Evaluating jurisdiction of courts to address claims of national origin discrimination, violation of Civil Service Law §75-b, sovereign immunity and subject matter jurisdiction

Supreme Court granted New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance's [ODTA] CPLR §211 motion to dismiss the Petitioner's claims against it under the New York City Human Rights Law [City HRL] alleging national origin discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law [State HRL], and for alleged violation of Civil Service Law §75-b.

The Appellate Division sustained the dismissal on the ground of sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Jattan v Queens Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y., 64 AD3d 540. Further, opined the court, Petitioner failed to identify "any independent duty on the part of [ODTA's Deputy Commissioner] to him, outside of the City HRL, which could serve as a vehicle for holding the State "secondarily liable for the tortious acts under respondeat superior".]

Addressing Petitioner's allegations of violation of Civil Service Law §75-b, the Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court's action, explaining that "claims under CSL 75-b are committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims," citing Article VI, §9 and the Court of Claims Act §§ 8-9. Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the lower court "properly severed and dismissed that cause of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

With respect to Petitioner's cause of action alleging national origin discrimination against defendants OTDA and the Deputy Commissioner, the Appellate Division ruled "[l]iberally construing the complaint, presuming its factual allegations to be true, and according it the benefit of every possible favorable inference," Petitioner's complaint asserted that [the Deputy Commissioner] was aware of a long chain of discrimination against [Petitioner] and condoned it." 

Further, the Appellate Division said "[i]t can also be inferred that [the Deputy Commissioner] was aware of [Petitioner's] national origin, and condoned the continuing discrimination and concurrent retaliation against him, culminating in the ultimate adverse action of termination of employment."

Accordingly, the Appellate Division reinstated the amended complaint's State HRL cause of action for national origin discrimination against OTDA and the Deputy Commissioner and the accompanying aiding and abetting discrimination claim against the individual defendants.

Click HERE to access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.

Internal Revenue Service's Fiscal Year 2022 Program Letter announced

The Tax Exempt & Government Entities (TE/GE) Fiscal Year 2022 Program Letter (PDF) lists the Internal Revenue Service's priorities for the new fiscal year. 

In addition IRS reported that it will also use its Compliance Program and Priorities webpage to provide information about additional priorities as they are launched.  

IRS listed the following as its Fiscal Year 2022 compliance program and priorities align with the IRS Strategic Goals:

• Strengthen Compliance Activities
• Improve Operational Efficiencies
• Maintain a Taxpayer-Focused Organization
• Ensure Awareness and Collective Understanding
• Leverage Technology and Data Analytics
• Develop Our Workforce

Further, IRS plans to release a summary of its Fiscal Year 2021 accomplishments during the first quarter Fiscal Year 2022, as well as its annual program (or work plan) and accomplishment letters for previous years.

The effective date of a final administrative determination triggers the running of the statute of limitations to challenge the determination

A New York City police officer [Officer] retired from the New York City Police Department [Department] while serving "without firearms privileges." Officer subsequently filed a CPLR Article 78 petition seeking to annul the Department's issuing Officer a retirement identification card containing the words "no firearms." Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding and Officer appealed.

Unanimously affirming the Supreme Court's ruling, the Appellate Division said that the Department "reached a final and binding determination on May 31, 2018," the date on which Officer, then on modified duty status, retired from the Department and the date on which the Department issued Officer a retirement identification card bearing the words "no firearms." In addition, the Department declined to provide Officer with "a good guy letter" that was necessary for Officer to obtain a firearms license.*

The New York City Police Department License Division's "INSTRUCTIONS FOR NYPD RETIREES" states: "A retired law enforcement handgun license will not be issued to you if your [sic] did not receive a Pistol License Inquiry Response form (PD 643-155) a.k.a “good-guy letter, of [sic] if your ID card is stamped “No Firearms.” To obtain a retired law enforcement license, you must have the restriction lifted prior to receiving a license". 

Citing Matter of Baloy v Kelly, 92 AD3d 521, the Appellate Division opined that the possibility of Officer obtaining administrative relief was exhausted when Officer retired without a change in his modified status. Thus, the court concluded, the four-month statute of limitations began to run on May 31, 2018, and Officer's petition, filed in September 2019, was untimely.

Another impediment to Officer's right to challenge the administrative decision was that, as Supreme Court correctly determined, Officer's post-retirement letter "was merely a request for reconsideration of the agency's determination, and thus did not extend the statute of limitations."

* The decision noted that the Department's policy of declining to issue a "good guy letter" in the event an officer retires without firearms privileges.

Click HERE to access the text of the Appellate Division's decision.