Typically courts are bound by the arbitrator's factual findings, interpretation of the contract and decision with respect to the remedies provided by the award

The collective bargaining representative  [TCBR] of the teachers of a school district filed a grievance with the school board [Board] on behalf of teachers assigned to certain integrated co-teaching classrooms contending that such assignments increased class sizes in violation of certain provisions set out in the collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between the parties. Ultimately TCBR filed a notice of intent to arbitrate the alleged violations of the CBA and the Board and the TCBR  stipulated that the issue of whether the increased class sizes violated certain Articles in the CBA would be submitted to arbitration.

After conducting a hearing, the arbitrator determined that the increased class sizes violated two of the several Articles in the CBA that TCBR  had alleged the Board had violated. As redress, the arbitrator awarded additional compensation to the affected teachers for the relevant time period. The District then commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking a court order vacating the arbitration award. Supreme Court denied the Board's petition to vacate the arbitration award and confirmed the award. The Board filed a timely appeal challenging the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, opining that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited. 

Citing  Matter of Kowaleski [New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.], 16 NY3d 85, the court explained that an arbitration award may not be vacated unless it shown to violate a strong public policy,  is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power. Further, said the Appellate Division, "A party seeking to overturn an arbitration award bears a heavy burden and must establish a ground for vacatur by clear and convincing evidence."

Noting that courts are bound by the arbitrator's factual findings, the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract and the arbitrator's decision with respect to the remedies to be provided an injured party, the Appellate Division observed that "A court cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator simply because it believes its interpretation would be the better one." Tthe court pointed out that in New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association v State of New York, 94 NY2d 321, the Court of Appeals stated that "courts will not assume the role of overseers to conform the award to their sense of justice."

Agreeing with the Supreme Court's determination that the arbitrator's award was neither irrational nor violative of public policy, nor did the arbitrator exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on his authority, the Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court's determination denying the Board's  petition to vacate the arbitration award and its confirmation of the arbitrator's award.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_03909.htm

Eleventh Amendment immunity "extends to state agencies and to state officers who act on behalf of the state"

The complaint [Plaintiff] sued the New York State Department of Labor [NYSDOL]  in federal district court alleging that an employee of NYSDOL unlawfully adjusted her unemployment benefits claim resulting in her having to repay the agency more than $9,000.

Noting that Plaintiff's complaint did not specify a cause of action or any statute pursuant to which she was suing, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, observed that the federal district court had, sua sponte,* dismissed Plaintiff's complaint as frivolous because NYSDOL was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In addition, the district court had denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint on the ground that it would be futile as NYSDOL was immune from lawsuit in federal courts.

Noting the Plaintiff had forfeited any challenge to the district court's rulings that NYSDOL was immune from suit and that amending her complaint would be futile by failing to address these determinations in her brief, the Circuit Court opined that were it to reach the merits of the district court's decision it would conclude that the district court did not err as district courts have the inherent power to sua sponte dismiss a complaint as frivolous, "even where, as here, the plaintiff has paid the filing fee."

Citing its decision in Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, the Circuit Court of Appeals said that "A complaint is frivolous when "(1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." One example of a claim "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory" offered by the Circuit Court was an action brought against a "defendant [that is] immune from suit."

The Circuit Court said that the district court correctly held that NYSDOL is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, which precludes suits against states and state agencies unless the state expressly waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that immunity and the Eleventh Amendment immunity "extends to state agencies and to state officers who act on behalf of the state."

As Congress has not abrogated New York's immunity against suit in this circumstance nor has New York waived its immunity from suit, the Circuit Court concluded that "the district court did not err in sua sponte dismissing [Plaintiff's] complaint as frivolous" as the NYSDOL is immune from suit brought in federal courts.

* Sua sponte [or suo motu] is an action taken by a court without formal prompting or motion by a party in the action.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4764763/jordan-v-new-york-state-dept-of-labor/

New York-New Jersey Port Authority held subject to New York State's laws involving health and safety

The New York-New Jersey Port Authority's [Authority] appealed Supreme Court's rejection of its argument that, as a bistate entity created by a federally approved compact, it cannot be held liable under New York State's Whistleblower Laws, Labor Law §§215 and 740. 

Citing Agesen v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 521, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling that the Authority is "subject to New York's laws involving health and safety, insofar as its activities may externally affect the public."

The court explained that the "express purpose of Labor Law §740 is to protect public health and safety" and as it stated in Rosario v Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J., 179 AD3d 516, "[t]he Compact Clause of the United Stated Constitution is not implicated by the application of such New York workplace safety statutes to [a] Port Authority work site located in New York."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_03459.htm