Drug dependency not a disability under New York’s Human Rights Law
Matter of Michael Kirk v City of New York, 47 AD3d 406
Michael Kirk was terminated from his position with the New York City Fire Department after testing positive for cocaine in a random drug test.
The Appellate Division rejected Kirk’s contention that the Department’s random drug testing policy is unconstitutional and decided that the penalty of termination for substance abuse “does not shock the conscience,” citing Reinhard v City of New York, 34 AD3 376, leave to appeal denied, 8 NY3d 808.
The court pointed out that while alcohol dependency qualifies as a disability under the New York State Human Rights Law, drug abuse does not and Kirk was unable to prove that his drug abuse was causally related to his alcoholism.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_00037.htm
Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and in other jurisdictions in general.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS
June 28, 2010
Two-part test applied in resolving union’s improper practice charge
Two-part test applied in resolving union’s improper practice charge
Matter of Social Service Employees Union, Local 371, (Aubrey Norris) v New York City Bd. of Collective Bargaining, 47 AD3d 417
The Appellate Division upheld a determination by the New York City Board of Collective Bargaining that denied Local 371’s claim that the New York City Administration for Children’s Services [ACS] committed an improper practice petition when it denied a union official access to its headquarters to perform his duties as a union official.
Aubrey Norris, a Local 3761 officer, claimed that security officers employed by ACS “had interfered with access to ACS headquarters to perform his duties as a union official, in violation of the New York City Collective Bargaining Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 12-306[a]).”
The Board decided that Norris failed to establish a violation under the applicable two-part test: [1] proof that the employer's agent responsible for the allegedly discriminatory act had knowledge of the employee's protected union activity, and [2] that such activity was a motivating factor for the employer's action.
The Board found that while it was undisputed these ACS employees knew of Norris's union activity, the evidence indicated their actions were motivated by personal animus toward Norris rather than toward him as a union representative, noting that other union representatives had no difficulty gaining access to the building for union business, and Norris was never actually prevented from entering the building.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_00052.htm
Matter of Social Service Employees Union, Local 371, (Aubrey Norris) v New York City Bd. of Collective Bargaining, 47 AD3d 417
The Appellate Division upheld a determination by the New York City Board of Collective Bargaining that denied Local 371’s claim that the New York City Administration for Children’s Services [ACS] committed an improper practice petition when it denied a union official access to its headquarters to perform his duties as a union official.
Aubrey Norris, a Local 3761 officer, claimed that security officers employed by ACS “had interfered with access to ACS headquarters to perform his duties as a union official, in violation of the New York City Collective Bargaining Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 12-306[a]).”
The Board decided that Norris failed to establish a violation under the applicable two-part test: [1] proof that the employer's agent responsible for the allegedly discriminatory act had knowledge of the employee's protected union activity, and [2] that such activity was a motivating factor for the employer's action.
The Board found that while it was undisputed these ACS employees knew of Norris's union activity, the evidence indicated their actions were motivated by personal animus toward Norris rather than toward him as a union representative, noting that other union representatives had no difficulty gaining access to the building for union business, and Norris was never actually prevented from entering the building.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_00052.htm
Former employees alleged they were the target of selective prosecution in administrative disciplinary action
Former employees alleged they were the target of selective prosecution in administrative disciplinary action
Bey v New York City Civil Service Commission, Supreme Court, Justice Madden, 2001 NY Slip Op 30058(U), [not officially reported]
New York City conducted an investigation to determine which employees were claiming tax-exempt status or were claiming an excessive number of exemptions. About 1,400 City employees were identified, including the Bey correction officers.
Pedro Rivera Bey, Oba Hassan Wat Bey, Edward Ebanks, Herbert L. Hinnant, and Michael Nichols [hereinafter collectively referred to as Bey] are former tenured New York City Correction Department officers.
Identifying themselves as "Black and of Moorish national origin,” and believing that they were exempt from federal and state taxes, they filed Federal and New York State tax forms claiming exemptions from income tax withholdings. Some of these correction officers also filed IRS forms for nonresident aliens or filed self-made forms entitled "Certificates of Foreign Status for Moorish-Americans."
In April 1998, the Correction Department served disciplinary charges alleging that the Bey employees had engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer by: 1) knowingly submitting Federal and State tax forms falsely claiming exemption from taxation; 2) submitting false tax information with the intent to defraud the State of New York; and 3) violating their oaths of office by submitting documents disclaiming their United States citizenship.
The City's Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] held a joint hearing for 17 Correction Department employees pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 75. OATH found that Bey and his co-plaintiffs were guilty of all charges filed against them except their alleged "disclaiming of their United States citizenship." The Department imposed the penalty recommended by OATH: termination.
In response to an appeal filed by the Bey employees pursuant to Section 76 of the Civil Service Law, the City's Civil Service affirmed the Correction Department's dismissal Bey correction officers.
Bey's appeal to State Supreme Court set out several claims but only one survived: the claim that "[t]he charges, the hearing procedures and the discharge of the [Bey officers] violated their statutory and constitutional rights." The Supreme Court justice ruled that Bey raised a triable issue when he alleged that employees who were not Moorish-Americans and who engaged in the same or similar misconduct, were permitted to change their W-4s and, further, these employees were not discharged.
Justice Madden ruled that assuming that the allegations in Bey's petition were true, it is sufficient to raise the only issue here subject to judicial review pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules: the constitutional claim of selective prosecution.
In making a claim of selective prosecution, the individual alleges that he or she has been denied his or her constitutional right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and the New York State Constitution forbidding a public authority from applying or enforcing an admitted valid law "with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances.
According to the decision, both the "unequal hand" and the "evil eye" requirements must be proven: i.e., there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also "that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification."
The court said that Bey's petition alleges that he and his co-correction officers were singled out based upon their race, religion and, or, national origin, because the Correction Department and other City agencies permitted "other employees" who were not "Moorish-American" to change their withholding forms, and no disciplinary charges were filed against them and they were not discharged.
As these allegations were found sufficient to state a cause of action for impermissible discriminatory prosecution, the court dismissed all of Bey's allegations except those dealing with the selective prosecution claim and said that a trial was required to resolve this issue.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2001/2001_30058.pdf
Bey v New York City Civil Service Commission, Supreme Court, Justice Madden, 2001 NY Slip Op 30058(U), [not officially reported]
New York City conducted an investigation to determine which employees were claiming tax-exempt status or were claiming an excessive number of exemptions. About 1,400 City employees were identified, including the Bey correction officers.
Pedro Rivera Bey, Oba Hassan Wat Bey, Edward Ebanks, Herbert L. Hinnant, and Michael Nichols [hereinafter collectively referred to as Bey] are former tenured New York City Correction Department officers.
Identifying themselves as "Black and of Moorish national origin,” and believing that they were exempt from federal and state taxes, they filed Federal and New York State tax forms claiming exemptions from income tax withholdings. Some of these correction officers also filed IRS forms for nonresident aliens or filed self-made forms entitled "Certificates of Foreign Status for Moorish-Americans."
In April 1998, the Correction Department served disciplinary charges alleging that the Bey employees had engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer by: 1) knowingly submitting Federal and State tax forms falsely claiming exemption from taxation; 2) submitting false tax information with the intent to defraud the State of New York; and 3) violating their oaths of office by submitting documents disclaiming their United States citizenship.
The City's Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] held a joint hearing for 17 Correction Department employees pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 75. OATH found that Bey and his co-plaintiffs were guilty of all charges filed against them except their alleged "disclaiming of their United States citizenship." The Department imposed the penalty recommended by OATH: termination.
In response to an appeal filed by the Bey employees pursuant to Section 76 of the Civil Service Law, the City's Civil Service affirmed the Correction Department's dismissal Bey correction officers.
Bey's appeal to State Supreme Court set out several claims but only one survived: the claim that "[t]he charges, the hearing procedures and the discharge of the [Bey officers] violated their statutory and constitutional rights." The Supreme Court justice ruled that Bey raised a triable issue when he alleged that employees who were not Moorish-Americans and who engaged in the same or similar misconduct, were permitted to change their W-4s and, further, these employees were not discharged.
Justice Madden ruled that assuming that the allegations in Bey's petition were true, it is sufficient to raise the only issue here subject to judicial review pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules: the constitutional claim of selective prosecution.
In making a claim of selective prosecution, the individual alleges that he or she has been denied his or her constitutional right to equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and the New York State Constitution forbidding a public authority from applying or enforcing an admitted valid law "with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances.
According to the decision, both the "unequal hand" and the "evil eye" requirements must be proven: i.e., there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also "that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification."
The court said that Bey's petition alleges that he and his co-correction officers were singled out based upon their race, religion and, or, national origin, because the Correction Department and other City agencies permitted "other employees" who were not "Moorish-American" to change their withholding forms, and no disciplinary charges were filed against them and they were not discharged.
As these allegations were found sufficient to state a cause of action for impermissible discriminatory prosecution, the court dismissed all of Bey's allegations except those dealing with the selective prosecution claim and said that a trial was required to resolve this issue.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2001/2001_30058.pdf
June 25, 2010
In the absence of any “expressed” contractual limitations, an arbitrator is free to fashion a fitting and necessary remedy to a contract dispute
In the absence of any “expressed” contractual limitations, an arbitrator is free to fashion a fitting and necessary remedy to a contract dispute
Matter of City of New York v District Council 37 AFSCME, 2010 NY Slip Op 05671, Decided on June 24, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department
An arbitrator ruled that a number of individuals employed as New York City Public Health Advisors (PHAs) by the City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene were entitled to $1,800 for each year since the filing of the grievance claiming that they had been performing out-of-title work.
The City appealed, contending that any monetary remedy for the out-of-title work should be “the difference in pay between existing titles covered under the parties' collective bargaining agreement, and not some "new term" of compensation "created" by the arbitrator.” The City argued that the remedy provided by the arbitrator was “in excess of her powers under the collective bargaining agreement and contrary to the public policy that compensation be negotiated.”
Supreme Court dismissed the City’s appeal and the Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s determination.
The Appellate Division said that regardless of any arbitral precedent there might be for such a limitation on the arbitrator's remedy-fashioning powers under collective bargaining agreements like this one, “it plainly can have no application where, as here, there is no dispute that the hybrid out-of-title duties performed by the PHAs do not match the job specifications of any other existing titles.”
Under the circumstances, said the court, “an arbitrator's powers are not limited, as the City appears to argue, to a cease and desist order.”
As there was no “plain and express contractual limitation” in the collective bargaining agreement limiting the powers of the arbitrator, “the arbitrator properly directed the parties to negotiate; when the negotiations reached an impasse, the arbitrator properly invited the parties to submit proof of the value of the out-of-title services performed, including their last best offers; and, on that basis, fashioned fitting and necessary relief.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_05671.htm
Matter of City of New York v District Council 37 AFSCME, 2010 NY Slip Op 05671, Decided on June 24, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department
An arbitrator ruled that a number of individuals employed as New York City Public Health Advisors (PHAs) by the City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene were entitled to $1,800 for each year since the filing of the grievance claiming that they had been performing out-of-title work.
The City appealed, contending that any monetary remedy for the out-of-title work should be “the difference in pay between existing titles covered under the parties' collective bargaining agreement, and not some "new term" of compensation "created" by the arbitrator.” The City argued that the remedy provided by the arbitrator was “in excess of her powers under the collective bargaining agreement and contrary to the public policy that compensation be negotiated.”
Supreme Court dismissed the City’s appeal and the Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s determination.
The Appellate Division said that regardless of any arbitral precedent there might be for such a limitation on the arbitrator's remedy-fashioning powers under collective bargaining agreements like this one, “it plainly can have no application where, as here, there is no dispute that the hybrid out-of-title duties performed by the PHAs do not match the job specifications of any other existing titles.”
Under the circumstances, said the court, “an arbitrator's powers are not limited, as the City appears to argue, to a cease and desist order.”
As there was no “plain and express contractual limitation” in the collective bargaining agreement limiting the powers of the arbitrator, “the arbitrator properly directed the parties to negotiate; when the negotiations reached an impasse, the arbitrator properly invited the parties to submit proof of the value of the out-of-title services performed, including their last best offers; and, on that basis, fashioned fitting and necessary relief.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_05671.htm
Having a residence in the jurisdiction not always the same as having a domicile in the jurisdiction
Having a residence in the jurisdiction not always the same as having a domicile in the jurisdiction
Matter of Johnson v Town of Amherst, 2010 NY Slip Op 05447, Decided on June 18, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
The Town of Amherst’s Town Code required its employees to be “domiciliaries of the Town.”
James I. Johnson’s family’s home, however, was in Elba, New York and the evidence in the action showed that he “listed the Elba address on his New York State income tax forms, that he had no intention of moving his family to [Amherst] and that he established residency in [Amherst] solely to comply with the original residency requirements of his employment.”
As a result Johnson was terminated from his position with Amherst for failing to comply with the Code’s requirement that he be a domiciliary of the Town.
Johnson sued and asked the court to annul his termination by the Town of Amherst based on its “residency requirement” that Town employees to be domiciliaries of the Town. Supreme Court sustained the Town’s decision and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
The Appellate Division explained that "[D]omicile means living in [a] locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home."*
Noting that "[j]udicial review of an administrative determination following a hearing required by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence," the Appellate Division said that the evidence presented at the hearing established that Johnson’s family lived in a home in Elba, and that he established a residency in the Town “solely to comply with the original residency requirements of his employment.”
The court concluded that the determination that Johnson is a domiciliary of Elba rather than the Town is supported by substantial evidence and dismissed his appeal.
The Appellate Division also commented that Johnson was fully apprised of the evidence that the Town would consider in making its determination and that he was given "numerous opportunities to respond and to present his own evidence" to establish that he, in fact, was domiciled in Amherst but that he failed to come forward with such evidence.
* Although an individual may have, and maintain, a number of different residences simultaneously, he or she can have, and maintain, only one domicile at a given time.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_05447.htm
Matter of Johnson v Town of Amherst, 2010 NY Slip Op 05447, Decided on June 18, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
The Town of Amherst’s Town Code required its employees to be “domiciliaries of the Town.”
James I. Johnson’s family’s home, however, was in Elba, New York and the evidence in the action showed that he “listed the Elba address on his New York State income tax forms, that he had no intention of moving his family to [Amherst] and that he established residency in [Amherst] solely to comply with the original residency requirements of his employment.”
As a result Johnson was terminated from his position with Amherst for failing to comply with the Code’s requirement that he be a domiciliary of the Town.
Johnson sued and asked the court to annul his termination by the Town of Amherst based on its “residency requirement” that Town employees to be domiciliaries of the Town. Supreme Court sustained the Town’s decision and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
The Appellate Division explained that "[D]omicile means living in [a] locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home."*
Noting that "[j]udicial review of an administrative determination following a hearing required by law is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence," the Appellate Division said that the evidence presented at the hearing established that Johnson’s family lived in a home in Elba, and that he established a residency in the Town “solely to comply with the original residency requirements of his employment.”
The court concluded that the determination that Johnson is a domiciliary of Elba rather than the Town is supported by substantial evidence and dismissed his appeal.
The Appellate Division also commented that Johnson was fully apprised of the evidence that the Town would consider in making its determination and that he was given "numerous opportunities to respond and to present his own evidence" to establish that he, in fact, was domiciled in Amherst but that he failed to come forward with such evidence.
* Although an individual may have, and maintain, a number of different residences simultaneously, he or she can have, and maintain, only one domicile at a given time.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_05447.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
CAUTION
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law.
Email: publications@nycap.rr.com