A two-year gap between the employee's alleged protected activity and the alleged adverse action by the employer held "too remote to warrant an inference of causal connection."

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's determination that Petitioner [Plaintiff]  failed to demonstrate that the New York City Department of Education's [DOE] determination to discontinue her probationary position as assistant principal "'was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, violative of a statute, or done in bad faith."

Plaintiff' had alleged that the discontinuance was in retaliation for her purported refusal to negatively evaluate two teachers. Supreme Court found that Plaintiff's  "unsupported allegation failed to evidence bad faith". 

The Appellate Division's decision indicates that there was a two-year gap between the alleged protected activity and thus any adverse action by DOE was "too remote to warrant an inference of causal connection."

In addition, the Appellate Division said that the record "includes evidence of disciplinary letters showing dissatisfaction with [Plaintiff's] work performance that predate the alleged protected activity, demonstrating DOE's good faith and its refuting the allegation of retaliation.

The Appellate Division also opined that Plaintiff's claim that her annual work performance ratings are unfair and inaccurate, even if true, did not establish bad faith on the part of DOE in view of the fact that Plaintiff failed to show that the issuance of the unsatisfactory rating which preceded her discontinuance was arbitrary and capricious.

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision.

 

New York Employment Law: The Essential Guide

New York Employment Law: The Essential Guide Editors Louis P. DiLorenzo and Jeffrey Kehl have called upon the collective experience of dozens of contributors to compile this new reference book on New York employment law. Covering a wide range of state substantive and regulatory employment issues, New York Employment Law: The Essential Guide is formatted in an easily accessible, Question-and-Answer format and offers clear and succinct responses to more than 450 employment law questions.

Topics addressed include hiring and interviewing employees, employee and employer rights and obligations, the worker’s compensation framework and regulatory schemes for maintaining a safe workplace, disability issues, unemployment insurance, unfair competition, discrimination in the workplace, and disciplinary policies and procedures.

For more information click HERE

Municipal and school district audits issued during the week ending February 5, 2021

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following municipal and school district audits were issued during the week ending February 5, 2021.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the complete audit report

 MUNICIPAL AUDITS

Town of Owasco – Real Property Tax Exemptions Administration (Cayuga County)  

The assessor did not properly administer select real property tax exemptions. Granted property exemptions were not always properly applied for or supported. Of the 99 property tax exemptions that auditors reviewed, 75 of the exemptions totaling over $4.1 million were not properly applied for or supported. Property owners received $4,014 in 2019 town tax reductions for these unsupported exemptions.

 

Stamford-Harpersfield-Kortright Fire District – Financial Activities (Delaware County)  

The board did not establish adequate controls or provide adequate fiscal oversight of the treasurer. As a result, district assets were not safeguarded. The board did not adequately monitor fiscal operations and properly document disbursement approvals. The board also did not conduct required audits or adopt a procurement policy, investment policy or code of ethics, as required. Although the treasurer’s financial records and reports that auditors reviewed were accurate, and financial transactions were appropriate and properly accounted for, the treasurer performed all financial duties, including receiving and disbursing cash, signing district checks and maintaining the accounting records, with no oversight.

 

SCHOOL DISTRICT AUDITS

Groton Central School District – Cash Management (Cayuga County, Cortland County and Tompkins County)

School district officials did not maximize interest earnings. During the audit period, the district’s interest earnings totaled $72,555, but the district could have earned another $367,963 if officials invested available funds in a financial institution that offered higher interest rates. Business officials did not develop and manage a comprehensive investment program or comply with the district’s board of education’s investment policy. District officials should solicit interest rate quotes to maximize interest earnings and prepare monthly cash flow forecasts.

 

The Workers' Compensation Law provides the exclusive remedy if an employee is injured by a coworker while both are performing the duties of their positions

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the petitioners* appealed the Supreme Court granting the respondents, a Police District and a coworker, respective motions to dismiss the complaint insofar as they were named as a defendants.

The genesis of this action was an accident involving a police officer [Plaintiff] operating a Police District police motorcycle in his official capacity colliding with a Police District vehicle operated by another Police District police officer. Supreme Court granted the Police District's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint based on the Police District's argument that Plaintiffs' action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. Plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling.

The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court "properly granted" the Police District's motion explaining that in considering a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), "the documentary evidence must utterly refute the plaintiff's factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law."

Citing Gould v Decolator, 121 AD3d 845, the Appellate Division observed that the Police District had submitted documentary evidence conclusively establishing that the Petitioners' causes of action insofar as asserted against it were barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law.

In addition, the Appellate Division opined that Supreme Court properly awarded summary judgment to Plaintiff''s coworker as the Workers' Compensation Law was "designed to ensure that an employee injured in the course of his or her employment will be made whole and to protect a co-employee who, acting within the scope of his or her employment, caused the injury." Further, the court observed that Workers' compensation qualifies as an exclusive remedy when both the plaintiff and the defendant are acting within the scope of their employment, as co-employees, at the time of injury," citing Macchirole v Giamboi, 97 NY2d 147. 

The Appellate Division also noted that §29[6] of the Workers' Compensation Law provides that the right to compensation or benefits under this chapter, "shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee ... when such employee is injured or killed by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ" and a coworker has the protection of this exclusivity provision if he "was acting within the scope of his employment and was not engaged in a willful or intentional tort."

The Appellate Division held that, in this instance, the defendant police officer had established his prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him by establishing that both he and the Plaintiff were co-employees acting within the scope of their employment when the Plaintiff was injured.

* A police officer and his spouse suing derivatively were the petitioners in this action.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.