Negotiating "for cause" termination protection for officers and employees serving in positions in the Exempt Class

Certain civil service positions in the classified service are placed in the "exempt" class reflecting the duties of the position are of a confidential nature and requires personal qualities that cannot practicably be tested by an examination. Subject to certain exceptions set out in §75.1(b) of the Civil Service Law, incumbents of positions in the Exempt Class are terminable at will. 

The issue before the court: A challenge to a provision in the relevant collective bargaining agreement that, in the words of the Court of Appeals, "purports to provide for-cause termination protection to certain exempt class employees."*

The Court held that provision in the agreement unenforceable to the extent it granted such protections to officers and employees in the Exempt Class except as otherwise provided by §75.1(b) of the Civil Service Law.

*Although not all exempt class employees are officers of the entity, all exempt class officers of the entity are employees of the entity.

 Click HERE to access the decision of the Court of Appeals posted on the Internet.

Accidental Disability Retirement application rejected

 

Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition to vacate a determination of Respondents, which denied Plaintiff's application for World Trade Center Accidental Disability Retirement (WTC ADR) benefits, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling, without costs.

The Court of Appeals noted this was the third CPLR Article 78 proceeding brought by Plaintiff' seeking to vacate the denial of her application for WTC ADR benefits, based on her failure to demonstrate that she engaged in rescue, recovery and cleanup operations at the statutorily defined WTC site during the statutory period. The Court of Appeals had affirmed the denial of those benefits by Respondents in connection with the evidence submitted on her first two applications, Matter of Salerno v Kelly, 139 AD3d 516.

In support of her third attempt, Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a retired colleague, stating that at the time of the terrorist attack, he was stationed with Plaintiff at the offices of the Internal Affairs Bureau. However, the location so identified "was outside the qualifying area." 

Accordingly, said the Court, Respondents had a rational basis for denying Plaintiff's application, and for concluding that the colleague's affidavit was not persuasive, in light of the other contrary evidence, including overtime slips signed by Plaintiff indicating that she worked at IAB and/or command and control during the relevant period.

Click HERE to access the decision of the Court of Appeals posted on the Internet.

Applying the ""inherent risk" principle in evaluating an employee's application for accidental disability retirement benefits

The Comptroller denied a State Trooper's [Petitioner] application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner had filed an application for accidental disability retirement alleging that he was permanently disabled due to, among other things, posttraumatic stress disorder resulting from an incident in which Petitioner shot a suspect who was driving a car at a high rate of speed towards the Petitioner.

Citing Matter of McGoey v DiNapoli, 194 AD3d 1296, the Appellate Division noted that the applicant, here the Petitioner, bore the burden of establishing that his disability was the result of an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and the Comptroller's determination on that point will be sustained "if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole substantial evidence."

In this instance, said the court, substantial evidence supports the Comptroller's determination that Petitioner's use of deadly force to protect himself from imminent danger, "although not typical, and certainly a traumatic experience, was inherent in his duties and training."

Applying the "inherent risk" principles set out by the Court of Appeals in Kelly v DiNapoli, 30 NY3d 674 and applied in Matter of Kowal v DiNapoli, 145 AD3d 1152, the Appellate Division opined that the Comptroller's determination that the incident at issue "did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §63-bb will not be disturbed."

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