Discrimination against applicants having limited proficiency in English constitutes unlawful discrimination based on national origin

Discrimination against applicants having limited proficiency in English constitutes unlawful discrimination based on national origin

2015 NY Slip Op 04239, Appellate Division, First Department

The Appellate Division held that the New York City Human Resources Administration, the City’s department in charge of the majority of the City’s social services programs, as a “provider of public accommodation,” violated New York City’s Human Rights Law’s* prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin by withholding from or denying “accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges” from individuals having  limited English proficiency as such action constitutes discrimination based on national origin.

* See Administrative Code § 8-107[4][a]

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_04239.htm

Disciplinary hearing held in absentia

Disciplinary hearing held in absentia

OATH Index No. 1114/15.

Following a default hearing, Administrative Law Judge Astrid B. Gloade found that petitioner proved charges that respondent, a job opportunity specialist, was AWOL and defrauded his employer.

The undisputed proof showed that respondent issued rental assistance checks to persons who were not landlords and who were not entitled to the funds. The proof further showed that the fake landlords gave respondent the amount of the issued checks and he, in return, gave them cash. Respondent pled guilty in criminal court to welfare fraud where he admitted that he had engaged in a kickback scheme that defrauded his employer of over $ 690,000 in agency funds. Termination of employment recommended.

Posted on the Internet at: http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/15_cases/15-1114.pdf

_____________

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 2100+ page e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

_____________

 

Grounds for vacating an arbitration award

Grounds for vacating an arbitration award

2015 NY Slip Op 04486, Appellate Division, Second Department

In this action to confirm an arbitration award Supreme Court granted the petition and denied the disappointed party’s [Lieberman] application to vacate the arbitration award. 

In the appeal that followed challenging the Supreme Court’s ruling the Appellate Division sustained, in relevant part, the confirmation of the arbitration award, explaining "Even where the arbitrator makes a mistake of fact or law, [an arbitration] award is not subject to vacatur unless the court concludes that it is totally irrational or violative of a strong public policy and thus in excess of the arbitrator's powers."

Here, said the court, Lieberman failed to demonstrate that the arbitration panel exceeded its power in making the award.

Citing Town of Haverstraw v Rockland County Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn., 65 NY2d 677, the Appellate Division said "An arbitrator may do justice as he [or she] sees it, applying his [or her] own sense of law and equity to the facts as he [or she] finds them to be."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_04486.htm