Public entities are immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of its governmental functions absent proof of a special relationship

Public entities are immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of its governmental functions absent proof of a special relationship
Zeitlin v NYC Board of Education, NYS Supreme Court [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Pupils assaulting teachers has become an occupational hazard in a number of school districts. What is a school district’s liability if a student assaults a teacher?

In the Zeitlin case New York State Supreme Court Justice Solomon considered a schoolteacher’s demand for compensatory and punitive damages based on his school district’s alleged failure to protect him from student assaults.

Citing Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, Justice Solomon described the basic law in such situations as follows:

Public entities are immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of their governmental functions unless the injured person establishes a special relationship with that entity underlying a specific duty to protect that individual and reliance on the performance of that duty by the individual.

What is involved in establishing such a “specific duty?” According to the ruling, such a duty comes into being only where all four of the following elements are satisfied:

1. Assumption: An assumption by a municipality or municipal agency, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured;

2. Knowledge: Knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm;

3. Direct Contact: Direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and

4. Justifiable reliance: The injured party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s undertaking.

In the Zeitlin case the Court concluded that although providing security against physical attack from third parties was a governmental function, “Zeitlin fails to meet the first element [assumption] of a claimed special duty of protection and for that reason alone, his claim must fail” and dismissed his complaint. In other words, Zeitlin was unable to demonstrate a critical element -- that the District has assumed any responsibility for his safety at the work site.

This “four element” test is not usually applied in cases involving the safety of students, however. As the Appellate Division said in Foster v New Berlin Central School District, 246 AD2d 880, “school districts are under a duty to adequately supervise students in their care and will be liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision.”

Unit exclusivity

Unit exclusivity
CSEA and Warrensburg CSD, 30 PERB 3056
Suffolk Co Corrections Officers Assoc v PERB, App. Div., 246 A.D.2d 660

Exclusivity is an important issue to a collective bargaining unit. It sets out those tasks that may be performed only by unit members to the exclusion of all others. An employer violates its duty to negotiate under Section 209-a.1(d) of the Civil Service Law if it unilaterally transfers work “established and maintained exclusively by a collective bargaining unit” to non-unit workers.

In the Warrensburg case, CSEA Local 857 charged that the Warrensburg Central School District violated Section 209-a.1(d) when it assigned chaperoning duties at plays and concerts to employees represented by the Warrensburg Teachers Association [Association], a different negotiating unit.

The District contended that under a memorandum of understanding, members of the Teachers Association had “the right of first refusal in chaperoning all school events.”

PERB sustained its administrative law judge’s finding that District administrators regularly served in a chaperoning capacity at these events and thus CSEA did not have exclusivity with respect to performing such duties.

PERB said that collective bargaining agreements between the Association and the District dating back to 1982 specifically covered “chaperoning duties and rights,” while Local 857 agreements were silent with respect to such activities.

PERB rejected Local 857’s argument that it had “exclusivity” with respect to concerts conducted at the high school while Association members regularly chaperoned elementary school concerts, commenting that “the location of a concert, being unrelated to chaperoning duties, cannot form any discernible boundary within which to test exclusivity.”

A similar case involved the Suffolk County Court, First District, located in Hauppauge, which employed 18 correction officers who were responsible for the care and custody of detainees being held there.

In 1992 the Court was moved to Central Islip from Hauppauge and the 18 correction officers were reassigned to the Suffolk County Maximum Security facility in Riverhead. Deputy sheriffs were assigned to take care of the detainees at the Court’s Central Islip facility.

The Suffolk County Correction Officers Association [SCCOA], filed an improper practice charge against the County with PERB, contending that the County’s unilateral transferring the responsibility for District Court detainees to deputy sheriffs violated Section 201.a[1](d) and (e) of the Civil Service Law. SCCOA argued that the Taylor Law required that “prior negotiations” be undertaken before such a change could be implemented.

A PERB administrative law judge [ALJ] determined that SCCOA did not prove that its unit members had previously performed the duties reassigned to the deputy sheriffs exclusively. After PERB affirmed the ALJ’s ruling, SCCOA appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed PERB’s determination.
.

Court vacates hearing officer’s disciplinary determination after finding that it was arbitrary and capricious

Court vacates hearing officer’s disciplinary determination after finding that it was arbitrary and capricious
Trupiano v Meadow Union Free School Dist., 2010 NY Slip Op 32264(U), August 10, 2010, Supreme Court, Nassau County, Judge: Michele M. Woodard [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

From September 2004 through March 2007, the East Meadow UFSD teachers engaged in numerous activities to protest the fact that they did not have a successor collective bargaining agreement in place,* including picketing the School District's school buildings.

East Meadow, pursuant to Education Law §3020-a, preferred disciplinary charges on one of its teachers, Gina Trupiano, alleging that Trupiano “intentionally created a health and safety risk by purposefully situating her vehicle alongside the curb … in order to preclude children from being dropped off at curbside. The action resulted in children being dropped off in the middle of the street which resulted in an otherwise avoidable and unnecessary health and safety hazard.”

Hearing Officer Howard C. Edelman found that although Trupiano “did not knowingly and purposely park her vehicle alongside the curb … he concluded that by doing so, Trupiano "created a safety hazard to children” and sustained the charge. The penalty imposed: Trupiano received a counseling memo as the penalty.

Judge Woodward vacated the hearing officer’s award, finding that, in this instance, the Hearing Officer s decision that Trupiano is culpable of the charge preferred against her is not "amply supported by the evidence."

In the words of the court, “While the Hearing Officer s decision is indeed thoughtful, the irony is that the Hearing Officer therein repeatedly acknowledges that Trupiano broke no laws on March 2, 2007, was engaged in a constitutionally protected form of free speech and that she "obviously... did not wish harm to any child."

Accordingly, the court ruled that the disciplinary determination was "arbitrary or capricious."

* The terms and conditions addressing mandatory subjects of collective bargaining set out in the expired collective bargaining agreement are continued in effect pending the successor agreement in accordance with PERB’s so-called “Triborough Doctrine” promulgated in 1972.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/pdfs/2010/2010_32264.pdf

============================================
If you are interested in learning more about disciplinary procedures involving public officers and employees, please click here:

http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/
============================================
.