Reporting compensation and reimbursement for expenses paid to election workers

Reporting compensation and reimbursement for expenses paid to election workers

Source: Internal Revenue Service bulletin

Election workers are individuals hired by government entities to perform services at polling places in connection with national, state and local elections.

An election worker may be referred to by other terms and titles, for example, poll worker, moderator, machine tender, checker, ballot clerk, voting official, polling place manager, absentee ballot counter or deputy head moderator. These workers may be employed by the government entity exclusively for election work, or may work in other capacities as well.

Election worker compensation is includible in income and may be treated as wages for social security and Medicare (FICA) tax purposes.

Election workers may be compensated by a set fee per day or a stipend for the election period. The election period may include attending training or meetings prior to and after the election. 

Election workers may also be reimbursed for their mileage or other expenses. To be excludable from wages, expense reimbursements must be made under an accountable plan.

For additional information, go to http://www.irs.gov/Government-Entities/Federal,-State-&-Local-Governments/Election-Workers-Reporting-and-Withholding

A written administrative employee evaluation that is not disciplinary in nature may be placed in an employees personnel file by the employer

A written administrative employee evaluation that is not disciplinary in nature may be placed in an employees personnel file by the employer
2014 NY Slip Op 07360, Appellate Division, Second Department

A tenured teacher [Teacher] filed a CPLR Article 78 petition seeking a court order directing the school district to remove a certain letter from Teacher's personnel file. Supreme Court dismissed Teacher’s petition and on appeal the Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s action.

The Appellate Division explained that the letter Teacher sought to have removed from his personnel file "[fell] within [the] permissible range of administrative evaluation," and the school district did not act unlawfully in making it part of Teacher's personnel file without first complying with the disciplinary procedural requirements set out in Education Law §3020-a. Although in New York a tenured teacher may not be "disciplined" without he or she being afforded the protections set out in Education Law §3020-a, a critical "administrative evaluation" may properly be included in a teacher's personnel file without the appointing authority first having to comply with the administrative due process requirements set out in §3020-a.

As to what falls within the ambit of “the permissible range of administrative evaluation," in Holt v Board of Education, 52 NY2d 625, the Court of Appeals ruled that performance evaluations and letters of criticism placed in the employee’s personnel file were not “disciplinary penalties” and thus could be placed there without having to first hold a disciplinary proceeding.

The basic rule set out in Holt is that a statutory disciplinary provision such as §75 of the Civil Service Law does not require that an employee be given a hearing or permitted to grieve every comment or statement by his or her employer that he or she may consider a criticism.

In contrast, in D'Angelo v Scoppetta, 19 NY3d 663, the Court of Appeals found that a letter placed in an employee's file indicating “serious misconduct” that could negatively impact his or her eligibility for a future promotion goes beyond “constructive criticism.” In other words, a writing claimed to constitute “constructive criticism” may not be used to frustrate an employee’s right to due process as set out in §75 of the Civil Service Law, §3020-a of the Education Law or a contract disciplinary procedure.

What distinguishes lawful “constructive criticism” of an individual’s performance by a supervisor and supervisory actions addressing an individual’s performance that are disciplinary in nature? Comments critical of employee performance do not, without more, constitute disciplinary action. On the other hand, counseling letters may not be used as a subterfuge for avoiding initiating formal disciplinary action against a tenured individual.The decisions of the Commissioner of Education in Fusco v Jefferson County School District, CEd, 14,396, and Irving v Troy City School District, CEd 14,373, are instructive in this regard.

In both the Fusco and Irving cases the Commissioner of Education found that the alleged “critical comment” filed in the respective personnel file of these employees exceeded the parameters circumscribing “lawful instruction” seeking to correct unacceptable performance.

In Fusco’s case, the Commissioner said that the “contents of the memorandum” did not fall within the parameters of a “permissible evaluation” despite the school board’s claim that the memorandum was “intended to encourage positive change” in Fusco’s performance. The Commissioner noted that the memorandum "contains no constructive criticism or a single suggestion for improvement." Rather, said the Commissioner, the memorandum focused on “castigating [Fusco] for prior alleged misconduct."

In Irving’s case, a school principal was given a letter critical of her performance and the next day reassigned to another school where she was to serve as an assistant principal. The Commissioner ruled that these two actions, when considered as a single event, constituted disciplinary action within the meaning of §3020-a of the Education Law."

 .

The Teacher decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07360.htm

_________________

The Discipline Book, - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 2100+ page e-book. 
For more information click on http://booklocker.com/book/5215.html 

________________

Using the services of a private entity to select and provide qualified medical personnel to conduct medical examination required by Civil Service Law §72.1

Using the services of a private entity to select and provide qualified medical personnel to conduct medical examination required by Civil Service Law §72.1

Agency v Anonymous, OATH Index #866/14  

Civil Service Law §72.1, in pertinent part, provides: “When in the judgment of an appointing authority an employee is unable to perform the duties of his or her position by reason of a disability, other than a disability resulting from occupational injury or disease as defined in the workers' compensation law, the appointing authority may require such employee to undergo a medical examination to be conducted by a medical officer selected by the civil service department or municipal commission having jurisdiction.”

In the course of a hearing brought pursuant to §72 of the Civil Service Law,* Anonymous contended that the statutory requirement providing for the selection of the physicians who were to examine her was violated because she was examined by doctors who were selected by a private entity, JurisSolutions,** and not by physicians selected by the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS).

OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin A. Casey found that the controlling provisions of the Civil Service Law were complied with, holding that DCAS’s delegation of the task of recruiting qualified medical specialists to perform §72 fitness-for-duty examinations to JurisSolutions did not constitute an unlawful delegation of its statutory authority.

Judge Casey found that while JurisSolutions employed the physicians who examined Anonymous, DCAS maintained control over the process by specifying minimum criteria for each specialty and retaining, in its the sole discretion, the authority to reject a doctor named by JurisSolutions to conduct the examination.*** Accordingly, said the ALJ, DCAS “did not unlawfully delegate its authority by contracting with a vendor to provide qualified, independent doctors to perform fit-for-duty examinations.”

Further, the ALJ found that Anonymous failed to show prejudice on the part of the independent and well qualified physicians who examined her..

Judge Casey's findings and recommendation were adopted by the appointing authority.

* Civil Service Law §72.1 provides that “An employee shall be allowed ten working   days from service of the notice to object to the imposition of the   proposed leave of absence and to request a hearing.

** JurisSolutions is a vendor selected by the New York Department of Citywide Administrative Services to provide qualified medical personnel in designated specialties “to conduct fitness-for-duty examinations.”

*** DCAS's delegation of its administrative authority appears to comply with the guidelines set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, in addressing the delegation of legislative powers by Congress.
.

Collective bargaining agreement determined to have clearly and unambiguously barred the arbitration of grievances involving layoff

Collective bargaining agreement determined to have clearly and unambiguously barred the arbitration of grievances involving layoff

Matter of the Arbitration between Hudson Val. Community Coll. and Hudson Val. Community Coll. Faculty Assn., 2014 NY Slip Op 07240, Appellate Division, Third Department

Christine Raneri, a part-time adjunct professor employed by the Hudson Valley Community College (HVCC), was appointed as a full-time probationary teacher by the College in 2007. In March 2012, HVCC notified Raneri that “her position had been retrenched,” and that her employment would end in August 2012.

The Hudson Valley Community College Faculty Association [Association] submitted a grievance on Raneri's behalf challenging HVCC's decision to retrenchment her from the position. HVCC's president denied the grievance following a hearing and the Association served a demand for arbitration on the college.

HVCC and the County of Rensselaer commenced an Article 75 CPLR action seeking a permanent stay of arbitration [proceeding No. 1]. The Association answered and then cross-petitioned to compel arbitration. The Association also initiated an Article 78 action, proceeding No. 2 against the County, the Board of Trustees of HVCC and others challenging Raneri's retrenchment on the merits. HVCC moved to dismiss the CPLR Article 78 petition.

Supreme Court granted HVCC’s petition in proceeding No. 1, permanently staying arbitration, denied the Association’s cross petition in proceeding No. 1 to compel arbitration, and dismissed the Association’s CPLR Article 78 proceeding (proceeding No. 2).

In its appeal from Supreme Court's ruling concerning proceeding No. 1 the Association contended that Supreme Court erred in determining that the issue of retrenchment was excluded from arbitration by the terms of the CBA and thus was incorrect in permanently staying the arbitration.

The Appellate Division disagreed with the Association’s claim, holding that the sole issue before Supreme Court was whether the CBA reveals that the parties agreed to arbitrate this grievance. Noting that the CBA provides that grievances — defined as claims "based upon the interpretation or application of" the CBA — are generally subject to arbitration, the court pointed out that the controlling CBA also provided that "[m]atters relating to [HVCC's] decision to retrench, fill, refill, establish and/or re-establish bargaining unit positions shall not be arbitrable hereunder”. The CBA further provided that if such a staffing issue is grieved, “the decision of the [HVCC] President or designee shall be final and binding and shall constitute the exclusive remedy thereunder."

The Appellate Division, agreeing with Supreme Court, said that this language clearly and “unambiguously manifests the parties' intention to exclude the subject matter of retrenchment from arbitration.”

Turning to the Association’s challenge to the Supreme Court’s dismissal of its Article 78 petition, the Appellate Division said that in reviewing such a claim, a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body and must confirm the challenged determination unless the body "acted in excess of [its] jurisdiction, in violation of lawful procedure, arbitrarily, or in abuse of [its] discretionary power," citing Pell v Board of Educ, 34 NY2d 222.

The court rejected the Association’s argument that the reason given by HVCC to Raneri for the retrenchment — the discontinuance of a particular program — was pretextual.

Although the Association contended that minutes from a curriculum committee meeting held in the same month as the retrenchment revealed that the faculty was advised that the discontinuance would have no impact on student numbers or faculty hours, the Appellate Division noted that affidavits in the record also reveal that, for economic reasons, HVCC was reducing the number of sections in Raneri's teaching area at the time in question and increasing the number of students in each section.

The Association also claimed that the retrenchment violated the CBA in that the positions of two faculty members in Raneri's teaching area who had less seniority "were not retrenched." The court said that the record showed that both of these instructors were ASE-certified and were scheduled to teach a full load of courses for which this certification was required — and which Raneri, not being ASE-certified, could not teach — in the fall of academic 2012.

Thus, the Appellate Division concluded, "the retrenchment of Raneri's position" was in conformity with a requirement in the CBA that such actions "shall be made in inverse order of seniority provided a faculty member has the qualifications to teach the courses to be taught" (emphasis in the decision)^.*

Regarding the Association’s claim that an incumbent serving in an adjunct faculty should be laid off first, the court noted that the adjunct faculty member also possessed ASE certification and taught classes for which such certification was required; thus, retrenching his position would not have prevented Raneri's being laid off

As the record revealed that assignments were made for legitimate reasons having to do with the instructors' qualifications and other responsibilities, the Appellate Division said that “Supreme Court did not err in determining that HVCC's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion or in violation of lawful procedure.”

* The Appellate Division said that it agreed with Supreme Court's view that “this provision requires a faculty member to be qualified to teach upcoming classes, rather than those for which the faculty member's qualifications may have sufficed in previous years.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07240.htm

____________________

 

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5216.html

____________________

 

Public employees speech concerning matters of a personal interest is not “protected speech” within the ambit of the First Amendment

Public employees speech concerning matters of a personal interest is not “protected speech” within the ambit of the First Amendment

2014 NY Slip Op 07270, Appellate Division, First Department

Among the issues considered in this appeal was the teacher’s [Teacher] claim that she had suffered retaliation as a result of her having sued the New York City Department of Education [NYCDE] and having made statements to the media.

The Appellate Division held that neither Teacher's lawsuit nor her statements to the media constituted protected speech under the First Amendment or Article I, §§8 and 9 of the New York Constitution “as they primarily concern personal grievances, rather than matters of public concern.”

Essentially public officers and employees enjoy "protected speech" in connection with their public comments concerning a State or municipal employer's activities that are a matter of public concern. In contrast, comments by a public officer or employee concerning his or her personal unhappiness with a public employer, such as complaints about working conditions or his or her personal disagreements concerning internal operations of the department or the agency that does not rise to the level of a “public interest,” do not appear to be protected by the Constitution. As the court explained in Saulpaugh v. Monroe Community Hosp., 4 F.3d 134, a public employee’s speech is not constitutionally protected where the speech was “motivated by and dealt with her individual employment situation”.

As to Teacher’s claim that she had suffered age discrimination within the meaning of the State and City Human Rights Laws, respectively Executive Law §290 et seq. and the Administrative Code of City of NY §8-101 et seq., the Appellate Division said that her allegations that she was 51 years old and was treated less well than younger teachers were insufficient to support her claims.

Addressing Teacher’s hostile work environment allegations, the court said that these claims also fail “because [NYCDE’s] alleged behavior amounts to "no more than petty slights or trivial inconveniences."

In Clauberg v State of New York, 95 AD3d 1385, the Appellate Division explained that “To support a retaliatory hostile work environment claim, the actions complained of must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable harassment and stem from a retaliatory animusAll of the circumstances must be considered, including "the frequency of the [retaliatory] conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.”

In a case involving similar “free speech - retaliation” issues, Golodner v Berliner, USCA, 2^nd Circuit, Docket #12-1173, Golodner filed a 42 USSC 1983 action against the City of New London  and two City officials, alleging the defendants retaliated against him for exercising his rights under the First Amendment when he filed an earlier lawsuit against the City and several of its police officers (“Golodner I”).

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held that the speech in Golodner I constituted speech on a matter of public concern protected under the First Amendment, and that Golodner’s right to engage in this form of speech was clearly established at the time of the alleged retaliation. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the City's motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The "Teacher" decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07270.htm

The Golodner decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0f67eae6-db03-4e97-b551-f1767ed9a183/2/doc/12-1173_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/0f67eae6-db03-4e97-b551-f1767ed9a183/2/hilite/
.