Reinstatement following layoff focuses on tenure rights

Reinstatement following layoff focuses on tenure rights

Chauvel v. Nyquist, 55 AD2 76, affd., 43 NY2 48)

Does “greater system-wide service” control situations involving layoff of teachers, or is it seniority in corresponding or similar positions that determines which person is to be offered an open teaching position first?

Where the performance of duties of the open position is unquestionably “similar” to those of the abolished positions, the teacher having the greater seniority in the performance area, not in the employing school district itself, is to receive the appointment.

Standards for such re-employment are more narrow than those dealing with layoff (Ward v. Nyquist, 43 NY2d 57) so as to prevent erosion of the tenure rights of the incumbents of abolished positions and means that the duties required to be performed in the vacant position must be similar to the duties performed by the person in his previous position before it was abolished. A test was stated in Elkins, 14 Ed Dept Repts 193, to the effect that if more than one-half of the functions to be performed by the incumbent of the new position are those which he performed in his old position, the positions are similar.

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

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click On http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/ for additional information about this electronic reference manual.

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

Statute of limitations for challenging a personnel decision begins running when the individual is notified of the final and binding determination

Statute of limitations for challenging a personnel decision begins running when the individual is notified of the final and binding determination
McCarry v Purchase Coll., State Univ. of N.Y., 2012 NY Slip Op 06026, Appellate Division, Second Department

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 challenging the decision of the President of the State University of New York College at Purchase not to reappoint an assistant professor to the Purchase faculty, Supreme Court annulled the President’s determination and remitted the matter to for a de novo review and a new determination. Supreme Court also directed the retroactive reinstatement of the faculty member with full compensation and benefits pending the de novo review.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s rulings “on the law."

Pointing out that the assistant professor’s challenge to the President’s decision was time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations, the court explained that the statute of limitations set forth in CPLR §217(1) began to run on the date that the challenged determination became final and binding.*

Citing Matter of Village of Westbury v Department of Transp. of State of N.Y., 75 NY2d 62, the Appellate Division said that "A determination generally becomes binding when … the agency has reached a definitive position that inflicts concrete injury to the aggrieved party that cannot be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action” and the individual has been advised of that determination.

In this instance it was undisputed that the assistant professor commenced his Article 78 action more than four months after receiving notice that he had not been reappointed to his teaching position.

Significantly, the court said that the limitations period did not run from the date upon which the assistant professor's fixed-duration employment contract automatically ended but rather commenced to run when he received notice of the “final determination” that he would not be reappointed to the college faculty.

Further, said the court, even had the faculty member Article 78 action “been timely commenced, the record demonstrates that the [College President] substantially complied with the internal rules of Purchase College, State University of New York and the determination was not arbitrary and capricious."

* N.B. A request to “reconsider” a final and binding administrative determination does not toll the running of the Statute of Limitations [Lavin v Lawrence, 54 AD3d 412].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06026.htm

Evidence of progress in employee’s treatment for alcoholism tempers disciplinary penalty

Evidence of progress in employee’s treatment for alcoholism tempers disciplinary penalty

NYC Department of Sanitation v Anonymous, OATH Index #1637/12

Although the New York City Department of Sanitation sought to terminate an employee after a positive alcohol test, OATH Administrative Law Judge Tynia D. Richard recommended a 30-day suspension for the sanitation worker.

Judge Richard noted that the employee had offered evidence of his progress through alcohol treatment as a recovering addict.

The Department’s request for termination was essentially based on the two earlier opportunities that it had provided the worker to recover from his alcohol dependence.*

In fashioning a penalty recommendation, the ALJ noted that employee had voluntarily entered the treatment program, took responsibility for his actions and showed insight into the extent of his problem, and that such a penalty might be combined with ongoing alcohol testing (though not provided under Civil Service Law §75) as the Department sees fit.

* Individuals who abuse alcohol may be considered disabled under the ADA if the person is an alcoholic or a recovering alcoholic. Courts have usually held that alcoholism is a covered disability. For example, in Williams v. Widnal, 119 F3d 305, [Cert. Denied 118 S. Ct. 871], the court said, without discussion, that alcoholism “is a covered disability.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/12_Cases/12-1637.pdf