceable until approved by the [New York State] Comptroller".
Although a collective bargaining agreement is an exception to this requirement for Comptroller approval, the court, citing §112[4] of the State Finance Law and §204 Civil Service Law, opined that "a supplemental undertaking that is 'totally distinct from the terms and conditions' of the collective bargaining agreement must be approved by the Comptroller."
The Appellate Division held the Court of Claims had correctly determined that Claimant was barred from asserting any provisions of the appointment letter as it was not signed by the Comptroller.
In the words of the Appellate Division, "Claimant is seeking to enforce the terms of his appointment letter as an agreement supplemental to the CBA, rendering it subject to the approval requirements of State Finance Law §112".
Because the appointment letter was for a salary greater than $50,000 but was not approved by the Comptroller, the Appellate Division held it "null and void". The court, noting the CBA required only one year notice prior to nonrenewal, said "Employer acted in accordance with the CBA when it terminated Claimant with one year's notice".
Because Claimant did not have a valid contract requiring more than one year's notice, the Appellate Division held that the Court of Claims [1] "correctly dismissed the causes of action for breach of contract and wrongful termination" and [2] properly dismissed Claimant's cause of action for defamation, as Employer neither published any untruthful statements about him nor made any statements that could be read as defamatory by implication.
The Appellate Division also observed that "Statements to the effect that there was an 'ongoing investigation' of Claimant cannot be considered defamatory, as a reasonable [person] would understand the statements [Employer] made about [Claimant] as mere allegations to be investigated rather than as facts", citing Brian v Richardson, 87 NY2d 46.
Click HERE to access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.