Transfer of functions

Transfer of functions

Metacarpa v Johnston, App. Div., Third Dept., 268 AD2d 938

[decided with Terrusa v Wing, 268 AD2d 938]

In 1997 the Department of Social Services [DSS] was dissolved and its functions were distributed among one existing State agency -- the Department of Health [DOH] and -- and two newly created State agencies -- the Office of Children and Family Services [OCFS] and the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance [OTDA].

Some of the former DSS employees (the Metacarpa plaintiffs) were transferred to OCFS while others (the Terrusa plaintiffs) were transferred to OTDA.

The basic argument advanced in both actions: because these employees were engaged in Medicaid audit functions, which were transferred to DOH, Civil Service Law Section 70.2 required that they be transferred to Health rather than to other agencies.

The Appellate Division said that the sole issue to be determined was whether the determinations transferring these employees to either OCFS or OTDA were arbitrary, capricious or affected by error of law.

The court commenced its review by stating that the transfer of employees under Section 70(2) of the Civil Service is controlled by the State Department of Civil Service’s State Personnel Management Manual. The manual provides that the agency losing the function [here DSS], after consultation with the gaining agencies [i.e., OCFS and OTDA] and the appropriate control agencies [presumably Civil Service Department and the Division of the Budget], determines which employees in which titles are ‘substantially engaged in the performance of the function’ to be transferred.”

Addressing the objections raised by the Metacarpa and Terrusa plaintiffs with respect to their inclusion on the list of employees to be transferred to OCFS or OTDA and their exclusion from the DOH list, the Appellate Division found that: 

1. DSS employees who worked in defined program units within DSS (2,285 out of the total 4,450 DSS employees) followed those units when entire program units were transferred; and

2. The Metacarpa and Terrusa plaintiffs were determined not to work in a particular program unit because they carried out functions and duties, which supported a variety of programs and thus held “generic administrative support positions.” 

The court took special note of the fact that the Manual stated that “.... interdepartmental titles which primarily provide support of a variety of functions ... shall not generally be considered to be substantially engaged in the function being transferred.”

In other words, the duties of the Metacarpa and Terrusa plaintiffs were not sufficiently limited in scope so as to be deemed “substantially engaged in the functions transferred to Health.

This guideline, said the court, was “not irrational.” Further, the Appellate Division pointed out that former DSS officials making the transfer decisions had determined that the Metacarpa and Terrusa petitioners’ respective expertise and experience relating to Medicaid were not necessary for the continuation and integrity of the Medicaid program, which had been transferred to DOH.

Noting that a number of the plaintiffs “tacitly acknowledge” this point by arguing that the same “could be said” of others transferred to DOH, the Appellate Division decided that the rejection of the Metacarpa and Terrusa plaintiffs’ objection to the administrative decision was neither irrational nor arbitrary. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petitions was affirmed.

Untenured employee must demonstrate his or her termination was made bad faith or for an unlawful reason in order to successfully challenge his or her dismissal

Untenured employee must demonstrate his or her termination was made bad faith or for an unlawful reason in order to successfully challenge his or her dismissal

Shih v Waterfront Commn. of N.Y., 2011 NY Slip Op 03190, Appellate Division, First Department

As Conrad Shih’s status as an auditor with the New York City Waterfront Commission was not within the Commission’s definition of a "permanent employee" Supreme Court ruled that Shih was not entitled to the due process protections of a “permanent employee” i.e. a pretermination hearing.

The Appellate Division agreed with the lower court determination that the Commission’s terminating Shih without such a hearing was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Key to the Appellate Division’s decision was Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434. In Howard the Court of Appeals said that “An agency has broad power to construe and interpret its own rules” and its interpretation must be upheld where, as here, it is rational.

As a nontenured employee, said the court, Shih was not entitled to a full adversarial hearing concerning the reasons for his termination. Further, the Appellate Division said that Shih “failed to show that his termination was for an improper reason or in bad faith,” citing Beneky v Waterfront Commn. of N.Y. Harbor, 42 NY2d 920, Certiorari denied 434 US 940.

Applying the “Pell Doctrine,”* the court ruled that “Given [Shih’s] attempt to steal a DVD from a music store and failure to report his arrest on related charges, we cannot say that the penalty imposed was so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one's sense of fairness.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_03190.htm

* Matter of Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

Vacating a disciplinary arbitration award

Vacating a disciplinary arbitration award

Roemer v NYC Bd. of Ed., 268 AD2d 479, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 94 NY2d 763

The Roemer decision serves as a reminder that the grounds for appealing a Section 3020-a disciplinary determination are very limited. In order to overturn a Section 3020-a arbitration award, it is necessary to prove that one or more of the statutory reasons set out in Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules for vacating the award exist.

Under Article 75, [Section 7511.b] an arbitrator’s award can be vacated if a court finds that the rights of a party were violated because of corruption, fraud or misconduct in obtaining the award; the arbitrator was not impartial; to one party; the arbitrator exceed his or her powers or so imperfectly exercised them that a final determination was not made or the arbitration procedures were not followed [unless the party objecting to the award continued with the arbitration without objection after becoming aware of the defect].

Here David Roemer, a New York City schoolteacher, was terminated after the Section 3020-a arbitrator found him guilty of charges of incompetence and insubordination. He attempted to vacate the award. However, the Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Roemer’s petition to vacate the award because Roemer “did not demonstrate” any basis for vacating the award under Section 7511.

In addition to the limited grounds for vacating the arbitration award set in Section 7511, Section 3020-a set a very short statute of limitations for filing a petition to overturn or modify the award as well as settling other limitations in such cases. Section 3020-a.5 sets out the following limitations with respect to challenging a Section 3020-a disciplinary determination:

1. Not later than ten days after receipt of the hearing officer’s decision, the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York state supreme court to vacate or modify the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to CPLR Section 7511.

2. The court’s review shall be limited to the grounds set forth in Article 75. Further, the hearing panel’s determination shall be deemed final for the purpose of such proceeding.

3. In no case shall the filing or the pendency of an appeal delay the implementation of the decision of the hearing officer.

Point 3 is particularly significant as it allows the appointing authority to impose the penalty determined by the arbitrator while the decision is being challenged.

===================

The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State is a 1272 page e-book available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/ for additional information concerning this electronic reference manual.

 =======================

Accidental disability retirement benefits application based on a training-related injury

Accidental disability retirement benefits application based on a training-related injury

Geraci v Hevesi, 37 AD3d 941

Joseph Geraci, a police officer, injured his left knee while participating in training course. Geraci said that his injury occurred when his left foot sank into an exercise mat and his sneaker gripped the mat, thereby causing his left leg to twist as he attempted to move to his right.

Claiming that the injury resulted from an accident, Geraci applied for accidental disability retirement benefits. The Retirement System’s hearing officer found that Geraci failed to establish that the incident resulting in his injury constituted an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law. The State Comptroller accepted the Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions, and disapproved Geraci ’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

The Appellate Division confirmed the Comptroller’s determination. The court said that based on its review of the record, “we cannot characterize the subject incident as a “'sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact'“ that would support a finding that Geraci’s injury resulted from an accident.

Rather, said the court, Geraci ’s injury “was the result of a training program constituting an ordinary part of petitioner's job duties and the normal risks arising therefrom,” citing Matter of Felix v New York State Comptroller, 28 AD3d 993, and other rulings.*

For the full text of the opinion, go to:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_01046.htm

* The Appellate Division also commented that “regarding [Geraci’s argument concerning] the inappropriateness of his footwear, even if accepted, would not transform the incident into an accidental event.”

Payment of unreimbursed medical expenses permitted by the Internal Revenue Code via a “Health Reimbursement Arrangement Plan” held not the same as health insurance premiums

Payment of unreimbursed medical expenses permitted by the Internal Revenue Code via a “Health Reimbursement Arrangement Plan” held not the same as health insurance premiums

Kathleen Rockwell et al v Broadalbin-Perth Central School District, Supreme Court, Fulton County, Judge Joseph M. Sise, Decision [RJI #27-1-2009-05091. Motion #13, April 18, 2011]

The Broadalbin-Perth Central School District was providing active employees and their dependents represented Broadalbin-Perth Teacher’s Association with health insurance. Upon retirement, the District continued to provide the same level of benefit to Association retirees and their dependents.

The District and the Association then entered into a “memorandum of understanding” that modified the District’s Health Insurance Plan. One of the key components of the new plan, and the focus of this litigation, was the creation of a “District-funded Health Reimbursement Arrangement" [HRA] providing for the payment of unreimbursed medical, dental, and other allowable expenses "permitted by the Internal Revenue Code."

The HRA provided for an annual contribution of $500 by the District for each employee in the negotiating unit to the individual’s HRA. It also featured a “rollover” permitting the HRA account to accumulate up to a $10,000 “maximum balance cap.” Upon retirement the plan provided for a one-time $3,000 HRA contribution. While a retiree could submit qualified medical expenses for reimbursement from his or her HRA fund, no additional contributions would be made to their HRA.

Contending that HRA with respect to retirees violated the mandates set out in Chapter 30 of the Laws of 2009,* Rockwell sued the District seeking a court order to compel the District to reimburse the retirees affected by the change for certain medical care expenses they had incurred as a result of the implementation of the HRA program.

The thrust of Rockwell's argument was that District's HRA contribution for retirees violated Chapter 30 insofar as it provided a different level of benefit for retirees than it did for active employees. Judge Sise disagreed.

The court said that HRA accounts only provide a means for active members to pay their unreimbursed medical and other qualified expenses and that the District’s contributions to an HRA account, or the possibility of underwriting the cost of insurance copayments from an HRA account, were not within the scope of, or in violation of, Chapter 30 as claimed by Rockwell.

Further, said the court, Rockwell failed to show that the retirees had sustained any diminution of health insurance benefits greater than those experienced by active employees as a result of the implementation of the HRA for both active employees and retirees of the District.

Indeed, said Judge Sise, the District demonstrated that “even considering the $500 annual HRA contribution … retirees are each still saving an average of $264.17 more per year [in health insurance costs] than each active employee” and dismissed Rockwell's petition.

* Chapter 30 of the Law of 2009 temporarily** extended the provisions of §1 of Chapter 566 of the Laws of 1967, which Chapter, in pertinent part, provided that BOCES and school districts could not diminish the health insurance benefits and employer contributions for such benefits provided to retirees “unless a corresponding diminution of benefits or contributions is effected from the present level … from the corresponding group of [active] employees….”

** N.B. Part B of §14 of Chapter 504 of the Laws of 2009 made this provision "permanent."

.

Guidelines followed in determining if an individual was provided administrative due process in a quasi-judicial hearing

Guidelines followed in determining if an individual was provided administrative due process in a quasi-judicial hearing

Matter of Hildreth v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 2011 NY Slip Op 03066, Appellate Division, Second Department

In considering this appeal from an adverse administrative decision that resulted in the  revocation of Wilbur Hildreth’s driver's license pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law §1194 for one year as the result of his refusal to submit to a chemical blood-alcohol test, the Appellate Division addressed a number of issues concerning administrative adjudication procedures.

The court said that:

1. In order to annul an administrative determination made after a hearing, a court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination;

2. Substantial evidence is "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact;

3. The courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by an administrative agency where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists; and

4. Unlike the constitutional right to confrontation in criminal matters, parties in administrative proceedings have only a limited right to cross-examine adverse witnesses as a matter of due process.

In response to Hildreth’s argument that the administrative proceeding should have been dismissed” for failure to hold a hearing within a reasonable time as required under the State Administrative Procedure Act §301 or within six months from the date the DMV received notice of his chemical test refusal as required under 15 NYCRR 127.2(b)(2),” the Appellate Division said that the time limitations imposed on administrative agencies by their own regulations are not mandatory.

Unless the individual can show the delay caused “substantial prejudice,” he or she is not  entitled to relief for an agency's noncompliance with its own “time limits” controlling the proceeding.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_03066.htm

.

Crediting prior public service upon reemployment by a public employer

Crediting prior public service upon reemployment by a public employer

Cherniak v Office of Court Administration, 269 A.D.2d 680

From time to time an individual will claim that he or she should be given credit for certain benefits, typically for the purpose of determining salary or member service in a retirement system, based on his or her prior service with another public employer. A claim for “service credit for salary” based on prior state service was the basic issue considered by the Appellate Division in the Cherniak case.

Samuel A. Cherniak, then an employee of the Unified Court System [OCA], accepted an appointment as an Assistant Attorney-General [AAG] with the State Law Department and served as an AAG until October 1995. In early 1998 OCA appointed him to the position of Court Attorney. OCA credited Cherniak with his OCA service prior to his employment as an AAG in setting his rate of compensation. However, said OCA, such credit upon reinstatement was allowed only for OCA service and it refused to give him any credit for his AAG service with the New York State Department of Law.

OCA gave Cherniak two reasons for it action. First, OCA’s rules allowed it to grant such credit upon reinstatement of former OCA employees. Second, the Comptroller’s policy allowed non-OCA prior State service to be given only to an employee who returned to public service within one year. Cherniak appealed, challenging the Comptroller’s interpretation of “continuous service” to mean a “break in service for salary determination” of one year or less.

Both the Section 37.8 of the Judiciary Law and Section 131.5 of the Civil Service Law allow for approving salary rates greater then the minimum of the salary grade for the position upon “reinstatement” for individuals having “continuous service.”

Was the Comptroller’s interpretation of the term “continuous service” reasonable?

The Appellate Division thought it was. Pointing out that purpose of these provisions is to encourage employees to remain in State service, the court said that “the Comptroller’s policy promotes that purpose by allowing salary credit for prior service where an employee returns to State service after a brief break in service, but not where there is a substantial break in service.”

Cherniak tried to persuade the Appellate Division that the Comptroller’s interpretation was irrational, contending that there was no particular reason for the Comptroller’s selection of one year as the limit for a break in service.

The court disagreed, holding that it was rational for the Comptroller to construe the statutory phrase “continuously occupying” a position as encompassing “a relatively brief break in service” -- one year -- while no rational construction of the phrase would encompass Cherniak’s 2 1/2 year break in service.

 .

Eligibility for overtime

Eligibility for overtime

Spradling v City of Tulsa, CA10, 95 F.3d 1492

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has rejected a claim by district fire chiefs employed by Tulsa, Oklahoma, for overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA].

The district chiefs claimed that such payments were required by the FLSA. The circuit court disagreed, ruling that the chiefs were “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees” within the meaning of FLSA and therefore not subject to its overtime provisions. In other words, they were “exempt” employees.

In Alden v Maine, 527 U.S. 706, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars state employees suing their state employer in federal court without the state’s consent.

However, in Alden the court noted an “important limitation” to the principle of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment -- such immunity does not cover “lesser entities” such as political subdivisions of a state.

In the words of the Supreme Court, “[t]he immunity does not extend to suits prosecuted against a municipal corporation or other governmental entity that is not an arm of the State.”

The City of Tulsa case demonstrates that federal courts will continue to hear claims brought by public employees alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act involving a political subdivision of a state that is not an “arm of the state.”

However, it could be argued that because sworn officers serving with a municipal police department are exercising “the police powers of the state,” their employer is “an arm of the state” and thus the municipality has Eleventh Amendment immunity from law suits in federal court.
.

Individual’s “lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility” for misconduct considered by the court in affirming hearing officer’s disciplinary determination

Individual’s “lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility” for misconduct considered by the court in affirming hearing officer’s disciplinary determination

Cipollaro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 03131, Appellate Division, First Department

Barbara Cipollaro was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law by her employer, the New York City Department of Education, alleging that she had knowingly defrauded Department of $98,000 over a two-year period by enrolling two of her children in New York City public schools while she and her family lived in Westchester County.

The hearing officer found Cipollaro guilty of the charges and she was terminated from her position.

Cipollaro filed a petition pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules seeking a court order vacating hearing officer decision and the penalty imposed.

The Appellate Division ruled that there was no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's determination. Significantly the court said that in view of Cipollaro’s “lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility for [her] actions, as well as the harm caused by her actions, the penalty of dismissal, even if there was an otherwise adequate performance record, cannot be said to shock the conscience” [of the court].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_03131.htm

.

.

Independent Contractors vs. Employees

Independent Contractors vs. Employees

Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/

Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

The line between who is and who is not an employee is often a blur. However, it is an important line to draw as it can have consequences. Non-employees are not protected under our employment laws and are often not eligible for employee benefits.

IRS Gets Class Conscious is an interesting April 2011 article from the ABA Journal which addresses some of these issues. Of significant note is that both the IRS and the DOL are cracking down on employee misclassification. So, employers beware!

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Randall comments: The ABA Journal article refers to a “20-factor IRS” for guidance when classifying individuals as workers or independent contractors.

An employer must generally withhold income taxes; withhold and pay social security and Medicare taxes; and pay unemployment taxes on wages paid to an employee. An employer does not generally have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors.

To help determine whether an individual is an employee under the common-law rules, the IRS has identified the 20 factors set out below as guidelines in determining whether sufficient control is present to establish an employer-employee relationship.

These factors should be considered guidelines. Not every factor is applicable in every situation, and the degree of importance of each factor varies depending on the type of work and individual circumstances. However, all relevant factors are considered in making a determination, and no one factor is decisive.

The 20 factors indicating whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor are:

1. Instructions. An employee must comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work. Even if no instructions are given, the control factor is present if the employer has the right to control how the work results are achieved.

2. Training. An employee may be trained to perform services in a particular manner. Independent contractors ordinarily use their own methods and receive no training from the purchasers of their services.

3. Integration. An employee's services are usually integrated into the business operations because the services are important to the success or continuation of the business. This shows that the employee is subject to direction and control.

4. Services rendered personally. An employee renders services personally. This shows that the employer is interested in the methods as well as the results.

5. Hiring assistants. An employee works for an employer who hires, supervises, and pays workers. An independent contractor can hire, supervise, and pay assistants under a contract that requires him or her to provide materials and labor and to be responsible only for the result.

6. Continuing relationship. An employee generally has a continuing relationship with an employer. A continuing relationship may exist even if work is performed at recurring although irregular intervals.

7. Set hours of work. An employee usually has set hours of work established by an employer. An independent contractor generally can set his or her own work hours.

8. Full-time required. An employee may be required to work or be available full-time. This indicates control by the employer. An independent contractor can work when and for whom he or she chooses.

9. Work done on premises. An employee usually works on the premises of an employer, or works on a route or at a location designated by an employer.

10. Order or sequence set. An employee may be required to perform services in the order or sequence set by an employer. This shows that the employee is subject to direction and control.

11. Reports. An employee may be required to submit reports to an employer. This shows that the employer maintains a degree of control.

12. Payments. An employee is generally paid by the hour, week, or month. An independent contractor is usually paid by the job or on straight commission.

13. Expenses. An employee's business and travel expenses are generally paid by an employer. This shows that the employee is subject to regulation and control.

14. Tools and materials. An employee is normally furnished significant tools, materials, and other equipment by an employer.

15. Investment. An independent contractor has a significant investment in the facilities he or she uses in performing services for someone else.

16. Profit or loss. An independent contractor can make a profit or suffer a loss.

17. Works for more than one person or firm. An independent contractor is generally free to provide his or her services to two or more unrelated persons or firms at the same time.

18. Offers services to general public. An independent contractor makes his or her services available to the general public.

19. Right to fire. An employee can be fired by an employer. An independent contractor cannot be fire so long as he or she produces a result that meets the specifications of the contract.

20. Right to quit. An employee can quit his or her job at any time without incurring liability. An independent contractor usually agrees to complete a specific job and is responsible for its satisfactory completion, or is legally obligated to make good for failure to complete it.

.