ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED IN COMPOSING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS.

Dec 14, 2017

FMLA Law News Update December 2017


FMLA Law News Update December 2017
Source: | December 13, 2017

Click on text highlighted in color to access the full report

Timing Is Everything: FMLA Claim Survives Summary Judgment …
The National Law Review-Nov 21, 2017
Employees requesting, currently taking, or just returning from leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) can be terminated for legitimate reasons that are unrelated to their FMLA leave. This point is exemplified by
Jennings v. Univ. of N.C., N.C. Ct. App., Case No. COA16-1031 (July 5, 2017), …

Reassignment can be post-FMLA accommodation
Business Management Daily-Dec 11, 2017
When a disabled employee wants to return to work, limitations may make it impossible for him to do his old job. If so, it may be reasonable to either grant more leave or reassign the employee—or both. The worker may prefer another accommodation, but it’s the employer’s choice. Recent case:
Gary

FMLA FAQ: If an Employee Racks Up Both FMLA and Unexcused …
Lexology-Dec 8, 2017
Mary Beth is a nurse for a local hospital and has been diagnosed with cancer and asthma. Over the course of about one year: 1. She is certified for FMLA leave for her cancer and asthma;. 2. She incurs a total of 13 intermittent absences in a 12-month period;. 3. A handful of these absences relate to her …

Terminated employee's civil rights violation claim dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata


Terminated employee's civil rights violation claim dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata
Russo v. City of New York, USCA, 2nd Circuit,  17-233-CV*

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York  dismissed Anthony J. Russo's claim brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The district court sua sponte** dismissed Russo’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) and the doctrine of res judicata.***

Russo had been terminated by the New York City Board of Education as the result of an arbitration conducted pursuant to §3020-a of the New York State Education Law. Although Russo brought a CPLR Article 75 action challenging the arbitration award in New York State Supreme Court, the award was ultimately affirmed by the New York State Court of Appeals.

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court dismissal Russo’s complaint and the denial of his motion for reconsideration on the ground that Russo’s claims are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. We note at the outset that “the failure of a defendant to raise res judicata does not deprive a court of the power to dismiss a claim on that ground” in large part because of “the strong public policy in economizing the use of judicial resources by avoiding relitigation.

The Circuit Court then found that the dismissal Russo's petition on the basis of res judicata was appropriate in this case because Russo raises claims that are premised entirely on the same set of facts and alleged misconduct as the facts and misconduct alleged in his state court action, and because the initial state forum had the power to award the full measure of relief sought in this §1983 action.

Further, said the court, "even though Russo’s federal claims were not raised and litigated in his state action, there was no error in the district court’s decision to dismiss these claims on the grounds that they were barred by the state court judgment."

*N.B. Summary order - rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by federal rule of appellate procedure 32.1 and the 2nd Circuit's local rule 32.1.1.

** An action taken by the court without a formal motion by a party.

*** A matter that has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction and as a result not be relitigated further by the same parties.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:


Editor in Chief Harvey Randall served as Director of Personnel, State University of New York Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor's Office of Employee Relations; Principal Attorney, Counsel's Office, New York State Department of Civil Service; and Colonel, JAG, Command Headquarters, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com