Seeking summary judgment in adjudicating disability discrimination claims

The Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, held a federal district court improperly granted summary judgment in the instant matter for two reasons, "one of which is a logical consequence of disposing of the matter based on pre-motion letters".

First, Circuit Court said the district court improperly granted summary judgment by resolving disputed facts that related to the Petitioners claims discrimination because of his alleged disability.

The Second Circuit explained: "It is well established that a district court may grant summary judgment only where '... movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [See] Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).' A district court may not make credibility determinations, or weigh evidence in evaluating a motion for summary judgment. See Anderson  v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) ('Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . .'). Rather, [the Second Circuit has] long stated that '[t]he function of the district court [when] considering the motion for summary judgment is not to resolve disputed questions of fact but only to determine whether, as to any material issue, a genuine factual dispute exists.' Kaytor v. Elec. 20 Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537, 545 (2d Cir. 2010)."

Second, the Second Circuit said it had concluded that the district court further erred by not ensuring that the evidentiary material cited in the parties’ Rule 56.1 statements support their assertions.

In the words of the Second Circuit: "As this Court has explained, a district court 'may not rely solely on the statement of undisputed facts contained in the moving party’s Rule 56.1 statement.' Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. BEARGRAM Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2004). Instead, a district court must satisfy itself "that the citation to evidence in the record supports the assertion.": Id. But, there is nothing in the record to show that the district court possessed or reviewed the evidentiary material cited in the parties’ Rule 56.1 statements. Therefore, we cannot discern whether the district court satisfied itself that the evidence cited in the parties’ Rule 56.1 statements support their assertions, nor can we fulfill our appellate obligations given the incomplete record. This is where a substantive reason for avoiding dismissals based on counsels’ arguments at a pre-motion conference can arise: parties not having yet provided the district court with a complete record to review."

The Circuit Court vacated the district court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the Respondent and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings.

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

New York State municipal and school district audits posted

On August 16, 2024, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

Click on the text highlighted in BLUE to access the complete audit report.

 

Dutchess County – Contract Monitoring (2023M-142)
County officials did not obtain reasonable assurance that certain services with vendors were provided in accordance with contract terms, and payments were appropriate and supported. As a result, various department officials responsible for overseeing the contracts approved claims totaling approximately $4.5 million without ensuring that required contract progress, outcome and budget reports were provided. The comptroller approved claims totaling approximately $10.5 million without supporting documentation from county departments. Expenditures for one contract exceeded the agreed upon contract amount by $215,395.

Long Beach City School District – Financial Management (Nassau County)
The board and district officials did not effectively manage the district’s fund balance and did not present the district’s spending plans in a transparent and meaningful manner. While real property tax levies remained the same since 2020-21, the district’s budgeting practices resulted in tax levies being higher than necessary. The board and officials reported surplus fund balance that exceeded the statutory 4% limit in three of the four years reviewed by as much as 5 percentage points. The district transferred a total of $17.3 million of the general fund’s excess fund balance at the end of two of the four fiscal years reviewed to the capital projects fund. Prior to the fiscal year-end transfers that totaled about $13.4 million, the surplus fund balance exceeded the statutory limit by as much as 9 percentage points and overestimated appropriations by an average of approximately $2.5 million annually and underestimated revenues by an average of $1.6 million annually for a three-year period.

Delaware Academy Central School District @ Delhi – Financial Management (Delaware County)
The board and district officials failed to properly manage fund balance and reserves. The board and officials’ appropriated fund balance that was not needed and maintained unreasonable reserve balances that circumvented the statutory limit on surplus fund balance and resulted in a real property tax levy that was higher than needed to fund operations. From the 2020-21 through 2022-23 fiscal years, the board and district officials overestimated budgetary appropriations by a total of $5 million (8.6%) and developed budgets that appropriated fund balance to address planned budget gaps totaling approximately $2.5 million. However, the district had operating surpluses totaling approximately $3.2 million and the planned budget gaps were not realized and it reported a surplus fund balance that exceeded the statutory limit by $2.2 million, or 10.4 percentage points, as of June 30, 2023.

Falconer Central School District – Financial Management (Chautauqua County)
Although 2009 and 2016 audits identified that the board and district officials did not properly manage fund balance and reserves, a new audit found officials did not implement corrective action. The board and district officials allowed surplus fund balance to exceed the statutory limit as of June 30, 2023 by 20 percentage points, or $6.1 million and consistently overestimated budgetary appropriations by an annual average of $3.7 million (17%). Officials could not demonstrate that three reserves with balances totaling more than $4 million were properly maintained or reasonably funded.

Southern Westchester Board of Cooperative Educational Service (Westchester County)
BOCES officials did not adequately secure nonstudent network user accounts, maintain complete and accurate information technology (IT) inventory records and develop an IT contingency plan. As a result, BOCES officials cannot ensure that IT systems, which contain personal, private and sensitive information (PPSI), along with physical IT assets, are properly safeguarded from inappropriate use and access. In addition, auditors determined that 101 enabled nonstudent network accounts were no longer needed and, if accessed by attackers, could be used to inappropriately access and view personal, private and sensitive information or disable the network. 16 IT assets could not be traced to or from BOCES’ inventory system and 40 IT assets were not properly recorded in the system.

###

 

 

New York City employee fined $10,000 after being found guilty of working at a second job during his "City Work Hours" and receiving compensation from the City that he did not earn

The Conflicts of Interest Board adopted New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge Julia H. Lee’s recommendation to impose a $10,000 fine for a New York City Housing Administration [NYCHA] building maintenance supervisor [Employee] who worked a second job during city work hours.

Employee worked at NYCHA’s Long Island City office in Queens from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or alternatively 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 a.m., but had a second job at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan from 4 p.m. to 12 a.m.

Employee claimed he maintained the two jobs with overlapping work hours by taking his lunch hour at his city job at the end of the workday and using this time to commute to his second job. However, a comparison of his NYCHA city timesheet and Mount Sinai access card swipe history showed overlapping periods of time during which Employee was working at Mount Sinai during his NYCHA’s work hours.

Judge Lee rejected Employee’s argument that he had a flexible schedule at his city job, which permitted him to start and end his NYCHA work early and take his lunch hour at the end of the day. The Administrative Law Judge found that Employee used his managerial flextime erroneously and liberally without supervisory approval on a regular basis. The ALJ determined Employee spent 109 hours working at Mount Sinai during his NYCHA city work hours, thus receiving $6,014.93 from NYCHA that he did not earn. 

Click HERE to access Judge Julia H. Lee’s decision and recommendation posted on the Internet