Employment-at-will status may be tempered by provisions in the employer’s policy manual or personnel handbook under certain conditions

Employment-at-will status may be tempered by provisions in the employer’s policy manual or personnel handbook under certain conditions
Pearce v Clinton Community College, 246 A.D.2d 775

New York State is an “employment-at-will” state. This means that unless there is some statutory or contractual right to due process, an employee may be terminated without notice and a hearing.

However, sometimes courts will deem the contents of an employer’s policy manual or personnel handbook a “contract” insofar as processing the termination of an employee is concerned. Lisa J. Pearce attempted to persuade the Appellate Division that the Clinton County Community College’s [CCC] Policy and Procedures Manual [Manual] was part of the employment contract between her and CCC following her termination by the College.

Pearce signed a letter appointing her assistant bursar at CCC for the period October 18, 1995 through August 31, 1996. According to the ruling, this position was “within the category of management confidential personnel.” Aside from some details concerning fringe benefits, Pearce’s letter of appointment did not include any statements concerning any other “terms and conditions of employment.”

About four months later CCC terminated Pearce. Pearce was awarded unemployment insurance benefits based on a finding by Workers’ Compensation that she “was discharged for incompetence and failure to meet the standards of her payroll specialist position.”

Subsequently Pearce sued CCC, contending that it had wrongfully terminated her and that it had “breached her contract” with respect to certain provisions in the Manual. Was the Manual part of Pearce’s contract of employment? The Appellate Division decided that it was not part of any contract of employment between the parties.

Further, while the Manual indicated that CCC “generally endorses progressive discipline” and provides that “management confidential personnel” may receive annual performance reviews, the Court commented that there was nothing in the Manual setting out a policy with respect to a termination for cause prior to the completion of a specified term of employment.

The Court decided that: (1) The letter of appointment was sufficiently specific to constitute a contract between the parties; (2) CCC’s Policy and Procedures Manual was not “engrafted upon this contract;” and (3) “it is only where a plaintiff can show the existence of an express written agreement limiting the employer’s right to summarily terminate an employee that the principles governing employment at will are inapplicable”. Accordingly, the Court sustained the Supreme Court’s order denying her motion for partial summary judgment.

Eleventh Amendment immunity lost should a state adopt the Fair Labor Standards Act as state law

Eleventh Amendment immunity lost should a state adopt the Fair Labor Standards Act as state law
Mueller v Thompson, CA7, 133 F.3d 1063

In Seminole Tribe v Florida, 517 US 44, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress did not have the power to void a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in the federal courts by enacting legislation pursuant to the Commerce Clause.

In its ruling, the 7th Circuit pointed out that the Supreme Court said states were immune from FLSA under the Tenth Amendment [National League of Cities v Usery, 427 US 909] only to overrule that decision in Garcia v San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority [469 US 528]. However, in Garcia the Supreme Court said the FLSA applied to the states with respect to their performing “non-traditional” governmental functions, here a public transportation system.

If a state adopts the FLSA as state law and allows state employees to sue it for alleged violations of the state’s law, has it lost its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by its employees brought in the federal courts for alleged violations of the federal FLSA? This was the question presented to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, by the Mueller case.

The Court said that there is no waiver of a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity “unless the state has made its intention to waive its rights under the amendment clear.”

In 1971 Wisconsin copied the federal FLSA and made it part of its state law. In 1974 Congress amended the FLSA, making it applicable to the states and their political subdivisions.

On this legislative history, said the Court, there is “little reason” to concluded that Wisconsin waived its immunity by adopting a state FLSA applicable to public employees as Congress had not yet authorized suing states in federal court for alleged violations of the FLSA.

New York State, in contrast, adopted overtime provisions for state workers in an effort to comply with the overtime mandates of the FLSA after Congress made the FLSA applicable to the states. Accordingly, it could be argued that New York State, as an employer, “deliberately” waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by state workers for alleged violations of the FLSA in federal court.

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

We would appreciate about 1 minute of your time to evaluation NYPPL's content and focus-

Please click below to participate in this one minute survey: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22B53MNFEWA

====================================
.

NYS Common Retirement Fund employer contribution rates to increase in 2012

NYS Common Retirement Fund employer contribution rates to increase in 2012
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

On September 2, 2010 State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced increases over the previous year in the 2011-12 employer contribution rates for the New York State Common Retirement Fund. At the same time DiNapoli announced that he accepted the Retirement System actuary’s recommendations for the assumptions used in calculating employer contribution rates.*

The average contribution rate for the Employee Retirement System will increase from 11.9 percent of salaries to 16.3 percent. The average contribution for the Police and Fire Retirement System is increasing from 18.2 percent 21.6 percent.

Comptroller DiNapoli commented that “Unfortunately, it takes the economy a lot longer to climb out of a hole than it takes to fall in it. The markets are still recovering from the 2008-09 financial meltdown, and that recovery continues to be volatile. We handled the meltdown better than most pension funds, but we’re still feeling the impact, and, as I have consistently cautioned, the employer contribution rates I’m announcing today will reflect the impact of the financial crisis.”

The Retirement System actuary by law reviews many actuarial assumptions for the Retirement System, including: the mortality rate for members and retirees, the expected investment rate of return on pension fund investments, the rate of inflation and anticipated salary scales. The actuary prepares a report with recommendations, which is presented to an independent actuarial advisory committee.

The Retirement System’s new assumption for its investment rate of return is more fiscally conservative than the national average for public pension funds and more conservative than the average for the top 100 private U.S. pension funds, according to Milliman’s 10th annual Pension Funding Study.

The Comptroller noted that a new law was enacted earlier in 2010 that will allow a political subdivision of the State to elect to participate in a program that would allow it to budget a portion of their increased pension fund payments over ten years.**

This “employer contribution payment plan” will help those localities electing to participate to mitigate the impact the increase in costs could have on local taxpayers. Those localities opting into the plan must also build reserve accounts during periods of decreasing pension contribution rates, which reserve accounts would be used to protect taxpayers from future rate spikes.

DiNapoli characterized the program as being similar to a household utility budget plan that enables homeowners to pay one level payment throughout the year rather than payments that spike at different times of the year.

* Click on "contribution rates" for the Retirement System actuary’s recommendations for the assumptions used in calculating employer contribution rates: contribution rates

** See Retirement and Social Security Law §19-a, Employer contributions for the two thousand ten - two thousand eleven fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years.


.

A difference between judicial and administrative hearings

A difference between judicial and administrative hearings
Source: Administrative Law Professor Blog. Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2010, All rights reserved http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adminlaw/

Here is another case from Patty Salkin (Albany) on her Law of the Land blog, "FL Appeals Court holds that Neighboring Landowners in a Quasi Judicial Hearing Are Not Entitled to Cross-Examine Witnesses".

Petitioners, Carillon Community Residential Association, Inc., and its President, sought second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court order upholding the approval by the County Board of County Commissioners [BCC] of an amendment to the Carillon Planned Unit Development which allows a mixed-use development, including a four-story, 600 bed University of Central Florida student housing complex, to be built on two parcels of land adjacent to Petitioners’ subdivision.

The Court concluded that the circuit court afforded Petitioners procedural due process and did not depart from the essential requirements of law when the Board denied their request to cross-examine witnesses at the quasi-judicial hearing in which the amendment was approved.

The Court said that Florida law does not require that all participants in quasi-judicial proceedings be allowed to cross-examine witnesses.

The Court states, that “land use hearings are not in the same form as traditional adversarial hearings during which opposing parties are clearly delineated and those entitled to cross-examine witnesses can be clearly identified.

Rather, land use hearings are public hearings during which any member of the public has a right to participate. At the hearing in question, in addition to the witnesses for the developers and the petitioners, twenty-five community members spoke at the hearing. It would be impractical to grant each interested party the right to cross-examine the witnesses at such a hearing, especially in light of the fact that the BCC provides a procedure by which the witnesses can be questioned.”

An administrative hearing is not a trial - not strictly speaking an adversarial procedure but rather an inquisitorial procedure. Due process does not require that the agency follow the rules of evidence or the procedures mandated by due process in litigation or criminal proceedings. Absent specific statutory requirements, we get notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Edward M. “Ted” McClure
.

Fear of AIDS

Fear of AIDS
Barbara S. v Nassau County, Supreme Court, Nassau County, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Emergency service personnel who believe that they have been exposed to HIV in the course of their employment may claim to have developed a fear of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome [AIDS]. The Barbara S. case summaries how New York courts treat such claims.

An emergency room nurse at the Massapequa General Hospital, Barbara S. was stuck with a needle while caring for a patient. She and her husband sued, contending that the needle, which had been allegedly used to start an IV in a patient being transported to the hospital, had been negligently and improperly left on the stretcher by the Nassau County employees.

Barbara contended that she was fearful that she would contract Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) as a result of the puncture despite the fact that she has tested negative for AIDS in three tests administered over a 12-month period. The County asked Justice Joseph dismiss her claim on the grounds that she had not shown that she had been actually exposed to blood or fluid seropositive for HIV, citing Brown v New York City Health and Hospital Corporation, 225 AD2d 36.

Justice Joseph said that New York courts have repeatedly dealt with the elements required to establish a cause of action for negligence based on the fear of contracting AIDS. In order to maintain a cause of action for damages due to the fear of contracting AIDS, an individual who has not tested positive for AIDS must offer proof of “actual exposure.” Requiring proof of actual exposure insures that there is a genuine basis for the individual’s fear of developing the disease and that the fear is not based on public misconceptions about AIDS.

The Court said that although Barbara did posit a scientifically accepted method of transmission of the virus, i.e. the needle puncture, she failed to establish with either documentary evidence or testimony that the needle had ever been in contact with any blood or fluid of the patient or that the patient had AIDS.

Justice Joseph characterized Barbara’s claims as “an unsubstantiated allegation that the needle was used for the patient’s treatment” which was not supported by the record. The Court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing her AIDS-related claims. However, Barbara’s action concerning her claim of a physical injury resulting from the needle puncturing her hand survived, since the County conceded that she had suffered such an injury.

Payment of hazardous duty pay while receiving GML Section 207-c benefits

Payment of hazardous duty pay while receiving GML Section 207-c benefits
Town of Carmel v PERB, Appellate Division, 246 A.D.2d 791

Prior to January 1995, Town of Carmel police officers assigned to “light duty” pursuant to Section 207-c of the General Municipal Law performed desk duty. Such light duty personnel wore “Class D uniforms,” did not carry a weapon and were assisted by a full-status officer, fully armed, dressed in a “Class A” uniform, at all times.

The Town changed this policy in January 1995, requiring officers on light duty status to wear a Class A uniform, including weapon and to perform desk duty unassisted by a “full-status” officer.

The Town of Carmel PBA, contending that this change adversely affected the safety of officers, both those on light duty status as well as those in full-status, demanded that the Town negotiate “safety stipends” for both the light duty and full-status officers. When the Town refused, the PBA filed an improper practice charge with PERB.

The PBA sought $100 a day for light duty officers serving without assistance; $15 an hour for full-status officers responsible for a prisoner while a light duty officer was the only other officer present and $10 an hour for a full-service officer assigned to desk duty when only a light duty officer was present.

A PERB administrative law judge [ALJ] dismissed the charge, finding that the additional compensation demanded for light duty officers “did not comport with the legislative scheme of General Municipal Law Section 207-c,” and thus constituted a prohibited subject of negotiations. PERB disagreed and reversed the ALJ’s ruling.

PERB decided that the salary demands advocated by the PBA were mandatory subjects for collective bargaining “not unlike hazardous duty pay.” The Town appealed, contending that it could not be compelled to negotiate wages to be paid an officer assigned to light duty above the amount to which he or she would have been entitled were he or she able to perform “regular duties.”

The issue to be resolved: did the demand for a safety stipend constitute a term and condition of employment, thus making it mandatorily negotiable, or did it constitute salary or wages in excess of that which are provided for under the clear and plain language of the Section 207-c.

The Appellate Division agreed with a lower court’s affirmation of PERB’s decision, concluding that the PBA’s demand involved a term and condition of employment since it directly relates to safety issues arising as a result of the change in policy. Further, said the Appellate Division, nothing in Section 207-c makes the PBA’s demand a prohibited subject of negotiations.

According to the decision, while the legislature intended to insure that Section 207-c police officers assigned light duty would receive an uninterrupted salary, “it did not simultaneously intend to prevent those same officers from bargaining for what they may perceive to be job-related risks.”

N.B. An Internal Revenue Service private letter opinion [#0104.02.00] advised that if an individual is assigned light duty, any compensation paid pursuant to Sections 207-a or 207-c is fully taxable.

Employer’s failure to provide disciplinary hearing to a temporary employee after having initiated disciplinary action an abuse of discretion

Employer’s failure to provide disciplinary hearing to a temporary employee after having initiated disciplinary action an abuse of discretion
Matter of Kaefer v New York State Off. of Parks Recreation & Historical Preserv., 2010 NY Slip Op 51503(U), Decided on July 16, 2010, Supreme Court, Nassau County, Judge Ute Wolff Lally, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Robert Kaefer had been employed as a “seasonal temporary” lifeguard for 18 years* by Jones Beach State Park [Parks].

Returning from an absence following surgery performed by a Dr. Halpern, Kaefer was told that he needed a doctor's note before returning to work. As Dr. Halpern was unavailable, Kaefer handed in a false doctor's note allegedly written by a Dr. Persaud, which he had obtained with the help of another lifeguard, James Green.** Subsequently Kaefer obtained an appropriate doctor’s note from Dr. Halpern.

Dr. Persaud's note, however, had raised some suspicion and Kaefer was told to provide evidence verifying its accuracy. Kaefer, in response, submitted “another bogus note from Dr. Persaud.”

Parks allowed Kaefer to continue serving as a lifeguard for the rest of the swim season.***

Thereafter Susan Guliani, Director of Jones Beach State Park, notified Kaefer to appear for a Step 1 disciplinary hearing concerning the first bogus note -- the first formal step in the process taking disciplinary action against a lifeguard. The hearing, however, was adjourned to but prior to the rescheduled date Kaefer received a letter advising him that the step 1 hearing "has been postponed and will be rescheduled at a future date to be determined".

No notification of a rescheduled or cancelled Step 1 hearing was ever sent to Kaefer.

Ultimately Kaefer was refused reemployment as a lifeguard and he filed an Article 78 petition seeking a court order setting aside Parks decision banning from serving as a lifeguard, contending that the decision was arbitrary and capricious because:

1. Parks failed to adhere to its own policies and procedures; and

2. Parks imposed a different penalty than it has applied its prior determinations on essentially the same alleged acts of misconduct by barring him from employment as a life guard.

Judge Lally rejected Parks’ argument that Kaefer’s petition should be dismissed because he had “failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not inquire into and/or request to have the Step 1 hearing rescheduled," holding that the duty of providing for the rescheduling and notifying Kaefer of such a hearing was Parks'.

In contrast, Judge Lally ruled that Kaefer had the burden of proving that his punishment — a lifetime bar from employment as a lifeguard -- was so disparate from the treatment accorded to similarly situated lifeguards, that it was arbitrary and capricious.

In this regard, said the court, Kaefer failed to meet his burden as, except for James Green, Kaefer was unable to point to any lifeguard who was found guilty of submitting a bogus doctor's note. Further, Judge Lally said that he would not substitute his judgment for that of Parks, finding that there was no abuse of discretion as a matter of law in Parks’ treatment of Kaefer compared to its treatment of other lifeguards convicted of crimes.

As to Parks’ argument that it had merely exercised its discretion to terminate a “seasonal temporary” lifeguard pursuant to its authority to do so "for any reason without prior notice," Judge Lally ruled that it could not now rely on such discretion to excuse its failure to follow through with the disciplinary procedure it earlier initiated. In the words of the court, “Having invoked its authority [to discipline Parks] was obliged to comply with it. [Parks] scheduled, rescheduled and then canceling the rescheduled hearing with a promise to provide a new date."

In effect, "once initiated, [Parks] was required to complete the disciplinary process in accordance with the provisions set out in the collective bargaining agreement and by failing to do so it violated its own policies and procedures, which deprived Kaefer of any opportunity to explain his action and/or to plead his case."

In determining the appropriate redress to be given Kaefer to cure Parks’ “abuse of discretion in violating its policies and procedures,” Judge Lally said that he must consider the particular circumstances of Kaefer’s employment.

The court explained that although hired for numerous seasons, Kaefer consistently had been an employee for a fixed term for each season and he had no right to be rehired. However, in barring Kaefer from “taking the new hire test without having afforded him a Step 1 hearing,” Parks had, essentially, made a disciplinary decision without giving Kaefer the benefit of such a hearing.

Accordingly, Judge Lally directed Parks “to provide to [Kaefer] the hearings he is entitled to” and to permit him to take “the new hire test unless and until a determination after the appropriate hearings ban him from such service for life.”

Significantly, the court, noting that Parks had “wrongfully prohibited” Kaefer from taking the new hire tests, commented that “there is no certitude that [Kaefer] would have passed same or that an opening existed.” Accordingly, Judge Lally declined to award Kaefer “lost wages.”

In contrast, however, as the prevailing party, the court said that Kaefer was entitled to attorney fees pursuant to the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act (CPLR §8601).

* "Seasonal Appointment Letters" sent to Kaefer stated that "You should understand, however, that your employment relationship with the Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation is only temporary. It may be terminated at any time, either by you or by the agency, for any reason and without prior notice...."

** James Green, Kaefer's co-conspirator in obtaining the bogus doctor's notes, had agreed as part of a plea bargain to a lifetime ban of employment as a lifeguard at Parks.

*** Subsequently Kaefer was charged by the Nassau County District Attorney with a felony and plead guilty to a Class A misdemeanor, submitting a false instrument for filing.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_51503.htm

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

We would appreciate about 1 minute of your time for your evaluation of NYPPL's content and focus-

Please click below to participate in this one minute survey: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22B53MNFEWA

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

Employee terminated after refusing to accept reassignment to another location

Employee terminated after refusing to accept reassignment to another location
Dippell v Hammons, 246 A.D.2d 450

Dagmar Dippell, an attorney employed by the New York City Human Resources Administration, refused to report to her new assignment in Queens. This resulted in Dippell’s demotion following a disciplinary hearing.

When she continued to refuse to report to the new location, a second hearing was conducted and she was terminated. Dippell appealed, contending that the determinations by the two Administrative Law Judges [ALJs] were not supported by substantial evidence.

Commenting on the hearings that preceded Dippell’s dismissal, the Appellate Division cited the “obey now, grieve later” principle. The Court said that the first ALJ had ample grounds to conclude that Dippell had no basis for disregarding that principle. Although Dippell’s physician had recommended a “non-stressful job” for her, that, standing alone, “was inadequate to establish that the reassignment would be unduly debilitating to her health.”

The ALJ found that Dippell’s testimony lacked credibility and that she came across as “stubborn and misguided.” According to the decision, the ALJ credited the testimony of a department witness that Dippell was reassigned because of her failure to return from a Florida vacation on time and her “longstanding poor relationship with her immediate supervisor.”

The second proceeding was held before a different ALJ. The Appellate Division noted that Dippell failed to appear at that hearing. The Appellate Division said that the second ALJ “properly concluded” that dismissal was the only appropriate penalty, because Dippell had previously been demoted for similar misconduct.

Participating in an arbitration may bar extrication from the process

Participating in an arbitration may bar extrication from the process
Suffolk County v Faculty Asso. of SCCC, App. Div., 247 A.D.2d 472

Suppose a party appears at a grievance arbitration but later decides that it didn’t have to. May it ask to have the arbitration award vacated?

This was the significant issue in the Suffolk County case. The Appellate Division indicated that once a party has appeared in an arbitration and a decision had been rendered, it may be too late for the party to extricate itself the process.

Suffolk County participated in a grievance arbitration proceeding involving the Faculty Association of Suffolk County Community College. The county challenged the arbitration and won a court order vacating the award made by the arbitrator after persuading a New York State Supreme Court justice that “there was no agreement to arbitrate the grievance in question” between the parties.

The Faculty Association appealed and the Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling, reinstating the award. The Court said, “the absence of an agreement to arbitrate is not a basis upon which a party who participated in the arbitration may seek to have the resulting award vacated.”

The Court also rejected the County’s alternative argument, in which it contended that the arbitration award violated public policy, on a technical ground. Why? Because, said the Court, the County did not raise the “public policy” argument in its motion to vacate the arbitration award at the Supreme Court level. Accordingly, the County’s “public policy” theory was not properly before it on appeal.

Selected bills recently signed into law

Selected bills recently signed into law
Source: New York State Legislature

Chapter 423 of the Laws of 2010: Provides that employers who provide funeral leave for family members of deceased shall not deny such leave for same-sex committed partners of the deceased.

Chapter 426 of the Laws of 2010: Requires New York City school districts to notify parents of bedbug infestations.

Chapter 430 of the Laws of 2010: Relates to health insurance coverage for surviving spouses or domestic partners of members of the New York City Department of Correction.

Chapter 480 of the Laws of 2010: Relates to the residence of peace officers employed as fire protection inspectors, urban park rangers and traffic enforcement agents level IV by a city with a population over one million [i.e., the City of New York].

.

State Comptroller’s report concludes that Office of Mental Health's “contracting out” for personnel and other services not adequately monitored

State Comptroller’s report concludes that Office of Mental Health's “contracting out” for personnel and other services not adequately monitored
Source: Office of the State Comptroller, Audit 2009-S-42

The State Comptroller’s auditors found that the Office of Mental Health (OMH) had 819 state-funded contracts for personal and miscellaneous services during a three-year audit period totaling $61.7 million.

The focus of the audit: Was OMH adequately justifying the need to initially contract out for such services and then periodically reassessing whether such contracts could be deferred, eliminated or reduced. The report indicates that “this was not adequately done.”

A sample of 50 of the 819 Service Contracts was selected for study. The auditors reviewed available documentation to determine whether the need for the services and the decision to contract for services was justified with supporting documentation.

According to the Comptroller’s report, OMH was able to demonstrate that it had formally evaluated and justified the need for only 15 of these 50 contracts totaling $13.5 million. The Department did not produce documentation showing that it formally evaluated the justification for the remaining 35 contracts, which totaled $48.2 million.

Although OMH officials agreed that all of the decisions pertaining to contracting for Services were not documented, they indicated that "this is not a feasible task, as decisions are made at many levels in many forms." OMH said that it believe it had effectively communicated the intent of the relevant budget bulletins to all OMH divisions and facilities. The auditors, in contrast, said they “did not find sufficient evidence that OMH had contracted out only when there was a clearly documented need for the services.”

The contracts involved providing for mental health services, information technology, maintenance, and security services.

The full text of the Comptroller’s report is posted on the Internet at:
http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093010/09s42.pdf
.