Reducing health insurance prescription co-pay benefits for an employer’s retirees to the same level as the employer’s active employees' prescription co-pay benefit

Reducing health insurance prescription co-pay benefits for an employer’s retirees to the same level as the employer’s active employees' prescription co-pay benefit

Altic v Board of Educ., 2016 NY Slip Op 06315, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

As relevant to this action, §14 of Part B of Chapter 504 of the Laws of 2009  amended Chapter 729 of the Laws of 1994 and made permanent temporary legislation prohibiting a school district, a BOCES, or a vocational education and extension board providing health insurance benefits and employer contributions on behalf  retirees and their dependents that were less than the health insurance benefits and employer contributions it provide on behalf a corresponding group of active employees.*

In this action there was no question that the prescription co-pay benefits for retirees and active employees were identical from June 30, 1994, the effective date of this so-called Moratorium Statute through June 30, 2007. Effective July 1, 2007, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement [CBA], the prescription co-pay benefit for active employees was reduced. The prescription co-pay benefit for active employees was again reduced pursuant to the terms and conditions of a subsequent CBA, effective September 1, 2013. 

Accordingly, Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Board of Cooperative Educational Services [OCM] reduced its prescription co-pay benefits for its active employees’ as the result of collective bargaining effective September 1, 2013. OCM subsequently reduced its prescription co-pay benefits for its retirees to the same level it paid on behalf of the active employees' for the prescription co-pay benefit effective April 1, 2014.

Nancy Altic, on behalf of herself and other OCM retirees, filed an Article 78 petition challenging OCM’s reduction of its prescription co-payment benefits it made on behalf of its retirees. Supreme Court granted Altic’s petition and annulled OCM’s decision to reduce the OCM’s prescription co-pay benefit for its retired employees to the then same level of its prescription co-pay benefit it made on behalf of its active employees as set out in the collective bargaining agreement. Supreme Court held that OCM had violated certain provisions of Chapter 504 of the Laws of 200.

OCM appealed and the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court’s ruling “on the law” and dismissed Altic’s petition.

The Appellate Division explained that the Moratorium Statute, first enacted in 1994 "sets a minimum baseline or floor for retiree health insurance benefits.” That floor was measured by the health insurance benefits received by active employees.” In other words, said the court, the Moratorium Statute “does not permit an employer to whom the statute applies to provide retirees with lesser health insurance benefits than active employees."

In view of this, the Appellate Division concluded that, “inasmuch as there was a corresponding diminution of  [prescription co-pay] benefits . . . effected [with respect to retired employees] . . . from the present level  … on or after June 30, 1994” to the level of the prescription co-pay benefits being made on behalf of active OCM employees, OCM did not violate the Moratorium Statute.

* §14 of Part B of Chapter 504 of the Laws of 2009 amended §1 of Chapter 729 of the laws of 1994, making permanent temporary legislation addressing the health insurance benefits and contributions to be made on behalf of retired employees of school districts, BOCES and certain other educational entities, to read as follows: “Section 1. From on and after June 30, 1994 [until May 15, 2010,]a school district, board of cooperative educational services, vocational education and extension board or a school district as enumerated in section 1 of chapter 566 of the laws of 1967, as amended, shall be prohibited from diminishing the health insurance benefits provided to retirees and their dependents or the contributions such board or district makes for such health insurance coverage below the level of such benefits or contributions made on behalf of such retirees and their dependents by such district or board unless a corresponding diminution of benefits or contributions is effected from the present level during this period by such district or board from the corresponding group of active employees for such retirees.” 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_06315.htm

AELE posts items of special interest to those involved in public safety, law enforcement and firefighting on its LawBlog

Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc. posts items of special interest to those involved in public safety, law enforcement and firefighting on its LawBlog

  [Internet links highlighted in color]

Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc. [AELE] offers free access to certain publications. In addition, it has a searchable library of more than 35,000 case digests organized into 700 + indexed topics. Users do not have to preregister and there is no time limit on research sessions. Except for commercial purposes the contents of its online law library may be copied and pasted, saved or printed.

AELE’s current issues of its three publications, back issues since 2000, case digests since 1975, and a search engine are accessible through the Internet and AELE invites everyone to read, print or download AELE publications without charge. The main menu is at: http://www.aele.org/law

Some of the items listed on AELE’s October 2016 LawBlog are: 

AELE Monthly Law Journal article - Overtime Pay Entitlement for Public Safety Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) – Part 2.View here.

Law Enforcement Liability Reporter - This issue has cases on assault and battery: flashbangs, dogs, false arrest/imprisonment with and without warrants, firearms related: Second Amendment, public protection: 911 systems, and search and seizure of persons and vehicles. View here.  

Fire, Police & Corrections Personnel Reporter - This issue has cases on First Amendment, Fair Labor Standards Act: donning and doffing uniforms and equipment, pay disputes, political activity/patronage employment, race/national origin discrimination, retaliatory personnel actions, sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and whistleblower protection. View here.

Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin - This issue has cases on disability discrimination: prisoners, medical care, dental care, the "three strikes" rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoner assault by inmates, prisoner discipline, religion, search of prisoners, and sexual assault. View here.

Discipline and Internal Investigations Seminar - AELE's 2016 seminar on Discipline and Internal Investigations for public safety agencies -police, corrections and the fire services - will be held in Las Vegas on October 24-26. This is a comprehensive 2 and a half day program will address all major aspects of discipline. The program covers both substantive and procedural issues as well as rules and regulations. The program includes the latest hot topics such as cell phones, social media, and constitutional issues. More information is available at http://www.aele.org/menu-disc.html

AELE’s annual seminar on Jail and Prisoner Legal Issues will be held in Las Vegas on January 9-12, 2017. More info at http://www.aele.org/menu-jail.html

Decisions involving an employee’s use of the employer's electronic equipment that resulted in disciplinary action being taken against an employee

Decisions involving an employee’s use of the employer's electronic equipment that resulted in disciplinary action being taken against an employee 

[Internet links highlighted in color]

Sprague v Spokane Valley Fire Department

Sprague v. Spokane Valley Fire Department, summarized by Dave Strausfeld, J.D. concerns a fire department captain who was discharged for sending religious messages to coworkers via the department’s internal email system was unable to prove that his First Amendment free speech rights were violated, held a Washington Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court’s grant of summary judgment. The email system was a nonpublic forum, and limiting its usage to fire department business was reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Judge Lawrence-Berrey filed a separate concurring opinion.

In dissent, Chief Judge Fearing argued the department had opened the email system to religious messages by forwarding newsletters from its health insurer about solving personal problems and living a healthy lifestyle, because the government may not “prefer secular chatter over religious oration” 

The full text of Mr. Srausfeld's summary of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/index.php/news/fired-for-using-internal-email-system-to-send-religious-messages-fire-captain-loses-free-speech-claim/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CCH-Workday+%28WK+WorkDay%29 

N.B. The foregoing summary was posted by Employment Law News, WK WorkDay - A service provided by Wolters Kluwer Legal and Regulatory U.S. No part of the above materials may be copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated, reduced to any electronic medium or machine-readable form, or retransmitted, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of WK. Any other reproduction in any form without the prior written consent of WK is prohibited. Written consent may be obtained from WK. Please click here for more information.

Other decisions involving an employer’s use of electronic equipment underlying  disciplinary action being taken against the employee include:

Fraser v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
USDC, 135 F. Supp. 2d 623

The court held that an employee using his or her employer's computer equipment for personal business does not enjoy any "right to privacy" barring the employer’s reviewing the employee's e-mail that is stored in its computer system. Federal District Court Judge Anita B. Brody decided that an employer may peruse an employee's e-mail files that are stored in the system without violating either federal or Pennsylvania wiretap laws. On appeal the USCA, Third Circuit, affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide on Fraser's wrongful termination claim but vacated and remand the state claims, and his bad-faith claim and forfeiture-for-competition claim for consideration in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Hess v. Gebhard and Co., Inc., 570 Pa. 148.

Leo Gustafson v Town of N. Castle 
45 A.D.3d 766
The employee, an assistant building inspector with the Town of North Castle, was charged and found guilty of falsifying official records with respect to where he was while on duty. The individual was assigned a town vehicle for the purpose of making field inspections in connection with his employment. The vehicle had a global positioning system installed that transmitted information to the town’s computer reporting the vehicle’s location and movements. Based on this information, the Town charged the employee with falsifying town records as to his whereabouts. This, said the Appellate Division, constituted substantial evidence to support the determination that the employee was guilty of falsifying town records.

Ghita v Department of Education of the City of New York 

2008 NY Slip Op 30706(U), Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 0110481/2007 [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports] 
The employee challenged an arbitrator’s determination terminating his employment with the New York City Department of Education after finding him guilty of downloading a file of pornographic material from his AOL email account and openly viewed such pornographic material from a school computer. Supreme Court rejected the individual’s claim that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under Education Law §3020-a, and the award terminating petitioner's employment is a violation of public policy and New York State Law.

Perry v Comm. of Labor 
App. Div. 3rd Dept., 283 A.D.2d 754

An unemployment insurance claimant challenged a determination by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board denying him benefits after finding that his employment was terminated due to his misconduct. The nature of the individual's alleged misconduct: his misuse of his employer's computer equipment. The employee, a human resource specialist, was dismissed from his position after his employer discovered that he used his computer terminal to frequently access pornographic websites during working hours.