Positive drug test results rebutted as "false positive" by employee's expert witness

Positive drug test results rebutted as "false positive" by employee's expert witness

Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, OATH Index No. 1717/18

A New York City correction officer who tested positive for morphine and codeine denied that he had used illegal drugs and claimed that the test result was a "false positive."

OATH Administrative Law Judge John B. Spooner found the officer's witness had rebutted the employer's allegation that the employee had tested positive as the result of having ingested unlawful drugs and he recommended dismissal of the charge. 

The ALJ credited the officer’s testimony that he had eaten bagels that contained poppy seed prior to the drug test. 

Judge Spooner found the qualifications of the officer’s expert, a toxicologist, were superior to those of petitioner’s expert, the lab manager. The toxicologist had testified that the relatively low levels of the drugs found in the officer’s urine could only be explained by eating poppy seed bagels because the quantities were at non-therapeutic doses and the relative proportions were inconsistent with heroin or morphine or codeine ingestion.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/18_cases/18-1717.pdf

SUNY student entititle to administrative due process in a disciplinary hearing involving allegations of violations of the student code of conduct

SUNY students entitled to administrative due process in a disciplinary hearing involving allegations of violations of a student code of conduct

Matter of Agudio v State Univ. of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 05647, Appellate Division, Third Department

In this appeal to review a determination of the State University of New York at Albany [SUNY] that, following a Student Conduct Board [SCB] hearing, found the student petitioner [Petitioner] guilty of violating SUNY Albany's student code of conduct and expelled the student, the Appellate Division sustained the disciplinary action taken SUNY and the penalty imposed on the Petitioner.

The SCB found that Petitioner had found Petitioner guilty of three of the charges filed against her and imposed the sanction of dismissal from SUNY Albany. Petitioner appealed the SCB determination to an Appeal Board. Ultimately the SCB's determination and penalty was sustained by SUNY Albany's assistant vice-president for student affairs, based on a written recommendation from the Appeal Board.

The court  noted that a "college's determination that a student violated its code of conduct will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record." Further, the decision notes that administrative determinations may be based entirely on hearsay evidence as long as "such evidence is sufficiently relevant and probative or sufficiently reliable and is not otherwise seriously controverted." Here, said the Appellate Division, "the record contains direct evidence against [Petitioner], as well as hearsay."

Although the disciplinary action before the SCB was held "in absentia" as the result of Petitioners failure to appear at the hearing,* the court ruled that Petitioner's due process rights were not violated by SUNY Albany's student disciplinary procedures as Petitioner was given written notice of the charges prior to a hearing, the names of the witnesses against her, an opportunity to hear and confront evidence against her and to present a defense and to be advised in writing of the factual findings and discipline imposed.

Additionally, citing Matter of Miller v Schwartz, 72 NY2d 869 and other decision, the Appellate Division noted that "there is no general constitutional right to discovery in . . . administrative proceedings."

Finally, under the circumstances of this case, the Appellate Division concluded that the penalty of dismissal from SUNY Albany imposed on Petitioner was not disproportionate to the offense, citing Lampert v State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 116 AD3d 1292, leave to appeal denied, 23 NY3d 908.

*The decision notes that Petitioner [1] had an attorney who communicated with SUNY Albany's Community Standards Office prior to the hearing raising certain complaints regarding the procedure and stated that Petitioner would not attend if those complaints were not remedied and [2] that Petitioner could have attended the hearing with her attorney, who could have advised her, but she did not do so.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_05647.htm

Implementing an arbitrator's decision after the appointing authority failed to timely comply with the provisions set out in a collective bargaining agreement

Implementing an arbitrator's decision after the appointing authority failed to timely comply with the provisions set out in a collective bargaining agreement

Appeal of Nadav Zeimer, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17468

The relevant provision of the collective bargaining agreement [COB] required the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education [Chancellor] issue a written decision within 15 days of the employee's request that the Chancellor review the arbitrator's decision.

When the Chancellor failed to comply with this provision of the COB, Nadav Zeimer [Petitioner] requested that the Commissioner of Education [Commissioner] to “disregard the Chancellor's [d]ecision and consider [Petitioner’s appeal letter] a direct appeal of the Arbitration Decision.”

The Commissioner noted that the Chancellor had issued a determination addressing Petitioner’s December 5, 2017 appeal well after the 15 days required by both the CBA and an earlier order of the Commissioner set out in Appeal of Zeimer, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,357.*  This, noted the Commissioner, is not the first time that the Chancellor has missed this deadline, citing Appeal of Chou, 55 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,848.**

In the words of the Commissioner, "The Chancellor’s unexplained delay is particularly egregious because the record shows that NYCDOE filed a proceeding under Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) contesting the arbitrator’s reinstatement of petitioner, and that this proceeding was fully submitted on April 27, 2018, six days prior to the Chancellor’s determination at issue herein, which was required to be timely rendered by the Agreement and by my March 26, 2018 decision and order in Appeal of Zeimer (57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,357)."

After admonishing the Chancellor "to review the provisions of the Agreement and its legal obligation to ensure that the Chancellor renders a determination within 15 days of an arbitrator’s determination pursuant to Article VII(J)(4)(a)(6) of the Agreement," the Commissioner, nevertheless, declined to strike the Chancellor’s determination in this case. However, said the Commissioner, in view of tthe "the lack of demonstrated prejudice to [Petitioner] and in the interests of justice," she declined "to strike the Chancellor’s determination in this case." The Chancellor was then "cautioned" that future noncompliance may warrant additional corrective measures.

* The Commissioner took judicial notice that at the time Petitioner initiated Appeal of Zeimer, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,357, the Chancellor was Carmen Fariña.  The instant Chancellor is Richard A. Carranza.

** Indeed, observed the Commissioner, the Chancellor cited Appeal of Chou "for the proposition that 'the Commissioner previously authorized a decision by the Chancellor despite the delay in its issuance' to support consideration of the Chancellor’s late determination" in the instant appeal. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume58/d17468

Claiming exempt volunteer firefighter status for the purposes of Civil Service Law §75.1(b)

Claiming exempt volunteer firefighter status for the purposes of Civil Service Law §75.1(b)

Serviss v Incorporated Vil. of Floral Park, 2018 NY Slip Op 05597, Appellate Division, Second Department

§75.1 of the Civil Service Laws generally bars the termination of a tenured officer or employee in the Competitive Class of Classified Service of the State or a political subdivision of the State "except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges."

The Incorporated Village of Floral Park terminated Joseph Serviss without notice or a hearing. Serviss challenged his termination, contending that although the position from which he had been terminated was in the Labor Class of the Classified Service and employees serving in the Labor Class were generally not subject to the provisions of Civil Service Law §75.1, he was entitled to these protections provided by §75.1 because he served an "volunteer fire fighter with the Rocky Point Fire Department since September 30, 2013," citing  §75.1(b).

§75.1(b), in pertinent part, provides that "a person holding a position by permanent appointment or employment   in  the  classified  service  of  the  state  or  in the several cities,   counties, towns, or villages thereof, or in any other political or civil   division of the state or of a municipality,  or  in  the  public  school   service,  or in any public or special district, or in the service of any  authority, commission or  board,  or  in  any  other  branch  of  public  service,  who  was  honorably  discharged  or  released  under honorable  circumstances from the armed forces of the United States  having  served   therein  as such member in time of war as defined in section eighty-five   of this chapter, or who is an exempt volunteer firefighter as defined in   the general municipal law,  except  when  a  person  described  in  this paragraphholds the position of private secretary, cashier or deputy of  any official or department,...."

In response to Serviss' Article 78 petition challenging the Village's action, the Village  moved pursuant to dismiss Serviss' petition on the basis that it was deficient as a matter of law, contending that "the petitioner failed to allege in his petition that he was an 'exempt' firefighter as defined in General Municipal Law §200." Serviss then asked Supreme Court "for leave to renew his opposition to the Village's motion to dismiss the petition" and in support of that branch of his motion submitted a certificate and supporting documentation in an effort to establish that he was an "exempt" firefighter as defined in General Municipal Law §200.

Supreme Court denied that branch of Serviss' motion, holding that he failed to offer a reasonable justification for failing to submit the certificate in opposition to the Village's motion to dismiss. Serviss appealed from that order.

Addressing the merits of Serviss' appeal, the Appellate Division explained:

1. In general, a motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination.

2. The new or additional facts presented "either must have not been known to the party seeking renewal or may, in the Supreme Court's discretion, be based on facts known to the party seeking renewal at the time of the original motion."

3. A reasonable justification' for the failure to present such facts on the original motion must be presented."

Noting that Supreme Court "lacks discretion to grant renewal where the moving party omits a reasonable justification for failing to present the new facts on the original motion" the Appellate Division explained that "A motion for leave to renew is not a second chance freely given to parties who have not exercised due diligence in making their first factual presentation." It then agreed with the Supreme Court's finding that the Serviss failed to offer a reasonable justification for his failure to present the documents relating to his status as an "exempt" firefighter in opposition to the original motion to dismiss.

However there are two procedural elements that must be met by an individual claiming exempt volunteer firefighter status for the purposes of §75.1(b) that should be noted.

1. The individual claiming exempt volunteer firefighter status has the burden of demonstrating that he or she enjoys such status [see People v Hayes, 135 AD 19]; and

2. Notice of the fact that the individual is an exempt volunteer firefighter must be given to the employer prior to the individual's effective date of termination [see Badman v Falk, 4AD2d 149]. 

Presumably the courts would apply these two procedural elements in cases involving individuals claiming §75.1(b) military service benefits. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_05597.htm

Evaluating the inclusion of "longevity allowance payments" in computing an employee's final average salary for retirement benefit purposes

Evaluating the inclusion of "longevity allowance payments" in computing an employee's final average salary for retirement benefit purposes

Bohlen v DiNapoli,2018 NY Slip Op 05720, Appellate Division, Third Department

In this action Petitioners ask the court to review the Comptroller determination excluding certain compensation from the final average salary in calculating the retirement benefits of 11 long-term, executive level key employees [Petitioners] of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey [Authority], all members of New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System [System].

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center that resulted in the destruction of its headquarters, the loss of virtually all of its records and the death of over 70 of its employees, the Authority elected to participate in a temporary retirement incentive program that was passed by the Legislature for employees who were members of the System but advised Petitioners, who were all eligible to retire at that time without penalty, that they would be exempted from the program. Instead, the Authority offered each of them, in addition to their regular salary, a "parity" benefit described as a longevity allowance payment that was based on a percentage of their salary to be paid biweekly, provided that they continued their employment beyond December 31, 2002.

Petitioners each signed memorandum agreements accepting the offer and the Port Authority began making longevity allowance payments to them under what it called an "Employee Retention Program."

In 2012 the System concluded that the longevity allowance payments were not includable  in determining the final average salaries of certain then retiring Petitioners because they were paid "in anticipation of eventual retirement." The System also reevaluated the retirement benefits that were being paid to other of these Petitioners who had earlier retired and came to the same conclusion.

Petitioners challenged the determinations of the Retirement System and requested a hearing. The Hearing Officer found that the System acted reasonably in excluding the longevity allowance payments in computing Petitioners' final average salaries, consistent with the provisions of Retirement and Social Security Law §431. The Comptroller accepted the Hearing Officer's findings and Petitioners initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Comptroller's decision contending that the longevity allowance payments should have been included in the calculation of their final average salaries.

The Appellate Division agreed with the Petitioners, indicating that:

1. There is no dispute that the 2002 enabling legislation establishing the retirement incentive authorized participating employers to determine which titles would be eligible;

2. The Authority was authorized to determine that Petitioners — all recognized as key employees eligible to retire — would be ineligible for the program;

3. The Authority entered into a memorandum agreement with each Petitioner that provided for a "longevity allowance in consideration of [petitioners] not retiring" (emphasis by the court); and 

4. The "consideration" factor is significant for the Authority was entitled to exclude Petitioners from the retirement incentive without providing any consideration, regardless of whether Petitioners intended to retire at that time.

The memorandum agreement, noted the Appellate Division, indicated that the longevity allowance would make Petitioners' pension calculation "roughly equivalent" to what it would have been under the retirement incentive, provided that they remained employed for three years beyond December 31, 2002. Significantly, said the court, "the additional payments were made on a biweekly basis in the same way as regular salary for services as they were performed."

These payments, in the view of the Appellate Division, "are more appropriately characterized as payments genuinely made to delay [P]etitioners' retirements, not to artificially inflate their final average salary in anticipation of retirement" as they were provided for the primary purposes of [a] retaining key employees following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack and [b] to adequately compensate Petitioners for their dedication and commitment to remain in their vital positions.

Further, observed the court, there was "neither a lump-sum payment on the eve of retirement nor a disproportionate salary increase designed to artificially inflate a pension benefit that would be properly excluded from the computation of the final average salary."

Although both the System and the Hearing Officer, whose recommendation the Comptroller adopted, characterized the payments as having been made "in anticipation of eventual retirement" (emphasis provided in the decision) the Appellate Division noted that the term "eventual" is not part of the statutory standard and use of the term eventual actually reflects the Comptroller's own recognition that there was no actual retirement date anticipated in the memorandum agreement.

Justice Lynch, in an opinion in which Justices Devine and Pritzker concurred, held that the Comptroller's determination to uphold the System's exclusion of these payments from the computation of Petitioners' pension benefits was not supported by substantial evidence and that the final average salaries of the Petitioners for the purpose of determining their retirement benefits should be recalculated.  Justice Clark wrote a dissenting opinion in which Presiding Justice McCarthy concurred.

These decisions are posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_05720.htm

Determining the economic damage suffered by a victim of unlawful discrimination

Determining the economic damage suffered by a victim of unlawful discrimination
Rensselaer County Sheriff's Dept. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2018 NY Slip Op 05719, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Appellate Division reviewed a determination of the Commissioner of Human Rights' award of damages to compensate Lora Abbott Seabury for the pension benefits that she lost due to the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department [Respondent] discriminatory actions.*

Lora Abbott Seabury, a former correction officer employed by Respondent filed a complaint with State Division of Human Rights [SDHR] alleging that she had been subjected to, among other things, sexual harassment by male coworkers. After holding a hearing, a SDHR Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] found that Seabury proved that she had been sexually harassed by her male coworkers and recommended that Petitioner be ordered to pay Seabury nearly $450,000 in economic damages and $300,000 in noneconomic damages. The ALJ also recommended that Seabury "should be made whole with regard to her pension."

The Commissioner of Human Rights adjusted the amount of economic damages to approximately $315,000, but otherwise adopted the ALJ's recommendations and, in addition, included an order directing Seabury "to involve" the Office of the State Comptroller and the New York State and Local Retirement System, "presumably [said the court] to have them provide an actual pension to Seabury based on 25 years of service."

The Appellate Division confirmed the determination that Seabury had been subjected to sexual harassment and then remitted the matter to SDHR for the limited purpose of determining the amount of damages that Seabury sustained due to diminishment of her pension benefits, specifically noting that, for the purposes of such a calculation, [1] Seabury's testimony that she planned to work for 25 years was credited, [2] Seabury provided the relevant portions of her collective bargaining agreement and [3] Seabury provided evidence of her wages for the final three full years of her employment, which allows for the computation of her final average salary.**

On remittal, SDHR requested that Petitioner submit documentation demonstrating the monetary award necessary to compensate Seabury for diminution of her pension.

Contending that Seabury was not entitled to any such damages based on the possibility that she would receive disability benefits in an amount greater than the pension that she would have been eligible to receive upon completing 25 years of service, Petitioner submitted a written report from an economist who estimated the total pension benefits that Seabury would have received based on her years of actual service and after 25 years of service. Seabury submitted documentation in rebuttal to Petitioner's submissions, including a written report from an economist who also estimated Seabury's lost pension benefits.

Ultimately the Commissioner ordered Petitioner to pay Seabury $809,507.97 to compensate her for the reduction in her pension that resulted from Petitioner's discriminatory actions.

Petitioner appealed the Commissioner's determination contending that SDHR's calculation of the damages award was both procedurally improper and incorrect while Seabury contended that the damages awarded by the Commissioner did not fully compensate her for the reduction in her pension.

Seabury then requested that Supreme Court either dismiss the petition or transfer the proceeding to the Appellate Division, whereupon Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Appellate Division, resulting in this proceeding.

Explaining that it had remitted explicitly for the limited purpose of requiring SDHR to determine such damages because it had never made an initial determination of such damages, the Appellate Division rejected the Petitioner's claim that SDHR violated the applicable rules of procedure when it afforded both parties the opportunity to make additional submissions on remittal because SDHR was authorized to reopen the record of the proceeding.

The Appellate Division also rejected Petitioner's contention that SDHR erred by failing to reduce the damages awarded for loss of pension benefits to present value. The Court said that although the question of whether the Human Rights Law requires that awards for future damages be discounted to present value is an issue of first impression in the appellate courts of New York, citing Matter of Aurecchione v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 98 NY2d 21, it noted that the Court of Appeals had observed that federal case law is instructive in the employment discrimination context.

Acknowledging that the award for Seabury's lost pension benefits can only be a "rough approximation" of the amount necessary to restore her to the position that she would have occupied had she not been the victim of sexual harassment because neither her lost income stream nor the effect of future price inflation can be predicted with complete confidence, the Appellate Division opined that "One permissible method for approximating damages that arises from a loss of future income - known as the "total offset" method - is to neither consider future salary increases nor discount the damages to present value based on the presumption that future salary increases are offset by the discount rate used to calculate the present value of a damages award."

Thus, said the court, SDHR did not err by adopting the total offset method to determine the value of Seabury's lost pension benefits and confirmed its determination.

* See Executive Law §298.

** Matter of Rensselaer County Sheriff's Dept. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 131 AD3d 777.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_05719.htm

Employer's termination of a biologically male employee transitioning from male to female held unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex

Employer's termination of a biologically male employee transitioning from male to female held unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex

EEOC v R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Home., USCA, 6th Circuit, No. 16-2424

Plaintiff, born biologically male, while living and presenting as a man, worked as a funeral director at R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. [Funeral Home], a closely held for-profit corporation.

In an unlawful discrimination complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] Plaintiff alleged that the Funeral Home terminated her* after she had advised the Funeral Home that she intended to transition from male to female and would commence presenting herself and dress as a woman while at work.

In the course of EEOC investigation of Plaintiff's complaint it found that the Funeral Home provided its male public-facing employees with clothing that complied with the company’s dress code while female public-facing employees received no such allowance.

The EEOC subsequently brought suit against the Funeral Home in which the EEOC charged the Funeral Home with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Title VI] by (1) terminating Plaintiff's employment on the basis of her transgender or transitioning status and her refusal to conform to sex-based stereotypes; and (2) administering a discriminatory-clothing-allowance policy.

In its motion for summary judgment, EEOC argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both of its claims.

The Funeral Home, in contrast, contended that it had not violate Title VII by requiring Plaintiff to comply with a sex-specific dress code that it asserts equally burdens male and female employees, and, in the alternative, that Title VII should not be enforced against the Funeral Home because requiring the Funeral Home owners to employ Plaintiff while she dresses and represents herself as a woman would constitute an unjustified substantial burden upon the Funeral Home’s owner's sincerely held religious beliefs in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA].

The federal district granted summary judgment in favor of the Funeral Home on both claims.

The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that:

[1] the Funeral Home engaged in unlawful discrimination against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex; and 

[2] the Funeral Home has not established that applying Title VII’s proscriptions against sex discrimination to the Funeral Home would substantially burden its owner's exercise of their religious beliefs and, therefore, the Funeral Home was not entitled to a defense under RFRA.

Further, said the Circuit court, (a) even if the Funeral Home's owner's religious exercise were substantially burdened, the EEOC established that enforcing Title VII is the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s compelling interest in eradicating workplace discrimination against Plaintiff and (b) that the EEOC may bring a discriminatory-clothing-allowance claim in this case because such an investigation into the Funeral Home’s clothing-allowance policy was reasonably expected to grow out of the original charge of sex discrimination that Plaintiff submitted to the EEOC.

The Circuit Court issued a judgment to the EEOC on its unlawful-termination claim, and remanded the case to the district court "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

* The Circuit Court used female pronouns in its decision in accordance with the preference Plaintiff expressed through her briefing to this court.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/16-2424/16-2424-2018-03-07.pdf?ts=1520443817

An individual's General Municipal Law §207-c benefits may be discontinued where the decision to do so is supported by substantial evidence

An individual's General Municipal Law §207-c benefits may be discontinued where the decision to do so is supported by substantial evidence

Matter of Cordway v Cayuga County, 2018 NY Slip Op 04873, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Petitioner, a deputy sheriff, commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination that terminated the disability benefits the deputy sheriff had been receiving pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c. The Hearing Officer issued a report recommending that Petitioner's continued receipt of benefits be terminated. Contrary to Petitioner's contention, the Appellate Division found "no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's determination terminating the benefits."

Although Petitioner presented evidence supporting his contention that his injuries and ailments were causally related to the work-related, the Hearing Officer was entitled to weigh the parties' conflicting medical evidence and to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Where the evidence is conflicting and there is room for a choice, a court may not weigh the evidence or reject the Hearing Officer's decision where his or her determination is supported by substantial evidence

Citing Matter of Park v Kapica, 8 NY3d 302, the court opined that an employer's "initial award of Section 207-c benefits does not require the continuation of such benefits inasmuch as "[t]he continued receipt of Section 207-c disability payments is not absolute."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_04873.htm

Audits and reports were issued by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

Audits and reports were issued by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending August 10, 2018

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

Click on text highlighted in color to access the full report

On August 9, 2018 the New York State Comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, announced the following audits and examinations had been issued.

Department of Health (DOH): Medicaid Claims Processing Activity April 1, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2017 (2017-S-23)
Auditors identified approximately $10.2 million in improper Medicaid payments, including: $3.7 million in overpayments for claims that were billed with incorrect information pertaining to other health insurance coverage that recipients had; $3.1 million in overpayments for claims involving Medicare coverage that were incorrectly processed; and $1.3 million in overpayments for improper newborn birth claims. About $4.5 million of the overpayments were recovered by the end of audit fieldwork. Auditors also identified providers in the Medicaid program who were charged with or found guilty of crimes that violated health care programs’ laws or regulations. DOH terminated 42 of 51 providers identified.
       
Department of Health (DOH): Examination of Travel Expenses (2015-BSE1-04B)
In an earlier report, auditors found DOH improperly designated an employee’s official station in calendar years 2013 and 2014, costing the state more than $38,000 in unnecessary travel expenses. After further examination, auditors found DOH paid $22,651.32, $26,556.12 and $6,007.79 in travel expenses for calendar years 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively, for the employee to commute between his residence and his main work location. DOH could have avoided these costs if officials had properly designated the employee’s main work location as his official station.

Workers' Compensation Board: Annual Audit
The board processed claims totaling nearly $720 million for four sole custody funds in 2017 – the Uninsured Employers Fund, the Special Fund for Disability Benefits, the Second Injury Fund and the Fund for Reopened Cases.  Board staff enter claims data for all special funds claims into the Board’s automated payment system, where the claims are subjected to various system edits and validation checks, approved by the Board and submitted to the Comptroller’s Office for approval prior to payment. Auditors halted inappropriate claims totaling nearly $520,000 that the board approved. 

Brewster-Southeast Joint Fire District – Recordkeeping and Procurement (Putnam County)
The treasurer’s accounting records were not accurate as of Dec. 31, 2017. Cash accounts were incorrectly recorded, the operating bank account balance was understated by more than $377,000 and the capital reserve balance was overstated by $200,790. Also, district officials did not always solicit competition when procuring professional services.

Village of Deposit – Disbursements and Real Property Tax Enforcement (Delaware County)
The board did not ensure all disbursements were approved before payment or for proper purposes. In addition, auditors found the village began to effectively enforce the collection of delinquent real property taxes in March 2016, but $172,900 remains outstanding as of Feb. 28, 2018.

Multiple Dwelling Property Inspections (2018MS-01)
Auditors found all six local governments that were reviewed had properties that had never been inspected. Overall, 59 percent of the preventative maintenance inspections and 52 percent of the fire safety inspections were not performed. The cities of White Plains, Schenectady and Lackawanna had limited or non-existent multiple dwelling inspection programs and the city of Utica did not have a feasible program. Although the town of Greece and the village of Hempstead have developed more effective inspection programs, their programs also have opportunities for improvement.

Orleans County Soil and Water Conservation District – Claims Audit (2018M-105)
Auditors examined 72 claims totaling approximately $524,000 paid during the audit period and determined that all of the claims were for appropriate district purposes and adequately supported. The board, however, has not adopted a cash disbursement policy.

City of Yonkers - Fiscal Agent Act Compliance (Westchester County)
The city’s 2018-19 budget relies on nonrecurring revenue of $59.2 million to balance its budget. Police overtime costs could potentially be over budget by as much as $2.5 million and firefighting overtime costs could be over budget by as much as $949,000. The city plans to borrow up to $15 million for tax certiorari settlements and to issue debt of up to $9.8 million for water fund improvements.

Find out how your government money is spent at Open Book New York. Track municipal spending, the state's 150,000 contracts, billions in state payments and public authority data. 

 

Layoff of seasonal employees constituted a termination of employment for the purposes of Public Authorities Law §2629(2)(a)

Layoff of seasonal employees constituted a termination of employment for the purposes of Public Authorities Law §2629(2)(a)

Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Olympic Regional Dev. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 04998, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Civil Service Employees Association [CSEA] challenged the Olympic Regional Development Authority [ORDA] determination that certain its employees who had been laid off were no longer members of their previous collective bargaining unit upon their reinstatement. Supreme Court granted CSEA's application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, annulling ORDA's action. Supreme Court found that CSEA was "entitled to a declaration that the layoff of seasonal employees [did] not constitute a termination or cessation of their employment resulting in a vacancy for purposes of Public Authorities Law §2629(2)(a)" and granted CSEA's petition, annulling ORDA's determination. ORDA appealed the Supreme Court's decision.

In 2012, the management of the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center was transferred from the Department of Environmental Conservation [DEC] to ORDA, a public benefit corporation.* Pursuant to Public Authorities Law §2629(2)(a), employees then working at Belleayre Mountain, who had been DEC employees and members of CSEA's Operating Services Collective Bargaining Unit [OSU], became employees of ORDA.

In March 2016, ORDA laid off three seasonal employees at Belleayre Mountain who were in OSU. Upon rehiring these employees some two months later to the same positions each had previously held, ORDA determined that each would be placed in ORDA's collective bargaining unit rather than OSU. This resulted in the three seasonal employees experiencing a "significant adverse changes to their benefits" and CSEA brought this action against ORDA contending that ORDA's action was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of §2629(2)(a).

The Appellate Division noted that, as pertinent here, Public Authorities Law §2629(2)(a):

1. Provides that employees affected by the transfer "shall retain their respective civil service classifications, status, salary, wages and negotiating unit, if any...."; and

2.  §2629(2)(a) further provided that "once the employment of any transferred employee ... is terminated or otherwise ceases, by any means, any individual hired to fill such vacancy shall not be placed in the same negotiating unit of the former incumbent but rather shall be placed in [ORDA's] negotiating unit."

ORDA contend that §2629(2)(a) the unambiguous results in the employment of a seasonal employee "terminate[s] or otherwise ceases" when he or she is laid off. Accordingly, ORDA argued, "such an employee may not return to his or her former negotiating unit in the event that he or she is subsequently rehired."

Noting that ORDA's determination was made without a hearing, the Appellate Division said that its review is limited to determining whether ORDA decision was "'arbitrary and capricious, irrational, affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion." Further, said the court, "We accord no deference to ORDA's statutory interpretation," as the questions raised on appeal depend only upon the "accurate apprehension of legislative intent."

This appeal, said the Appellate Division turns on the meaning of the terms "terminated" and "ceases" within the context of §2629(2)(a) and as neither word is defined in the Public Authorities Law and both are words "of ordinary import," the court said it would interpret them in a manner consistent with "their usual and commonly understood meaning." In the words of the Appellate Division, "terminate" is defined as "to bring to an end," "to discontinue the employment of" or "to form the conclusion of," citing the "Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary."

Rejecting CSEA's contention that a layoff is inconsistent with these definitions and merely constitutes a temporary interruption in a career, the Appellate Division explained that "in light of the express statutory provision that an employee whose employment 'is terminated or otherwise ceases, by any mean'" may not return to his or her prior collective bargaining unit upon subsequent rehire" and interpreting §2629(2)(a) as urged by CSEA "would render the phrase 'by any means' superfluous."

The court also rejected CSEA claim that §2629(2)(a) applies only to new employees, opining that the statute states that it is applicable to "any individual" and makes no distinction between employees who are new hires and employees who may have previously worked at Belleayre Mountain.

On one last point, CSEA's contention that the court should adopt its interpretation of §2629 on the basis that it is a remedial statute, the Appellate Division said that "[E]ven a remedial statute must be given a meaning consistent with the words chosen by the Legislature," and courts must "give effect not only to the remedy, but also to the words that delimit the remedy," commenting that CSEA's "interpretation of §2629 could result in the unintended adverse effect of discouraging the rehiring of seasonal employees after layoffs."

Finding that the plain language of §2629(2)(a) barred ORDA from permitting seasonal employees who were laid off and subsequently rehired to remain in OSU, the Appellate Division ruled that CSEA's "petition/complaint should have been dismissed."

* §45 of the Civil Service Law addresses the status of the employees of a private institution or enterprise upon its acquisition by governmental entity for the purpose of operating the private institution or enterprise as a public function.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_04998.htm

Delegating the authority to make a final disciplinary decision and the determination of the penalty to be imposed to another

Delegating the authority to make a final disciplinary decision and the determination of the penalty to be imposed to another

Matter of Stukes v City of White Plains, 2018 NY Slip Op 05474, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Executive Director of the Commission [Director] initiated disciplinary charges against his subordinate, an Assistant Director [Assistant] alleging that Assistant had violated policies prohibiting workplace violence following the Assistant's having had an altercation with Director at the workplace. After a hearing before a hearing officer, the hearing officer found Assistant guilty of  "13 of the factual specifications alleged in the charges" served on Assistant and recommended termination of Assistant from his employment with the Commission.

Director disqualified himself from reviewing the hearing officer's recommendations and making a final determination in consideration of the fact that he had preferred the charges against Assistant and designated the Chair of the Commission [Chair] to act in his stead. The Chair adopted the findings of the hearing officer and imposed the recommended penalty of termination of Assistant's employment.

Subsequently Assistant initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the Chair's determination, contending that Chair "was not a duly qualified individual to whom [Director] could properly delegate the power to review the hearing officer's recommendations and make a final determination." Supreme Court found the delegation of the authority to make the challenged decisions  from Director to Chair to be proper, granted the City of White Plain's motion to dismiss Assistant's petition and dismissed the proceeding. Assistant appealed.

The Appellate Division commenced its review of Assistant's appeal by observing that "Civil Service Law §75(2) provides that where, as here, an officer having the power to remove an employee who is the subject of disciplinary proceedings designates someone else to conduct a hearing, the matter shall be referred back to that officer or body for review and decision."

However, said the Appellate Division, although as a general rule the authority to make the final determination as to the charged employee's status may not be delegated, "courts have recognized that the statutory command must yield to an employee's right to a fair and impartial hearing when such an official is personally involved in the proceedings by preferring the charges at issue and testifying at the hearing, or otherwise involving himself or herself extensively in the proceedings."

In the words of the court, "In such circumstances, such an official acts improperly when he or she also renders the final determination." Citing Matter of McComb v Reasoner, 29 AD3d 795, the Appellate Division noted that the Court of Appeals has interpreted Civil Service Law §72(2)  to "require[ ] that the power to discipline be delegated, if necessary, within the governmental department's chain of command" and that the Court of Appeals has further interpreted Civil Service Law §72(2) to:

1. require that the power to discipline be delegated, if necessary, within the governmental department's chain of command (see Matter of Gomez v Stout, 13 NY3d 182); and

2. whether a particular delegation will fall within the affected department's chain of command, and, hence, is permissible appears to turn upon whether the body or official to whom review power is delegated possesses either supervisory authority over the employee at issue or administrative responsibility over the affected department and its personnel" (see Matter of Zlotnick v City of Saratoga Springs, 122 AD3d 1210).

Giving Assistant "the benefit of every favorable inference," the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court's determination that the Chair's position with the Commission was within the affected department's chain of command and, thus, the delegation of authority from Director to the Chair was proper.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_05474.htm

Removing a school official for an alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential information

Removing a school official for an alleged unauthorized disclosure of confidential information

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision of the Commissioner No. 17,422

This appeal to the Commissioner, among other issues, concerned allegations that confidential information was disclosed and that the alleged wrongdoers should be removed from office.

With respect to the application to the Commissioner seeking the removal of a board member from the School Board "for impermissibly disclosing confidential notes," the Commissioner observed that a member of the board of education or a school officer may be removed from office pursuant to Education Law §306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the board member or school officer has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule or regulation of the Board of Regents or Commissioner of Education.

Further, explained the Commissioner, "[t]o be considered willful, the board member’s actions must have been intentional and with a wrongful purpose" and   in an appeal or removal application to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief.

School board members, as public officers, take an oath of office to uphold the law and faithfully discharge their duties and, among other things, are responsible for educational standards, budget matters, management issues, and health and safety. In carrying out their duties, school board members individually "have a fiduciary obligation to act constructively to achieve the best possible governance of the school district.

The Commissioner said that General Municipal Law §805-a(1)(b) specifically provides that no municipal officer or employee, including a school board member, shall “disclose confidential information acquired by him [or her] in the course of his [or her] official duties or use such information to further his [or her] personal interests” and within the public school system, the term “confidential,” means “[i]nformation that is meant to be kept secret.”

As to defining the meaning of the word "confidential," it is the "sole province of the Commissioner of Education to define the meaning of the word 'confidential' within the public school system and ensure its uniform application in this context."* Further, said the Commissioner, "[i]t is well-settled that a board member’s disclosure of confidential information which violates General Municipal Law §805-a(1)(b) may constitute grounds for a board member’s removal from office pursuant to Education Law §306.

Jessica Lovinsky and Phee Simpson [Petitioners] in this appeal claim that a board member disclosed “unredacted” notes to a newspaper reporter and buttress their claim with an email from the reporter to counsel for Simpson in which the reporter states that she is “writing an article on the Poughkeepsie district’s graduation investigation and subsequent appeal,” and that, in the article, she planned to “cit[e] records that relate[d] to Phee Simpson. The email also purported to include three attachments that Petitioners have attached, contending that they are copies of these three attachments.

The School District's answer to Petitioners' appeal to the Commissioner denied Petitioners' contentions. 

The Commissioner ruled that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that the School Board, as a body, or any individual school board member was responsible for disclosing the documents in question to the reporter or to anyone else. 

The Commissioner explained that the first element of a claimed disclosure of confidential information is disclosure, and a petitioner must prove that the alleged actor or actors did, in fact, disclosed allegedly confidential information. Here, however, said the Commissioner,  "Petitioners have wholly failed to meet this showing, providing no facts or assertions suggesting that any respondent provided the [newspaper reporter] with the allegedly confidential information."

Accordingly, the Commissioner dismissed Petitioners' application seeking the removal of the board member.

* N.B. In 2005 State Education Department Counsel and Deputy Commissioner for Legal Affairs notified school officials, including school board members, and school attorneys of the Commissioner's decision in Application of Nett and Raby (45 Ed Dept Rep 259, Decision No. 15,315)] that the Commissioner’s views with respect to the term "confidential" differed from the interpretation of the term “confidential” offered by New York State’s Committee on Open Government.

The Commissioner's decision is posted on the Internet at:

 http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume57/d17422