ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Aug 16, 2011

Noncompetitive promotion to a position in the competitive class


Noncompetitive promotion to a position in the competitive class
Rockland County Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, Inc. v. Prendergast, 25 AD3d 615

Section 52.7 of the Civil Service Law provides:

7. Promotion by non-competitive examination. Whenever there are no more than three persons eligible for examination for promotion to a vacant competitive class position, or whenever no more than three persons file application for examination for promotion to such position, the appointing officer may nominate one of such persons and such nominee, upon passing an examination appropriate to the duties and responsibilities of the position may be promoted, but no examination shall be required for such promotion where such nominee has already qualified in an examination appropriate to the duties and responsibilities of the position.*

The Rockland County PBA sued in an effort to annul the “non-competitive permanent appointment” of William Sherwood to the position of Chief of Police, Town of Clarkstown Police Department. Sherwood apparently had taken and passed a civil service examination for Police Chief but that list had expired prior to the date he was selected for appointment to the title.

The Appellate Division ruled that Sherwood’s promotion to the position pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 52.7 violated Section 4 of the Rockland County Police Act (RCPA).

RCPA Section 4 provides that: "[n]otwithstanding any other special or general laws to the contrary, such promotion examination shall be competitive examinations held by the state civil service commission regardless of the number of candidates eligible for such promotion."**

The Appellate Division said that although Civil Service Law Section 52.7 authorizes the non-competitive appointment of police officers for promotion, this provision is inconsistent with RCPA Section 4, as Section 4, which in this situation controls, requires competitive examinations for promotion regardless of the number of eligibles or applicants for promotion to the title.” ***

* This provision reflects the so-called “rule of three” whereby the appointing authority may select from among the three candidates scoring highest on the eligible list.

** In the words of the Appellate Division, the RCPA is a "special act which takes precedence over inconsistent provisions of the Civil Service Law," and "was intended to supersede any general statute with regard to the establishment, organization and operation of police departments in Rockland County."

*** If Sherwood was the single candidate eligible for promotion to chief at the time, it would appear that permanently appointing him to the chief title pursuant to CSL 52.7 would not, under these circumstances, satisfy RCPA Section 4.

Aug 15, 2011

New York State’s Governor Cuomo signs ethics reform legislation

New York State’s Governor Cuomo signs ethics reform legislation
Source: Office of the Governor

Characterized as a new law addressing major inadequacies in the current ethics system designed to restore public trust in government, on August 15, 2011 Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed into law the New York State "Public Integrity Reform Act of 2011," [Chapter 399 of the Laws of 2011].

The Governor said that this new statute establishes “unprecedented transparency, strict disclosure requirements, and a strong independent monitor with broad oversight of New York State government.”

According to the Governor’s office, the Public Integrity Reform Act of 2011 includes the following:

Greater financial disclosure: Financial disclosure statements filed with the new Joint Commission on Public Ethics from elected officials will now be posted on the internet and the practice of redacting the monetary values and amounts reported by the filer will be ended.

The Act also includes greater and more precise disclosure of financial information by expanding the categories of value used by reporting individuals to disclose the dollar amounts in their financial disclosure statements. It also requires disclosure of the reporting individual's and his or her firm's certain outside clients and customers doing business with, receiving grants or contracts from, seeking legislation or resolutions from, or involved in cases or proceedings before the State as well as certain of such clients that were brought to the firm by the public official.

Increased access to information concerning who is appearing before a State entity and why: The Act establishes a new database of any individual or firm that appears in a representative capacity before any state governmental entity.

Additional disclosures by registered lobbyists: The bill expands lobbying disclosure requirements, including the disclosure by lobbyists of any "reportable business relationships" of more than $1,000 with public officials. It also expands the definition of lobbying to include advocacy to affect the "introduction" of legislation or resolutions, a change that will help to ensure that all relevant lobbying activities are regulated by the new Joint Commission.

Forfeiture of pensions by public officials convicted of a felony: Certain public officials who commit crimes related to their public offices may have their pensions reduced or forfeited in a new civil forfeiture proceeding brought by the Attorney General or the prosecutor who handled the conviction of the official. 

The bill amends the Retirement and Social Security Law [RSSL] and the Criminal Procedure Law requiring that prior to trial, and before accepting a defendant's plea to a count, the court must individually advise the defendant, on the record, that if at the time of the alleged felony crime the defendant was a public official, the defendant's plea of guilty and the court's acceptance thereof or conviction after trial may result in proceedings for the reduction or revocation of such defendant's pension. 

The court must individually advise the defendant, on the record, that if at the time of the alleged felony crime the defendant as a public official, as defined in division six of section one hundred fifty-six of the RSSL, the defendant's plea of guilty and the court's acceptance thereof or conviction after trial may result in proceedings for the reduction or revocation of such defendant's pension pursuant to article three-B of the RSSL.

A new joint Commission on Public Ethics: The Joint Commission on Public Ethics will replace the existing Commission on Public Integrity with jurisdiction over all elected state officials and their employees, both executive and legislative, as well as lobbyists.

Clarifying independent expenditures for elections: The Act requires the state board of elections to issue new regulations clarifying disclosure of Independent Expenditures.

Increased penalties for violations: The Act substantially increases penalties for violations of the filing requirements and contribution limits in the Election Law, and provides for a special enforcement proceeding in the Supreme Court. The bill also increases penalties for violations of certain provisions of the state's code of Ethics that prohibits conflicts of interest.

State Comptroller concludes that "cyber security investments are cost effective" for governmental agencies


State Comptroller concludes that "cyber security investments are cost effective" for governmental agencies
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Monday reminded local governments and school districts that they can save money and trouble by investing in cyber security. DiNapoli released a report on Information Technology security that detailed local government security breaches and identified preventive measures.

Concerning payments for travel from other than the employer


Concerning payments for travel from other than the employer

New York City’s Conflicts of Interest Board adopted OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin F. Casey’s finding that the Brooklyn Borough President violated the City’s Conflicts law when he accepted payments from two foreign governments and a not-for-profit organization to cover travel costs for his wife when she accompanied him on two trips to Turkey and one trip to the Netherlands.

The Board did not dispute that the Borough President conducted official business on the trips and could accept free airfare and lodging for himself.

In contrast, because the Borough President’s wife did not have an official role in the Borough President’s office, he would have to pay for her travel expenses.

The Board adopted Judge Casey’s recommended penalty of a $20,000 fine. 



Employee required to provide adequate notice of in loco parentis status of an individual if seeking FMLA leave


Employee required to provide adequate notice of in loco parentis status of an individual if seeking FMLA leave
Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved by Carl C. Bosland, Esq. Reproduced with permission. Mr. Bosland is the author of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation.

The FMLA allows an eligible employee of a covered employer to take FMLA leave to care for a covered family member, including a parent.  A "parent" includes a biological, adoptive step or foster mother or father, or any other individual who stood in loco parentis to the employee when the employee was a son or daughter (e.g., under 18 years of age, or over 18 years of age an incapable of self-care due to a disability).  29 CFR 825. 122(b).  In loco parentis means that the individual had day-to-day responsibility to care for or financially support the employee when the employee was a son or daughter.  29 CFR 825.122(c)(3). 

To invoke the protections of the FMLA, the employee must notify his or her employer of the need for FMLA-qualifying leave.  The FMLA's notice requirements are not onerous.  Basically, the employee must provide adequate information to apprise the employer that the leave may be in need of FMLA leave. An employee need not invoke the "FMLA" by name.  If the employer needs more information to determine whether the leave is covered by the FMLA, they are required to inquire further.  

In Ruble v. American River Transportation Co., No. 2:10 CV 24 DDN (E.D. Mo. June 29, 2011), Jack Ruble notified his supervisor (the boat captain) that his 90-year-old grandmother was ill and that he may need to leave the boat during the voyage.  It was uncontested that Ruble's grandmother took exclusive care of Ruble when he was a child for several years. 

During the voyage, Ruble was notified by his family that his grandmother had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and was not expected to live more than a week.  That day, he told the boat captain that his grandmother had terminal cancer, that she was not expected to live more than a week, and that he wanted to leave the boat.  Ruble and the crew lived on the boat during the voyage.  Under Company policy, leaving the boat during a voyage without approval was grounds for removal.  The boat captain referred Ruble to the Company Personnel Manager, whom Ruble called and explained the situation. 

Ruble told the Personnel Manager that his grandmother was ill and he needed to go see her before she died because she had taken care of him.  He delayed leaving the vessel for a few days while the Company tried to secure a replacement.  The Company asked Ruble to wait one more day for the replacement before leaving the boat.  Ruble declined, and flew home.  He did not, however, see his grandmother at the hospital until the following day. 

Ruble's grandmother was discharged from the hospital a few days after he arrived.  She stayed with her daughter, who was primarily responsible for her care.  Ruble's grandmother did not live with him at his home near or before her death.  Ruble stayed by his grandmother's side throughout her hospital stay, providing psychological comfort, and care.  He also spent almost every day with his grandmother while at Shipley's house.  Ruble's grandmother died on May 18.  

Ruble was terminated from employment for leaving the boat without authorization during the voyage.  He sued, alleging that his termination violated the FMLA.  The Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the case, arguing that Ruble failed to provide adequate notice that the leave may be FMLA-qualifying. The Company argued that Ruble failed to adequately notify it that his grandmother was his in loco parentis parent while Ruble was a child.  Absent an in loco parentis relationship, the FMLA does not entitle an employee to take leave to care for a grandparent.

The Court opined:

When an employee seeks to invoke FMLA benefits based on an in loco parentis relationship, the employee must provide his employer with sufficient facts indicating that such a relationship may exist. See Sherrod v. Philadelphia Gas Works, 57 Fed. Appx. 68, 72-73 (3d Cir. 2003)("Since [the employee] did not initially tell her employer that her grandmother had raised her, she failed to sufficiently explain her reasons for the needed FMLA."); Abousaidi v. Mattress Discounters Corp., No. 1:05CV1142 (JCC), 2005 WL 3797366, at *2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 8, 2005).  Otherwise, the employer could not know that the employee's leave may be secured by the FMLA. See Wierman,638 F.3d at 1000 (the employer's duties do not arise until the employee gives sufficient information to who that he may be in need of FMLA leave).

The Court found that Ruble's assertion that he told the Personnel Manager that his grandmother "took care of him," coupled with his more effusive affidavit on the subject, created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the adequacy of Ruble's notice sufficient to defeat the Company's motion for summary judgment. 

Mr. Bosland comments:  To secure the benefits and protections of the FMLA, an employee requesting FMLA leave to care for an in loco parentis parent must articulate some facts to put the employer on reasonable inquiry notice that the leave might be FMLA qualifying.  An in loco parentis parent does not have to involve a legal or biological relationship.  All that is required is that the individual had responsibility to care for and/or financially support the employee when the employee was a son or daughter within the meaning of the FMLA.  Absent a biological or legal relationship, it may not be obvious to an employer that a grandparent, older sibling, uncle, aunt, or someone else cared for the employee when the employee was a child.  While an employee need not affirmatively assert an in loco parentis relationship (although they certainly could do so), the do need to articulate some facts suggesting an in loco parentis relationship.  If the employer needs additional information to confirm an in loco parentis relationship, the burden is on the employer to inquire further.

As demonstrated in Ruble, the notice bar on this issue is relatively low (e.g., my grandma took care of me).  It is not, however, non-existent.  Employers, in turn, must be alert to in loco parentis relationships as a qualifying basis for FMLA leave.  When in doubt, ask the employee to clarify the nature of what might be an in loco parentis relationship.    
  
 

Employee dismissed for alleged sexual harassment disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits Matter of Ferro, 283 AD2d 828


Employee dismissed for alleged sexual harassment disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits
Matter of Ferro, 283 AD2d 828


The Ferro decision demonstrates that engaging in sexual harassment will disqualify an employee for unemployment insurance benefits if he or she is terminated as a result of such misconduct.

Albert J. Ferro was dismissed from his position for allegedly violating his employer's policy prohibiting sexual harassment. According to the decision, a witness testified that he had observed Ferro, a management trainee, grab a female employee from behind and then acted in a sexual manner. This resulted in Ferro being fired from his position.

Ferro's application for unemployment insurance benefits was rejected. The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board ruled that Ferro was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to his misconduct. The Appellate Division, Third Department, sustained the Board's determination. The court pointed out that “offensive behavior in the workplace can constitute disqualifying misconduct ... as can conduct that is detrimental to the employer's interest.”

The rationale underlying the ruling: employers may be held “vicariously liable” as the result of the sexual harassment of subordinates by its management employees. Accordingly, such misconduct “is detrimental to the employer's interests.”

The date on which a statute of limitations commences "running" depends on the nature of the challenge to an administrative action


The date on which a statute of limitations commences "running" depends on the nature of the challenge to an administrative action
Roenke v SUNY, 284 AD2d 781

Whether or not an Article 78 action appealing a particular administrative decision is timely depends on the nature of the action being challenged, as the Roenke case demonstrates.

In December 1997, SUNY advised Henry M. Roenke, that effective January 1, 1998, it would no longer would permit him to make contributions to his tax deferred custodial account although it would allow him to make contributions to various tax sheltered annuities. Roenke objected, but his August 1998 petition seeking a court order compelling SUNY to designate a company or companies from which he could purchase shares in a tax deferred custodial account was dismissed as untimely. He appealed, contending that his petition was, in fact, timely filed because it was submitted within four months of SUNY's rejection of his demand that SUNY reinstate purchasing such shares.

According to the Appellate Division, if Roenke's action was in the nature of mandamus to compel SUNY to perform a statutory duty, the Statute of Limitations does not begin to run until an appropriate demand is made and refused. If, on the other hand, Roenke’s petition involves a challenge to a discretionary act by SUNY rather than its complying with a statutory duty, the Statute of Limitations begins to run from the date that the determination became final and binding upon on him.

Roenke's basic argument: Section 399 of the Education Law mandates that SUNY promulgate a list of companies from which shares in a custodial account may be purchased. The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that because there was nothing in Section 399 compelling SUNY to establish custodial account programs in the first instance, establishing such a program was clearly a discretionary action on the part of SUNY.

The opinion notes that the fact “[t]hat SUNY is permitted but not required to establish such programs is made even clearer by the language contained in Education Law Section 399(2), which begins, “[w]here the employer has established a special annuity and/or custodial account program authorized by this article”.

Accordingly, said the court, the four-month Statute of Limitations for challenging SUNY's administrative decision to discontinue making contributions to Roenke's custodian account effective January 1, 1998 began to run when Roenke was told of this change in December 1997. Thus, said the court, Roenke's filing his complaint in August 1998 “was plainly is time barred.” 

Determining if a disability was “job related”


Determining if a disability was “job related”
Roach v McCall, 284 AD2d 746

V. Robert Roach, Town of Webb Union Free School District head bus driver, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits based on injuries to his right shoulder he claimed resulted from employment-related accidents in 1985, 1995 and 1996. These accidents, he contended, incapacitated him from performing his head bus driver duties. The Comptroller rejected Roach's application after concluding that his condition did not result from employment-related accidents.

John Cambareri, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, testifying on behalf of the State and Local Employees' Retirement System, said that, in his opinion, Roach's disability was the result of traumatic arthritis in his right shoulder stemming from a shoulder dislocation suffered by Roach as a teenager. Understandably, Roach's expert medical witnesses testified to the contrary.

The Appellate Division sustained the Comptroller's rejection of Roach's application, holding that where there is substantial evidence to support his decision, “it lies within the exclusive authority of the Comptroller to evaluate divergent medical opinions in the process of determining whether a claimant is entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits.”

Aug 13, 2011

Decisions of interest involving Government and Administrative Law


Decisions of interest involving Government and Administrative Law
Source: Justia August 12, 2011

Decisions of interest involving Government and Administrative Law


Decisions of interest involving Government and Administrative Law
Source: Justia August 12, 2011
NYPPL Publisher Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com