Activities by teachers in the course of collective bargaining are not protected activities within the meaning of the Taylor Law when such activities place students at risk

Activities by teachers in the course of collective bargaining are not protected activities within the meaning of the Taylor Law when such activities place students at risk

Lucia v Board of Educ. of the E. Meadow Union Free School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 51210(U), Supreme Court, Nassau County, Judge Vito M. DeStefano, Not selected for publication in the Official Reports.

Although teachers of the Woodland Middle School of the East Meadow Union Free School District were provided with their own parking spaces on school property, one day several teachers parked their cars along the curb in front of the school, an area designated as the schools student "drop off" area, in an effort "intended to achieve a new collective bargaining agreement." 

East Meadow, alleging that because of rain, heavy traffic, and the presence of parked cars at both the curbs in front of the school, parents were forced to drop off their children in the middle of the street, filed disciplinary charges against Barbara Lucia and three other teachers who allegedly parked their cars along the curbside on that day.

Following the resulting disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer ruled that the District had sustained its burden of proof on the charges filed against the teachers.Noting that protected union activity may lose its status by the manner in which it was conducted, the Hearing Officer ruled, in relevant part that:

“Based upon the finding that [her] actions created a safety hazard for the children, I do not find that [her] actions . . . were protected activity. . . . It is foreseeable that where so many cars are parked at that location it would delay the drop off of students … Albeit a lapse in judgment, [Lucia's] actions took place outside the school, and there is no evidence that they had any impact on her role as a teacher with considerable experience. A fine of one thousand ($1,000) dollars should serve to remind her that her actions that morning were inappropriate.

Lucia filed a petition pursuant to CPLR 7511 seeking an order vacating the decision of the Hearing Officer on the grounds that it was "irrational, arbitrary and capricious, and not based upon adequate or substantial evidence, in violation of public policy and not in accord with due process."

Noting that Education Law §3020-a(5) provides that an employee seeking to modify or vacate a hearing officer's determination is limited to the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 or if it is clearly violative of a strong public policy, Judge DeStefano ruled that the Hearing Officer's determination did not violate a strong public policy and, further, was not totally or completely irrational, and did not exceed a specific enumerated limitation of the Hearing Officer's power. 

As to the “public policy exception, Judge DeStefano explained that although Lucia, and similarly situated teachers, have a constitutionally protected right to engage in union activity, the scope of the public policy exception is "extremely narrow … and the exercise of teachers' free assembly and speech rights are circumscribed to the extent that such exercise endangers the safety of children.”

As to Lucia’s argument that the Hearing Officer’s decision was totally irrational or that it otherwise exceeded his authority, Judge DeStefano said that “when reviewing compulsory arbitration in education proceedings, the court should accept the arbitrator's credibility determinations, even where "room for choice exits.” Here, said the court, there was testimony from which the Hearing Officer could reasonably conclude that “Lucia parked her car on the street as part of a demonstration calculated to disrupt the student "drop-off" area and which created a safety hazard to the children.” 

Judge DeStefano dismissed Lucia’s petition seeking an order vacating the determination of Hearing Officer.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_51210.htm

No FMLA protections based on incomplete medical certification

No FMLA protections based on incomplete medical certification

Source: The FMLA Blog - http://federalfmla.typepad.com/fmla_blog/

Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved by Carl C. Bosland, Esq. Reproduced with permission. Mr. Bosland is the author of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation.

Janet Lewis was employed as a civilian in the Air Force as Director of the Elmendorf Air Force Base Child Development Center.  She requested 120 days of FMLA leave due to her own serious health condition. The Agency required Lewis to support her request for leave with the WH-380 medical certification form.  Lewis had her doctor fill out the form, which she submitted in support of her leave request. At the same time, she submitted a prescription from her doctor, and a 2006 letter from another doctor.  Kathleen DeShasier, Lewis's supervisor, told her the documents she submitted were insufficient to support her request for FMLA leave.  Lewis refused to submit more information, believing that she had provided all the information necessary under the FMLA.  When she failed to show up for work, the Agency fired her AWOL.  She appealed her removal through the administrative and federal district court, without success. 

Before the Ninth Circuit, Lewis argued that the documents she submitted provided sufficient medical facts to support the conclusion that she suffered from an FMLA-covered serious health condition. The Ninth Circuit disagreed.  Lewis's WH-380, the court observed, "states only that she was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and needed therapy, medical treatment, bed rest, two prescriptions medications, and 120 days off work." 

Significantly, the Court found that the WH-380 form was incomplete because it failed to-

1. provide a summary of the medical facts that support the diagnosis;

2. contain an explanation as to why Lewis was unable to perform her work duties; and

3. address what additional treatments would be required for her condition.

The   rejected Lewis's alternative argument that she submitted adequate medical documentation to the HR department in support of her workers’ compensation claim. 

Along with her OWCP claim, Lewis did, the Court found, submit medical documents and a detailed diagnosis.  

However, Lewis did not deliver the OWCP documents to her supervisor. Instead, she specifically requested that the HR department keep her medical records confidential and out of her supervisor's hands.  In so doing, the Court essentially found that Lewis could not rely on her OWCP documents as a way to supplement her incomplete WH-380.

Mr. Bosland Comments:  To substantiate an employee's request for serious health condition FMLA leave, an employer may require the employee to submit a complete medical certification.  The permissible content of that certification is governed by federal regulations.  To determine whether the leave is covered by the FMLA, an employer may not require an employee to provide more medical information than is permitted by law.  While an employer may voluntarily agree to accept a medical certification with less medical information than permitted  (employers are not mandated to require any medical certification), they are perfectly within their rights to insist that they receive a complete medical certification. 

Some employee's are very reluctant to disclose their medical condition to their supervisor or employer when requesting leave.  They fear that their highly confidential medical information will "get out" and become fodder for the office rumor mill.  These employees tend to offer sparse medical certifications.  These certifications may even have something written in every area of the WH-380 form, but the information provided is either incomplete or useless.  When offered the chance to submit additional information, these employees, like Lewis, often refuse.   

Employees who refuse to provide additional information run the considerable risk of losing FMLA protections.  As with Lewis, employees who forge ahead and take the leave anyway in the belief that they did provide a complete medical certification, and that the employer is wrong, run the considerable risk of being disciplined for AWOL.  Before risking your job, employees better be certain that they are right and their employer is wrong on this issue.  Check with your union, the US Department of Labor, or an attorney. 

Note that the Court rejected Lewis's argument that she satisfied her FMLA medical certification by providing additional medical information to the HR department as part of the OWCP claim. While the Court did not spell it out, the implication is that she was required to submit her FMLA request to her supervisor, not the HR department.  Moreover, she specifically asked that her OWCP medical documents be kept confidential including from her supervisor. 

Providing medical information, but not to the right person or office, is another (failed) tactic frequently used by employees who don't want to disclose information to their supervisor even though that is what may be required by the employer's policy.  For example, as in Lewis, employees will send their medical documentation to a medical or OWCP unit with confidentiality restrictions, and then claim that they satisfied the FMLA because they provided the certification to their employer writ large.   

Where the employer has a policy or practice requiring the employee to request leave and provide supporting medical certification through the immediate supervisor or a specified office, providing the medical documentation to some other unit of the employer will not secure the protections of the FMLA.  Courts have not allowed employees to game the system by providing supporting medical documentation to someone within the company, but outside of the policy or practice.   

Lewis v. USA, No. 10-35624 (9th Cir. May 26, 2011), http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/26/10-35624.pdf

Considering hearsay evidence offered in the course of an administrative hearing

Considering hearsay evidence offered in the course of an administrative hearing

Derbyshire v Safir, 288 AD2d 18, [Motion for leave to appeal denied, 97 NY2d 611]

In this appeal, the Appellate Division held that Joseph Derbyshire received a fair hearing and that substantial evidence supported the administrative determination to dismiss him from his position.

Derbyshire had argued that certain hearsay evidence against him should not have been considered in making the administrative determination. The Appellate Division disagreed, ruling that “[h]ighly probative hearsay evidence was properly admitted” and thus could be considered in making the determination.

The court also commented that Derbyshire's admissions to his wife were not protected by the marital privilege (Section 4502[b], Civil Practice Law and Rules) because of the nature of the misconduct involved and it found no basis upon which to apply a more restrictive rule in administrative proceedings than would apply in a criminal proceeding.

Under the circumstances, the court said, “imposing the penalty of dismissal does not shock the conscience of this Court,” citing Brown v Safir, 258 AD2d 359, [leave to appeal denied, 93 NY2d 807].

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

The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State is a 1272 page e-book available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/ for additional information concerning this electronic reference manual.

 =======================