Guidance for reopening schools in New York State

On July 13, 2020, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced new, data-driven guidance for reopening schools in New York State allowing schools in New York State Regions in Phase IV to reopen if the daily infection rate remains below 5% using a 14-day average. However, schools will close if Regional Infection Rate rises over 9% after August 1, 2020.

The finalized Department of Health and the Reimagine Education Advisory Council guidance and guiding principles are posted on the Internet at:  

https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/Pre-K_to_Grade_12_Schools_MasterGuidence.pdf.*

Among the topics addressed in the State's guidance materials are the following:

Aftercare and Extracurricular activities

Cleaning and Disinfecting

Cohort Structures

Food Service

Masks and Personal Protection Equipment [PPE]

Restructuring Space to Maximize In-Class Instruction

Screening

Social Distancing

Tracing

Transportation

* N.B - The New York State School Board Association notes that "the State Education Department said that Plexiglas® and similar plastic glazing materials called plexiglass are flammable and do not meet fire code or SED regulations. For more information, visit the Office of Facilities Planning website."

New York State's Commissioner of Education does not issue advisory opinions

In Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,827, Interim Commissioner of Education Shannon Tahoe dismissed an appeal filed pursuant to Education Law §310 seeking the removal of a member of a school board [Board Member] on the grounds that the Petitioner sought an advisory opinion.

In the words of Commissioner Tahoe:

"The appeal must be dismissed as seeking an advisory opinion.  It is well established that the Commissioner does not issue advisory opinions or declaratory rulings in an appeal pursuant to Education Law §310.* While [Petitioner] complains of prior statements and affiliations of [Board Member], she does not seek any relief against [Board Member] – for example, [Board Member's] removal from office (see Education Law §306).

"Instead, [Petitioner] merely seeks an advisory opinion that school board members may not, consistent with their duties and responsibilities, directly or indirectly support abstention from [State Education Department] SED assessments.  There are no specific allegations that [Board Member] engaged in inappropriate conduct while serving as a board member.

"Thus, [Petitioner’s] query is advisory in nature and cannot be the subject of an appeal brought pursuant to Education Law §310."

Addressing a procedural defect in Petitioner's appeal, Commissioner Tahoe noted that:

"... to the extent [Petitioner] asserts claims against [Board Member] under Education Law §306 or §310, she has failed to join [Board Member] as a respondent in this proceeding.  A party whose rights would be adversely affected by a determination of an appeal in favor of a petitioner is a necessary party and must be joined as such. 

"Joinder requires that an individual be clearly named as a respondent in the caption and served with a copy of the notice of petition and petition to inform the individual that he or she should respond to the petition and enter a defense.  [Petitioner] did not name [Board Member] in the caption of the appeal or serve [Board Member] with a copy of the petition."

* Below are selected New York departments and agencies and political subdivisions of the State posting advisory opinions or other personnel related information on the Internet:

Opinions of the Attorney General [Formal and Informal] are posted at https://ag.ny.gov/appeals-opinions/introduction-opinions

Opinions of the State Comptroller are posted at https://www.osc.state.ny.us/legal-opinions

Open Meetings Law [OML] - Opinions of the Committee on Open Government are posted at https://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/oml_listing/oa.html

Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] - Opinions of the Committee on Open Government are posted at https://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/foil_listing/findex.html

Advisory Opinions of the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance are posted at https://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/advisory_opinions/ao_tax_types.htm

Counsel Opinion Letters, New York State Department of Labor are posted at   https://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/advisory_opinions/ao_tax_types.htm

Information issued by the Office of Counsel and other arms of the Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] is posted at https://perb.ny.gov/office-of-counsel/

New York City Civil Service Commission -- a list of the types of appeals considered by the Commission is posted at https://www1.nyc.gov/site/csc/appeals/other-types-appeals/other-types.page

See, also, https://research.lib.buffalo.edu/ny-admin-law/opinions-by-subject for additional such resources.

Commissioner Tahoe's decision in Petitioner's appeal is posted on the Internet at: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume59/d17827

Municipal audits released by the New York State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government audits have been issued during the week ending July 10, 2020.

Click on the text highlighted in color for the full report.

Village of Maybrook – Financial Condition (Orange County)

The board did not adequately manage the village’s financial condition. Auditors determined the board used unrealistic revenue estimates during the budget process. The village’s overall fund balance decreased by $642,000 (63 percent) from 2014-15 to 2018-19. The general and sewer funds had operating deficits during the past five years, and the water fund had an operating deficit in 2019. In addition, village officials did not develop a fund balance policy, multiyear financial plan or capital plan.

Monsey Fire District – Board Oversight (Rockland County)

The board provided inadequate and ineffective oversight of the district’s operations and did not comply with General Municipal Law’s financial filing and

audit requirements. In addition, for seven consecutive years, an annual update document, which is a required annual financial report, was not properly filed. The required annual independent audit of the district’s financial records was not performed since 2012, and the length of service awards program that started in 1990 was never audited.

Village of Sackets Harbor – Budgeting and Financial Management (Jefferson County)

The board and village officials did not develop realistic budgets. From 2016-17 through 2018-19, budgeted appropriations in the general, water and sewer funds exceeded actual expenditures by a total of $4.9 million (a 39 percent budget variance). In addition, officials also appropriated $3.6 million of fund balance during this period that was not needed to fund operations. The board has not adopted a fund balance policy or multiyear financial and capital plans.

Claiming collateral estoppel in an effort to influence the decision by another tribunal involving the same issues and the same parties

An employee, while suspended from his position, was accused of certain misconduct and discharged from his employment. The individual [Claimant] had filed for unemployment insurance benefits and had contested his termination by seeking arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.

Prior to the decision being issued by the arbitrator, an unemployment insurance hearing was held and the Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] denied a joint request by the parties to adjourn the matter until the arbitrator's award was promulgated.

Following the conclusion of the unemployment insurance hearing, but prior to the ALJ issuing a decision, the arbitrator issued an arbitration award finding that Claimant had engaged in misconduct warranting his termination from his position. The employer mailed a copy of the arbitrator's decision to the ALJ and asked that the ALJ take judicial notice* of it.

The ALJ issued a decision a few days later in which there was no mention of the arbitrator's decision and found that there was no evidence establishing that Claimant engaged in the alleged misconduct. The ALJ ruled that Claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.

The employer appealed ALJ's decision to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board [Board] contending that the ALJ's decision was contrary to the arbitrator's decision, which it maintained was final and binding.

The Board found, among other things, that the ALJ did not abuse her discretion in denying an adjournment and affirmed the ALJ's determination. The employer appealed the Board's decision and the Appellate Division reversed the Board's ruling.

Citing Matter of Tucek [Big V Supermarkets-Commissioner of Labor], 277 AD2d 628, the Court noted that while "the Board is not bound by arbitration decisions regarding [a] claimant's discharge issued subsequent to the time the Board rendered its decision" the Board was informed of the arbitration decision prior to its decision. Thus, explained the Appellate Division, "the factual findings of the arbitrator should have been accorded collateral estoppel effect in relation to the final unemployment insurance decision, so long as the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the misconduct issue at the arbitration hearing."

Further, opined the court, the fact that the arbitration decision was issued after the conclusion of the unemployment insurance hearing does not preclude its consideration for collateral estoppel purposes, as "the final factfinder in the administrative process is the Board, not the ALJ."

Finding that the Board had indicated that the arbitrator's decision was not part of the record before it notwithstanding its being an element in employer's appeal and a copy of it was annexed to the employer's administrative appeal to the Board, Appellate Division remanded the matter to the Board to permit the employer to place the arbitration decision into the record and to provide an opportunity for Claimant and the employer to provide additional evidence and testimony regarding the nature of the arbitration hearing.

* A procedure used by a court to accept a fact presented as evidence as true without a formal presentation such submitting public and court records, the tables of the times of sunset and sunrise and similar documents.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_03705.htm

Article 23-A of New York State's Correction Law does not control if an employee is terminated for a criminal offense committed after the individual was hired

Article 23-A of New York State's Correction Law provides that "no employment ... held by an individual ... shall be ... acted upon adversely by reason of the individual's having been previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses"* where the conviction "preceded such employment."**

Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America brought an action pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking to vacate an arbitration award that terminated a New York City Transit Authority [Authority] employee [Plaintiff***] and for a court order reinstating Plaintiff to his former position with full back pay and awarding Plaintiff costs and attorney's fees. Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition and dismissed the proceeding. Plaintiff appealed the court's decision.

The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court determination explaining:

1. Plaintiff's termination by the Authority was based on conduct that, if proven in court, would have constituted a felony and was not against public policy;

2. Although Correction Law Article 23-A provides, in pertinent part, that "no employment ... held by an individual  ... shall be ... acted upon adversely by reason of the individual's having been previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses" where the conviction "preceded such employment," in this instance Plaintiff's conviction did not precede his employment but occurred following his employment and was, therefore, not within the ambit of Article 23-A.

Addressing Plaintiff's request for reinstatement, the court held that denial of the request was not arbitrary and capricious as the governing regulations provide that an agency "may consider such application" but is not required to do so, and  approval of such an application is made at the discretion of the appointing authority.

Citing 55 RCNY Appendix A §6.2.6[a]-[b], the Appellate Division opined that "[i]t was not irrational for [the Authority] to conclude that in seeking reinstatement, [Plaintiff] merely sought to relitigate issues" earlier considered and decided by a neutral arbitrator in the course of a "grievance proceeding pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement" that resulted in Plaintiff's termination by the Authority.

* Correction Law §752, Unfair discrimination against persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses prohibited.

** Correction Law §751 applies to any person seeking a license or employment at any public or private employer who has previously been convicted of one or more criminal offenses in New York State or in any other jurisdiction.

*** Plaintiff was initially employed by the Authority in 2008. Ten years later Petitioner was arrested and ultimately plead guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. §641. His sentence: one-year probation and 80 hours of community service.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_01008.htm

Workers' Compensation Benefits awarded for both schedule and nonschedule permanent injuries suffered in the same work-related accident

In this CPLR Article 78 action the Workers' Compensation Board ruled, among other things, that Petitioner [Claimant] was not simultaneously entitled to an award for a schedule loss of use and a permanent partial disability classification.

Claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while working as a police officer and established a workers' compensation claim for injuries suffered in that accident, including a neck injury. The Workers' Compensation Board found that Claimant had a permanent medical impairment that was not amenable to a schedule loss of use [SLU] finding and directed the matter be returned to the hearing calendar for a determination of loss of wage-earning capacity.

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] determined that Claimant was permanently partially disabled with a 15% loss of wage-earning capacity, but he was not entitled to awards based upon a nonscheduled permanent partial disability classification as his current position as a police sergeant did not result in any reduced earnings. However, the WCLJ also found that Claimant "sustained a 15% SLU of his right hand, left hand and left arm and a 7.5% SLU of his right leg, entitling him to an SLU award."

The Board modified the WCLJ's decision, rescinding the SLU award based on its finding that Claimant's permanent medical impairment was subject to a nonscheduled classification encompassing all of Claimant's injuries and, therefore, Claimant was not entitled to an SLU award. Claimant appealed the Board's determination.

Addressing Claimant's appeal of the Board's rescinding the SLU award, Appellate Division noted that it had recently held that "where a claimant who has sustained both schedule and nonschedule permanent injuries in the same work-related accident has returned to work at pre-injury wages and, thus, receives no award based on his or her nonschedule permanent partial disability classification,  he or she is entitled to an SLU award."*

As there was a finding of permanency as to Claimant's neck injury and he had returned to work at pre-injury wages, the Appellate Division held that Claimant was entitled to an SLU award for the remaining injuries, reversing the Board's ruling and "remitted [the matter] to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court's decision."

* See Matter of Fernandez v New York Univ. Benefits, 180 AD3d 1305

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_03713.htm

Remedying an inadvertent disclosure of records provided pursuant to a Freedom of Information Law request

In responding to the Center on Privacy and Technology's [Center] request for certain documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] the New York City Police Department [Department] sent certain "unredacted" documents to the Center. The Department subsequently asked Supreme Court to prohibit the information inadvertently given to the Center from being disclosed by it. Supreme Court granted the Department's motion and the Center appealed the court's ruling.

The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court's order did not impose an unconstitutional prior restraint by precluding the Center from referring to the source of unredacted documents inadvertently disclosed to it by the Department in responding to the Center's FOIL request. The court said that the unredacted documents at issue constituted but a small portion of the thousands of pages of records the Department had provided the Center in responding to its FOIL request. 

Citing Seattle Times Co. v Rhinehart, 467 US 20, the Appellate Division explained that "an order prohibiting dissemination of discovered information before trial is not the kind of classic prior restraint that requires exacting First Amendment scrutiny." Instead, opined the Appellate Division, a court may restrict a litigant's use of information obtained through litigation as long as the restriction:

[a] "furthers an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression"; and

[b] "the limitation of First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved."

Concluding that the Department had a substantial government interest in preventing the inadvertent disclosure of the unredacted records at issue, the court noted that the Supreme Court's protective order was narrowly tailored in expressly allowing the Center to disseminate any information it had gleaned from the materials at issue and requiring the Department to provide the Center "with replacement records bearing redactions that are not challenged on the merits [in] the instant appeal."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_01724.htm

July 2020 AELE case notes, publications, and seminar alerts

The case notes, publications, and seminar alerts listed below have been posted on the Internet by Americans for Effective Law Enforcement [AELE]:

Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations Seminar---Attend Virtual or In Person. Las Vegas, Nevada is opening for business and will be in full swing for the September 28, 2020 3.5-day updated seminar on "Public Safety Discipline and Internal Investigations Seminar." A first: You can virtually attend the seminar because it will be broadcast live. The seminar begins on Monday, September 28 and ends at Noon on October 1, 2020. Another first is online registration and payment. For registration and more information, http://www.aele.org/public-safety-discipline-and-internal-investigations.html

July Law Enforcement Liability Reporter: This issue has cases on COVID-19, failure to disclose evidence, & loss of evidence/preservation of evidence, false arrest/imprisonment: unlawful detention, Federal Tort Claims Act, firearms related: intentional use, firearms related: Second Amendment issues, medical care, and search and seizure: home/business. http://www.aele.org/law/2020all07/LR2020JUL.pdf

July Fire, Police and Corrections Personnel Reporter: This issue has cases on collective bargaining – duty to bargain, family personal and medical leave, First Amendment, homosexual and transgender employees, pay disputes – in general, pensions, probationary employment, race discrimination, race and sex discrimination, retirement pay and benefits, and sex discrimination. http://www.aele.org/law/2020all07/FP2020JUL.pdf

July Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin: This issue has cases on COVID-19, disability discrimination: prisoners, governmental liability: policy/custom, medical care, medical care: mental health, Prison Litigation Reform Act: exhaustion of remedies, prisoner assault: by inmates, prisoner assault: by officers, prisoner suicide, and U.S. Supreme Court actions. http://www.aele.org/law/2020all07/JB2020JUL.pdf

This announcement is posted by NYPPL Pro Bono.

Audits of New York State Department and Agencies and political subdivisions of the State issued during the week ending July 3, 2020

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits were issued during the week ending July 3, 2020. To access the full report click on the data highlighted in color.

SCHOOL DISTRICT AUDITS

The following school district audits have been issued.

Eastport-South Manor Central School District – Building Safety (Suffolk County) District officials did not provide effective oversight to ensure compliance with required building safety at the junior-senior high school. Auditors determined, district officials did not fix leaks in the heating, cooling and ventilation system requiring buckets in the halls to collect leaked water. In addition, district officials did not create a corrective action plan to address issues found in the 2015 building condition survey.

Margaretville Central School District – Financial Management (Delaware County) The board overestimated appropriations and allocated approximately $1.4 million in fund balance from 2016-17 through 2018-19 that it did not use to fund operations because of generated surpluses. As of June 30, 2019, the surplus fund balance totaled approximately $3.9 million or 32 percent of the next year’s budget, exceeding the statutory limit. Overall, auditors determined the fund balance totaled almost $3.2 million, exceeding the statutory limit by approximately $2.7 million or 22 percent as of June 30, 2019.

Mount Markham Central School District – Financial Management (Herkimer County, Oneida County, Madison County and Otsego County) Officials overestimated appropriations by an average of $1.4 million (5.6 percent) from 2016-17 through 2018-19. In the last three completed fiscal years, the district generated operating surpluses totaling $2.3 million instead of the $2.6 million in deficits planned in the budgets. In addition, district officials have not updated the multiyear financial plan since it was first developed in 2016.

Yorkshire-Pioneer Central School District – Financial Management (Wyoming County, Cattaraugus County, Erie County and Allegany County) The board and district officials overestimated appropriations by a total of approximately $11.6 million from 2016-17 through 2018-19 and annually appropriated an average of $3.3 million of fund balance that was not used to finance operations. As of June 30, 2019, surplus fund balance totaled approximately $5 million and was 9 percent of 2019-20 appropriations, exceeding the statutory limit by approximately $2.7 million

MUNICIPAL AUDITS

The following local government audits have been issued.

Village of Dering Harbor – Board Oversight (Suffolk County) The board failed to comply with statutory requirements when presenting and adopting budgets for 2013-14 through 2018-19. Auditors determined the board underestimated revenues by a total of $151,908 (9.5 percent) and underestimated appropriations by a total of $210,126 (13.1 percent) over the past five years (2013-14 through 2017-18). As a result, the general fund realized operating deficits in four of the five years and general fund balance declined from $61,710 to $3,491. In addition, the board did not properly authorize a local law to exceed the tax levy limit. The 2018-19 levy exceeded the calculated limit of $331,470 by $65,143.

City of Syracuse – Water System Cybersecurity (Onondaga County) City officials could improve information technology (IT) security controls to safeguard water system operations against unauthorized access or disruption. Auditors determined network and local user accounts were not properly managed. Officials did not establish a process for staying current on water system cybersecurity threats. The city also did not have service level agreements (SLAs) with its IT vendors. Sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to city officials. 

Can employers require employees to submit to tests for COVID-19?

An analysis by Richard Dahl dated June 23, 2020 posted by FindLaw* on the Internet at:  https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2020/06/can-employers-require-employees-to-test-for-covid-19.html?DCMP=cons_everyday:nwl:cp:c19r:feature

* Source: FindLaw Newsletters at findlawnewsletters@thomsonreuters.com

Parsing a complaint alleging various acts of unlawful discrimination

A tenured associate professor [Plaintiff] employed by the defendant [College], commenced this action alleging that the College discriminated against her on the basis of sex and  her disability and retaliated against her after she complained of such alleged unlawful discrimination. Supreme Court granted the College's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and Plaintiff appealed.

With respect to the alleged disparate treatment and disability discrimination that was based on the College's purported refusal to provide Plaintiff a reasonable accommodations for her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act Contrary, the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court properly granted that portion of the College's motion with respect to Plaintiff's allegations of disparate treatment and disability discrimination based on the College's purported refusal to provide reasonable accommodations for her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Appellate Division explaining that the College had met its initial burden on the motion with respect to those aspects of Plaintiff's causes of action by establishing that an essential function of Plaintiff's job was teaching and that Plaintiff's requested accommodation, -- that she be allowed to work part time without teaching any courses -- was unreasonable.

Addressing Plaintiff's allegation that College violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order based on its finding that the College "failed to establish as a matter of law that the difference in pay between Plaintiff and a less senior male colleague who performed similar work under similar conditions 'is due to a factor other than sex.'" In so doing the court rejected the College's claim that the pay disparity was the result of a merit system, finding that the evidence it submitted in support of its motion [1] failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that there was "an organized and structured procedure whereby employees are evaluated systematically according to predetermined criteria" and [2] that the College's employees "were aware of the purported merit system."

Turning to Plaintiff's causes of action for alleged sexual discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Right Law [NYSHRL], the Appellate Division concluded that issues of fact existed as to whether the College's challenged actions were "based upon nondiscriminatory reasons," and thus summary judgment was precluded on those causes of action and that they should also be reinstated.

With respect to Plaintiff's allegations of unlawful retaliation, the Appellate Division opined that to establish a claim for unlawful retaliation under the NYSHRL, a plaintiff must show that "(1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action." In contrast, said the court, a defendant may establish entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case if the defendant "demonstrate[s] that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation."

The Appellate Division decided that the College's denial of Plaintiff's request to return to work part time without any teaching duties and its requirement that she retain an administrative role that fell "within the duties of [her] position'" were not adverse employment actions and thus Plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie claim of retaliation with respect to these allegations.

In contrast, however, the Appellate Division found that 'issues of fact exist" as to whether  the College unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff after she complained of gender discrimination when it required her to retain her position as the undergraduate coordinator while at the same time maintaining her regular course load and also reinstated this element of her petition.

As to Plaintiff's allegations of violations of Title VII based on unlawful retaliation, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court correctly dismissed this element of Plaintiff's complaint because she had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, a condition precedent to going forward with this aspect of her complaint.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_03346.htm

Some factors considered by courts in evaluating an arbitration award

The Appellate Division reviewed Supreme Court's denial of an Educator's petition seeking a court order vacating an arbitration award sustaining 13 specifications set out in disciplinary charges served on the Educator alleging incompetence and neglect of duty which resulted in Educator's termination from her employment as a New York City public school teacher by the New York City Board of Education [Board].

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed Supreme Court's ruling and its granting the Board's cross motion to dismiss Educator's petition, explaining that the Hearing Officer's determinations concerning Educator's alleged teaching deficiencies during a four-year observational period:

a. were supported by adequate evidence, including testimony by school administrators and documentation;

b. were was rational, and not arbitrary and capricious; 

c. considered the Board's "significant remediation efforts;" and

d. the Hearing Officer found that those remediation efforts were adequate and supported by the evidence showing that Educator received feedback and suggestions for improvement through observation reports and one-on-one meetings, as well as assistance and support from her colleagues and outside professionals, and was provided with a teacher improvement plan.

Further, said the Appellate Division, in determining an appropriate penalty to be imposed, the Hearing Officer's considered Educator's "long-term pattern of inadequate performance." 

Thus, opined the court, the Hearing Officer's imposing a penalty terminating Educator from her position was, under the circumstances, "proportionate to the offenses" for which Educator was found guilty.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_03473.htm