A public officer threatening to do something that he or she may lawfully due does not constitute coercion

Public officer threatening to do something that he or she may lawfully do does not constitute coercion

City of Dodge City v Webb, Kansas Supreme Court, #109634

The Kansas Supreme Court sustained the conviction of Orie J. Webb of driving under the influence of alcohol. Webb argued that that he had been unconstitutionally coerced into submitting to a breath test for alcohol because police officers threatened to obtain a warrant to have him submit to a "blood test."  The court said that as Kansas law permits law enforcement officers to to obtain a warrant for a blood draw after a breath test refusal, and therefore, the threat to do so was not coercive.

Sometimes an employee may be threatened with disciplinary action if he or she does not immediately resign from the position. Does such a demand constitute coercion?

In Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643, a case challenging an appointing authority's demand that an employee resign from the position or be served with  disciplinary charges, the Court of Appeals ruled that threatening to do what the appointing authority had a right to do -- file disciplinary charges against the employee -- did not constitute coercion so as to make the resignation involuntary.

New York’s Court of Appeals has also addressed the question of using an employee’s statement made under the threat of dismissal from his or her employment in a criminal action taken against the individual. 

In People v Corrigan, 80 NY2d 326, the court ruled that under both state and federal law any statement made under the threat of dismissal from one's position is protected by the privilege against self-incrimination and is “automatically immunized from use in criminal proceedings.”

Further, in Kastigar v United States, 406 U.S.441, the Supreme Court held that in the event an employee believes information obtained under threat of disciplinary action is going to be used against him or her in a pending criminal proceeding, he or she may request what is now referred to as a “Kastigar hearing” to determine whether the prosecution made any use of either a compelled, immunized statement or any evidence derived directly or indirectly from such a statement in the criminal action.

The decisions is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2014/20140613/109634.pdf

_____________

The Discipline Book - A 458 page guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

______________

 

Civil rights statutes trump collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration clause unless the wording of the clause regarding arbitrating civil rights complaints is “clear and unmistakable”

Civil rights statutes trump collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration clause unless the wording of the clause regarding arbitrating civil rights complaints is “clear and unmistakable”

Lawrence v. Sol G. Atlas Realty Co., Inc., USCA, 2^nd Circuit, Docket 15-3087

If the relevant collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration clause does not include language requiring the arbitration of statutory discrimination or retaliation claims with wording that is “clear and unmistakable,” the employee may seek to vindicate his or her claims of unlawful discrimination or retaliation as provided in the controlling statute or statutes. The court vacated the district court's grant of defendants' motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the complaint.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/78e241c4-286b-4d8d-bad3-ad9edc00d88f/2/doc/15-3087_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/78e241c4-286b-4d8d-bad3-ad9edc00d88f/2/hilite/

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits have been issued during the week ending October 29, 2016

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits were issued during the week ending October 29, 2016 

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

Links to material posted on the Internet highlighted in COLOR.

School DistrictAudits

Caledonia-Mumford Central School District – Online Banking

Caledonia-Mumford

Genesee Valley Board of Cooperative Educational Services– Purchasing

Genesee Valley BOCES

Heuvelton Central School District – Payroll

Heuvelton

Syracuse City School District – Claims Audit Process

Syracuse

Your Home Public Library – Financial Management

Your Home Public Library

 Other audit reports published 

Gingerbread  Learning Center, Inc. – claimed reimbursement for ineligible expenses.

Gingerbread is a not-for-profit organization that provides center-based (full-day, half-day and integrated) preschool programs and Preschool Special Education Services, formerly known as the Special Education Itinerant Teacher (SEIT) program, to children ages three through five years. State Education Department (SED) contracts with Gingerbread to provide these programs to children throughout Staten Island and neighboring boroughs. The State Comptroller said that Gingerbread claimed nearly $1 million in expenses that did not qualify for reimbursement from taxpayers, including bonuses that were never paid to staff, liquor store purchases and holiday parties. The audit report is posted on the Internet at http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093017/14s79.pdf.

The Attorney General and the State Comptroller encourage anyone with information on alleged public corruption activities to contact the Attorney General’s Office at 1-800-996-4630 or the Comptroller’s office by dialing the toll-free fraud hotline at 1-888-672-4555; to file a complaint online at investigations@osc.state.ny.us; or to mail a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller Investigations Unit, 110 State Street, 14th floor, Albany, NY 12236.