Concerning confirming or vacating an arbitration award

Noting that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited, the Appellate Division indicated an arbitration award would be vacated:

1. When the arbitrator's award is "so imperfectly executed ... that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made"; or

2. When the arbitration award is indefinite or nonfinal for purposes of CPLR §7511 because:

            a. it does not dispose of a particular issue raised by the parties; or

            b. it leaves the parties unable to determine their rights and obligations; or

            c. it does not resolve the controversy submitted; or

            d. it creates a new controversy;

Citing Union-Endicott Cent. Sch. Dist. v Peters, 123 AD3d 1198; Matter of Rochester City School Dist. [Rochester Teachers Assn. NYSUT/AFT-AFL/CIO], 38 AD3d 1152, and Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. v County of Nassau, 305 AD2d 498, the Appellate Division explained that in this instance the arbitrator denied the contract grievance in full, resolving the stipulated issue of whether the County violated the collective bargaining agreement, and held "the Supreme Court properly confirmed the original arbitration award as it was not indefinite or nonfinal, and it completely disposed of the issue before the arbitrator."

Further, opined the Appellate Division, arbitrators are without power to render a new award or to modify an original award, except as provided in CPLR 7509" although an arbitrator may modify an award, inter alia,* where "the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issues submitted."

*Among other things.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Follow-up on reports concerning school districts facing "fiscal stress"

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reports school districts designated in fiscal stress dropped to record lows largely due to aid increase.

The Comptroller's office has been tracking local government and school district fiscal stress for nearly a decade through its Fiscal Stress Monitoring System and now reports that its finds that for fiscal year 2021-22 indicates only 14 school districts were designated in fiscal stress. This is the lowest number of districts in stress since the System’s inception.

Major increases in aid over the last two years from both the federal government (temporary) and the State (ongoing) have helped – particularly for many high-need districts that have struggled to avoid fiscal stress in recent years.

For more, see the Comptroller's: 

Report on Fiscal Year 2021-22 Results; and the

Lists of School Districts in Stress and all School District FSMS Scores.

Reports and fiscal stress scores for all counties, cities, towns and villages are available. For more information and for the Comptroller's most recent data, visit the Fiscal Stress Monitoring System main page.  

Characteristics of a hostile work environment for the purposes of litigating claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983

To prevail in a “hostile work environment” action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983  the Plaintiff must set out claims alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment and demonstrate that his “workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment and create an abusive working environment.”  

The Circuit Court Appeals, Second Circuit held that Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim was based on the same conduct underpinning his racial discrimination and retaliation claims: his being given work orders to change light bulbs and, from time to time, receiving work orders for items not in need of repair. 

The Circuit Court explained that such "identified conduct falls far short of the conduct required to sustain a hostile work environment claim." The Circuit Court then affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint.

The District Court had dismissed Plaintiff's claims, in part, because Plaintiff failed to identify any adverse employment action. The Circuit Court, agreeing with the District Court that the Plaintiff failed to identify an adverse employment action, affirmed the lower court's ruling and opined that it "need not address any of the other grounds identified by the District Court as supporting summary judgment". 

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.