Paid Leave available to public officers and employees undertaking screening for cancer

Paid Leave available to public officers and employees undertaking screening for cancer 

Statutory authority: New York State Civil Service Law §159-b

Effective March 18, 2018, §159-b of the New York State Civil Service Law, which provides public officers and employees of the State and its political subdivisions with excused leave to undertake a screening for cancer,* has been amended to read as follows:

§159-b of the New York State Civil Service Law, which provides public officers and employees of the State and its political subdivisions with excused leave to undertake a screening for cancer,* has been amended to read as follows:

"1. Every public officer,** employee of this state, employee of any county, employee of any community college, employee of any public authority, employee of any public benefit corporation, employee of any board of cooperative educational services (BOCES), employee of any vocational education and extension board, or a school district enumerated in section one of chapter five hundred sixty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred sixty-seven, employee of any municipality, employee of any school district or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state and local employees' retirement system or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state teachers' retirement system shall be entitled to absent himself or herself and shall be deemed to have a paid leave of absence from his or her duties or service as such public officer or employee of this state, employee of any county, employee of any community college, employee of any public authority, employee of any public benefit corporation, employee of any board of cooperative educational services (BOCES), employee of any vocational a school district enumerated in section one of chapter five hundred sixty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred sixty-seven, employee of any municipality, employee of any school district, or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state and local employees' retirement system or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state teachers' retirement system for a sufficient period of time, not to exceed four hours on an annual basis, to undertake a screening for cancer.

"2. The entire period of the leave of absence granted pursuant to this section shall be excused leave and shall not be charged against any other leave such public officer, employee of this state, employee of any county, employee of any community college, employee of any public authority, employee of any public benefit corporation, employee of any board of cooperative educational services (BOCES), employee of any vocational education and extension board, or a school district enumerated in section one of chapter five hundred sixty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred sixty-seven, employee of any municipality, employee of any school district or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state and local employees' retirement system or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state teachers' retirement system is otherwise entitled to."

* N.B. §159-c, Excused leave to undertake a screening for prostate cancer, is repealed effective March 18, 2018

** Although not every public employee is a public officer, every public officer is a public employee.

Union official removed from elected and appointed positions after being found guilty of "disloyalty to the organization" by a disciplinary hearing officer

Union official removed from elected and appointed positions after being found guilty of "disloyalty to the organization" by a disciplinary hearing officer

Abbitt v Carrube, 2018 NY Slip Op 01394, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court denied Serena Abbit'spetition to annul the Subway Surface Supervisors Association [SSSA] decision sustaining the recommendation of SSSA's trial committee that Abbitt be removed from her elected position as Section Vice President. The court then dismissed the proceeding and granted SSSA's motion to dismiss Abbitt's libel claims.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, explaining that SSSA's removal of Abbitt from her elected position was "consistent with its constitution and is rational and not arbitrary and capricious.

The court said that Abbitt persistent using her personal business cards, her personal email address, and her personal cell phone number notwithstanding directions to use those provided by SSSA, constituted a disregard of SSSA's direction and disloyalty to the organization.

The Appellate Division also noted the Abbitt [1] was provided with the requisite notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard; [2] fully participated in the hearing, at which she was represented by counsel; and [3] at which hearing the charges were clarified. Abbitt, said the court, failed to identify anything in SSSA's constitution that supports her contention that she is entitled to the same due process protections with respect to her appointed position.

As to Abbitt's claim of libel,  the Appellate Division held the such claim against SSSA was correctly dismissed "since absolute immunity from liability for libel attaches to [a] the trial committee's charges initiating the quasi-judicial proceedings against her and [b] to the hearing officer's decision.

As to Abbitt's libel claim against SSSA's president, Michael Carrube, this claim was correctly dismissed as the alleged libelous statement that Abbitt "violated the chain of command," was at least substantially true and Carrube's description of Abbitt's behavior as "unethical" and "detrimental to the members [of SSSA]" was an expression of pure opinion and "supported by a factual predicate."

The Appellate Division then ruled that libel claim against the New York City Transit Authority [NYCTA] Senior Vice President of Labor Relations Johnson based on statements in an email to Carrube about the nature of the relationship between NYCTA's Office of Labor Relations and SSSA and the need for "mutual cooperation" and "respect" between them in which the Senior Vice President use of words such as "inappropriate," "disrespect," and "intimidation" to characterize Abbitt's conduct was also an expression  opinion regarding her performance and its effect on SSSA's relationship with NYCTA, and, considering the context of the entire email, including its tone and purpose, is not actionable.

Finally, the Appellate Division held that the only factual statement in Senior Vice President's  email challenged by Abbitt was made to someone "with a common interest in the subject matter" and was therefore protected by a qualified privilege and Abbitt's allegation of malice on the Senior Vice President's part "is conclusory and therefore insufficient to overcome the privilege."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_01394.htm

Supreme Court correctly applied the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel to the hearing officer's determinations as to the reasons for the employee's termination

Supreme Court correctly applied the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel based on the hearing officer's determinations as to the reasons for the employee's termination

Johnson v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 01179, Appellate Division, Second Department

Linda C. Johnson  sought to recover damages for alleged unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of age and unlawful retaliation in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107. Supreme Court granted the New York City Department of Education's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss Johnson's complaint.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination.

The Department of Education of City of New York had filed disciplinary charges pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law against Johnson alleging "absenteeism, failure to prepare lesson plans, and verbal abuse and corporal punishment of students." Rejecting Johnson's defense that the main reason the charges were brought against her was "personality," in that the administration did not like her "for personal reasons," and that the administration failed to offer her remediation because it did not want "to deal with her," the New York State Department of Education's Hearing Officer sustained most of the specifications, and Johnson's employment was terminated by the New York City Department of Education. The Hearing Officer found that there was no evidence that certain members of the administration had treated Johnson unfairly, or that she was "targeted or discriminated against because of her personality or for any other reason."

The Appellate Division explained that the findings of a hearing officer after a hearing pursuant to Education Law §3020-a are entitled to collateral estoppel effect and, in this context, collateral estoppel applies if "[1] the issue sought to be precluded is identical to a material issue necessarily decided by the administrative agency in a prior proceeding; and [2] there was a full and fair opportunity to contest this issue in the administrative tribunal."

However, cautioned the Appellate Division, a termination of employment for cause does not necessarily preclude the possibility of termination being motivated by unlawful animus. Indeed, a court or a jury could find that the plaintiff's employment was terminated for discriminatory reasons, even if there were other, and legitimate, reasons for terminating the individual's employment.

Where such "mixed motives" are involved, a plaintiff need only demonstrate that discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the defendants' conduct. Accordingly, said the court, "even where the reason for termination is legitimate, the plaintiff may state a cause of action based upon allegations of disparate treatment or that the explanation for the termination of the plaintiff's employment was pretextual.

In Johnson's case the Appellate Division decided that the reasons advanced for the termination of the Johnson's employment were not pretextual, and that her termination was not motivated by age discrimination, explaining that "[t]he Hearing Officer further found that there was no evidence that [Johnson] 'was targeted or discriminated against because of her personality or for any other reason.'" Further, noted the Appellate Division, the reason why Johnson "was not offered more remediation efforts" was attributed to Johnson's "resistance to such efforts" by the Hearing Officer.

Thus, concluded the Appellate Division, the Hearing Officer's findings were entitled to collateral estoppel effect and Supreme Court correctly directed the dismissal of so much of Johnson's complaint as alleged unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of age.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_01179.htm