Transferring unit work
CSEA Local 1000 and Local 836, 32 PERB 3015
The City of Newburgh abolished its positions of animal control officers, who were represented by CSEA. The city unilaterally transferred the duties of the positions to the nonunit police officers represented by Local 836.
CSEA objected and filed an improper practice charge with PERB contending that the city had violated the Taylor Law when it unilaterally transferred “non-emergency” duties previously exclusively performed by the animal control officers.
Ultimately PERB affirmed its Director of Public Employment Practices and Representation’s ruling that “the abolishment of the unit positions was a legislative act by the City Council that was not reviewable under Section 209-a.1(d) of the Act.” PERB said that the Director “correctly found that this was a legislative action involving a nonmandatory subject of negotiation and was not violative of ... the Act.”
.
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 possibly 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
October 07, 2010
PERB finds employer dismissed probationer because of union activity; orders employee to be given a second probationary period
PERB finds employer dismissed probationer because of union activity; orders employee to be given a second probationary period
CSEA Local 1000 and Westchester County, 32 PERB 3017
Westchester County terminated probationary employee Michael Holcomb.
CSEA objected, contending that Holcomb was discharged because of his participation in union-related “protected activities” in violation of the Taylor Law.
PERB’s administrative law judge [ALJ] ruled that Kenneth Grauer, Holcomb’s supervisor, wrote a negative evaluation that was “tainted by union animus” and that this contributed to Holcomb’s dismissal.
Westchester appealed, arguing that Holcomb’s separation “was motivated by only legitimate business reasons” and, further, Holcomb was not protected in his activities because “he was not a union representative and was not engaged in union-sanctioned activity.”
PERB agreed with the ALJ’s finding but said that the remedial order should be modified. “Grauer believed Holcomb to be a union activist and that belief contributed to his negative recommendation.” PERB said that action taken against a unit member based upon a belief can violate the Taylor Law, citing its ruling in Holbrook Fire Department, 30 PERB 3062.
PERB commented that “while it may be true that an employer is free to terminate a probationary employee for any cause or no cause at all, this principle plainly does not apply if the employee is terminated in violation of law.”
PERB directed Westchester to offer Holcomb a second probationary period under another supervisor. It also said that if Holcomb successfully completed this second probationary period, which should not be less than the minimum probationary period authorized, Westchester should compensate him for lost pay and benefits, “less any earnings or other compensation received by him” from the date of his probationary termination through the date of his reinstatement to his former title.
.
CSEA Local 1000 and Westchester County, 32 PERB 3017
Westchester County terminated probationary employee Michael Holcomb.
CSEA objected, contending that Holcomb was discharged because of his participation in union-related “protected activities” in violation of the Taylor Law.
PERB’s administrative law judge [ALJ] ruled that Kenneth Grauer, Holcomb’s supervisor, wrote a negative evaluation that was “tainted by union animus” and that this contributed to Holcomb’s dismissal.
Westchester appealed, arguing that Holcomb’s separation “was motivated by only legitimate business reasons” and, further, Holcomb was not protected in his activities because “he was not a union representative and was not engaged in union-sanctioned activity.”
PERB agreed with the ALJ’s finding but said that the remedial order should be modified. “Grauer believed Holcomb to be a union activist and that belief contributed to his negative recommendation.” PERB said that action taken against a unit member based upon a belief can violate the Taylor Law, citing its ruling in Holbrook Fire Department, 30 PERB 3062.
PERB commented that “while it may be true that an employer is free to terminate a probationary employee for any cause or no cause at all, this principle plainly does not apply if the employee is terminated in violation of law.”
PERB directed Westchester to offer Holcomb a second probationary period under another supervisor. It also said that if Holcomb successfully completed this second probationary period, which should not be less than the minimum probationary period authorized, Westchester should compensate him for lost pay and benefits, “less any earnings or other compensation received by him” from the date of his probationary termination through the date of his reinstatement to his former title.
.
Reverse discrimination
Reverse discrimination
Hayden v Nassau County, CA2, 180 F.3d 42
The Hayden decision sets out some of the major considerations that are relevant in attempting to demonstrate “reverse discrimination” in civil service examinations.
After an exam was administered to 25,000 police department applicants in Nassau County in 1994, experts evaluated the 25 test sections administered to determine if any had an adverse impact on minority test-takers as well as whether the test questions were sufficiently job-related. The county only counted nine of the 25 test sections in computing the exam score. William Hayden and 67 other white, Latino and female applicants to the Nassau County Police Department brought a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that “a police officers’ entrance exam designed to minimize the discriminatory impact on minority candidates necessarily discriminated against them.”
The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York affirmed a U.S. district judge’s dismissal of the action. It called the exam a “race-neutral entrance examination with the purpose of eliminating or reducing the differential effects suffered by minority candidates.” Although Nassau County was “conscious of race” in redesigning its entrance exam, “it treated all persons equally in the administration of the exam,” the court said. Everyone took the same test and all tests were scored in the same manner, and no differential cutoffs or race norming was used, the court said.
The Court of Appeals rejected all of the arguments presented by Hayden, holding that he had failed to allege facts that, if proven true, would entitle the class to relief. Reviewing each of Hayden’s theories justifying relief, the court said that:
1. Equal protection: To state a claim for an equal protection violation, appellants must allege that a government actor intentionally discriminated against them on the basis of race, national origin or gender. Here is undisputed that the exam was administered and scored in an identical fashion for all applicants. The exam was not scored differently on the basis of a candidate’s ethnicity or gender, nor were differential cut-off points used for applicants of different races or sexes. In contrast to affirmative action tools, such as quota systems, set-aside programs, and differential scoring cutoffs, which utilize express racial classifications and which prevent non-minorities from competing for specific slots or contracts, the Circuit Court said that Nassau’s efforts were not unlawful.
2. Facially neutral policy applied in discriminatory manner: Also rejected was Hayden’s arguments concerning facially neutral ordinance was discriminatorily applied.
3. Discriminatory intent and effect: Although Hayden claimed “an equal protection violation”, the court said it agreed with the district court’s conclusion that in order to prevail it must be alleged that Nassau County harbored a discriminatory intent against the class and that the entrance examination disproportionately impacted them. No such claims which would demonstrate either discriminatory intent or discriminatory impact were put forth.
The court’s conclusion: “Nassau County sought to design a police officers’ entrance examination which would reduce the discriminatory impact of its hiring practices on minority candidates. Although the decision to redesign the exam certainly took race into account, the exam was administered and scored in a wholly race-neutral fashion. We conclude that race-neutral efforts to address and rectify the racially disproportionate effects of an entrance examination do not discriminate against non-minorities.”
Accordingly, the Circuit Court ruled that “the 68 white and Latino appellants, male and female, in this case fail to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, Section 703 of Title VII, and Sections 106 and 107 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.”
.
Hayden v Nassau County, CA2, 180 F.3d 42
The Hayden decision sets out some of the major considerations that are relevant in attempting to demonstrate “reverse discrimination” in civil service examinations.
After an exam was administered to 25,000 police department applicants in Nassau County in 1994, experts evaluated the 25 test sections administered to determine if any had an adverse impact on minority test-takers as well as whether the test questions were sufficiently job-related. The county only counted nine of the 25 test sections in computing the exam score. William Hayden and 67 other white, Latino and female applicants to the Nassau County Police Department brought a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that “a police officers’ entrance exam designed to minimize the discriminatory impact on minority candidates necessarily discriminated against them.”
The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New York affirmed a U.S. district judge’s dismissal of the action. It called the exam a “race-neutral entrance examination with the purpose of eliminating or reducing the differential effects suffered by minority candidates.” Although Nassau County was “conscious of race” in redesigning its entrance exam, “it treated all persons equally in the administration of the exam,” the court said. Everyone took the same test and all tests were scored in the same manner, and no differential cutoffs or race norming was used, the court said.
The Court of Appeals rejected all of the arguments presented by Hayden, holding that he had failed to allege facts that, if proven true, would entitle the class to relief. Reviewing each of Hayden’s theories justifying relief, the court said that:
1. Equal protection: To state a claim for an equal protection violation, appellants must allege that a government actor intentionally discriminated against them on the basis of race, national origin or gender. Here is undisputed that the exam was administered and scored in an identical fashion for all applicants. The exam was not scored differently on the basis of a candidate’s ethnicity or gender, nor were differential cut-off points used for applicants of different races or sexes. In contrast to affirmative action tools, such as quota systems, set-aside programs, and differential scoring cutoffs, which utilize express racial classifications and which prevent non-minorities from competing for specific slots or contracts, the Circuit Court said that Nassau’s efforts were not unlawful.
2. Facially neutral policy applied in discriminatory manner: Also rejected was Hayden’s arguments concerning facially neutral ordinance was discriminatorily applied.
3. Discriminatory intent and effect: Although Hayden claimed “an equal protection violation”, the court said it agreed with the district court’s conclusion that in order to prevail it must be alleged that Nassau County harbored a discriminatory intent against the class and that the entrance examination disproportionately impacted them. No such claims which would demonstrate either discriminatory intent or discriminatory impact were put forth.
The court’s conclusion: “Nassau County sought to design a police officers’ entrance examination which would reduce the discriminatory impact of its hiring practices on minority candidates. Although the decision to redesign the exam certainly took race into account, the exam was administered and scored in a wholly race-neutral fashion. We conclude that race-neutral efforts to address and rectify the racially disproportionate effects of an entrance examination do not discriminate against non-minorities.”
Accordingly, the Circuit Court ruled that “the 68 white and Latino appellants, male and female, in this case fail to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause, Section 703 of Title VII, and Sections 106 and 107 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.”
.
October 06, 2010
An interim award by an arbitrator does not constitute a "final determination” for the purposes of an Article 75 appeal challenging the award
An interim award by an arbitrator does not constitute a "final determination” for the purposes of an Article 75 appeal challenging the award
Matter of Geneva City School Dist. v Anonymous, 2010 NY Slip Op 06915, Decided on October 1, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
The Geneva City School District filed 16 disciplinary charges pursuant to Education Law §3020-a against a tenured teacher [Anonymous] employed by the district.
Anonymous asked for a hearing, and the parties selected, "by mutual agreement," an arbitrator to serve as the Hearing Officer pursuant to §3020-a[3][b][ii] of the Education Law. At the commencement of the hearing, Anonymous moved for summary judgment dismissing 11 of the 16 charges. The Hearing Officer made an "interim award" granting the motion. Before the hearing reconvened to consider the remaining 5 charges filed against Anonymous, Geneva filed an Article 75 action seeking to vacate the interim award, contending that it was irrational and violated an important public policy.
Supreme Court rejected Geneva’s arguments and denied the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling, explaining that “The interim award was not ‘a final and definite award’ resolving the matter submitted for arbitration” within the meaning of CPLR §7511[b][1][iii].
In the words of the Appellate Division, “Inasmuch as the interim award does not constitute a ‘final determination made at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings’ there is no authority for judicial intervention at this juncture.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06915.htm
NYPPL
Matter of Geneva City School Dist. v Anonymous, 2010 NY Slip Op 06915, Decided on October 1, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
The Geneva City School District filed 16 disciplinary charges pursuant to Education Law §3020-a against a tenured teacher [Anonymous] employed by the district.
Anonymous asked for a hearing, and the parties selected, "by mutual agreement," an arbitrator to serve as the Hearing Officer pursuant to §3020-a[3][b][ii] of the Education Law. At the commencement of the hearing, Anonymous moved for summary judgment dismissing 11 of the 16 charges. The Hearing Officer made an "interim award" granting the motion. Before the hearing reconvened to consider the remaining 5 charges filed against Anonymous, Geneva filed an Article 75 action seeking to vacate the interim award, contending that it was irrational and violated an important public policy.
Supreme Court rejected Geneva’s arguments and denied the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling, explaining that “The interim award was not ‘a final and definite award’ resolving the matter submitted for arbitration” within the meaning of CPLR §7511[b][1][iii].
In the words of the Appellate Division, “Inasmuch as the interim award does not constitute a ‘final determination made at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings’ there is no authority for judicial intervention at this juncture.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06915.htm
NYPPL
Termination for inability to produce proof of possession of a required license or certificate is not a dismissal in the nature of discipline
Termination for inability to produce proof of possession of a required license or certificate is not a dismissal in the nature of discipline
Matter of Cravatta v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2010 NY Slip Op 06952, decided on October 1, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Michael J. Cravatta, a Highway Maintenance Worker with the NYS Department of Transportation, was required to possess a valid New York State Class B Commercial Drivers License [CDL] as a condition of his employment by the Department.
When Cravatta’s CDL was suspended, the Department terminated his employment without his being given a pre-termination hearing.
Cravatta sued and Supreme Court granted his petition seeking to annul the determination terminating him from his position. Transportation appealed the lower court’s ruling.
The Appellate Division, stating that “Supreme Court erred …,” reversed the lower court “on the law” and dismissed Cravatta’s petition in its entirety.
The court said that as Cravatta was “required to maintain” a CDL, he was properly terminated after his CDL was suspended because he lacked one of the credentials required for his position.
Further, said the court, “Cravatta's termination was not disciplinary in nature and thus was subject to neither the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement nor the provisions of Civil Service Law §75,” citing Matter of New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. v Lanterman, 14 NY3d 275.
NYPPL Comment: Courts have viewed employees who lack licenses as being “unqualified,” in contrast to being “incompetent,” to perform the duties of the position. Indeed, it could be argued that the employer has no alternative, as it could be considered unlawful to permit an unlicensed individual to perform the duties for which a license is required.
Although the loss of a required drivers license if frequently the basis for an employee being summarily terminated, the loss of an attorney’s license to practice law or the expiration of a temporary permit to teach would also result such action.
All that appears to be necessary in such cases is for the appointing authority to make some reasonable inquiry to determine if the employee may lawfully perform the duties of the position and provide the individual a reasonable opportunity to produce a valid license or certificate.
Essentially, the courts have held that where an individual is required to hold a valid license in order to perform the duties of the position and the employee losses the required license or it expires, the individual cannot be allowed to perform the duties of the position.
This proposition was explored by the Appellate Division in Martin ex rel Lekkas, 86 AD2d 712.
Lekkas, an Assistant Clinical Physician had been permanently appointed to a position in the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,. He was subsequently terminated from his position without notice or hearing because he did not obtain the required license to practice medicine in New York State issued by the Education Department (Education Law Section 8522).*
The Appellate Division affirmed a lower court ruling that Lekkas’ termination was unlawful.
The court explained that although it was lawful to summarily discharge an employee without notice and hearing if the worker is unable to produce his or her required license, this could be done only if the duties being performed required the possession of the license.
According to the record, Lekkas was performing administrative duties rather than “practicing medicine.” As he was not engaged in the practice of medicine, Lekkas was not “unqualified” with respect to performing his administrative duties without the license that would have been otherwise required had he been engaged in the practice of medicine.
* The issue arose after the Education Law was amended to require persons previously appointed as physicians to obtain a license to practice medicine. Lekkas had been appointed to the position Assistant Clinical Physician prior to the amendment but had not obtained a New York State license to practice medicine within the prescribed time period.
The Cravatta decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06952.htm
NYPPL
Matter of Cravatta v New York State Dept. of Transp., 2010 NY Slip Op 06952, decided on October 1, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Michael J. Cravatta, a Highway Maintenance Worker with the NYS Department of Transportation, was required to possess a valid New York State Class B Commercial Drivers License [CDL] as a condition of his employment by the Department.
When Cravatta’s CDL was suspended, the Department terminated his employment without his being given a pre-termination hearing.
Cravatta sued and Supreme Court granted his petition seeking to annul the determination terminating him from his position. Transportation appealed the lower court’s ruling.
The Appellate Division, stating that “Supreme Court erred …,” reversed the lower court “on the law” and dismissed Cravatta’s petition in its entirety.
The court said that as Cravatta was “required to maintain” a CDL, he was properly terminated after his CDL was suspended because he lacked one of the credentials required for his position.
Further, said the court, “Cravatta's termination was not disciplinary in nature and thus was subject to neither the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement nor the provisions of Civil Service Law §75,” citing Matter of New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. v Lanterman, 14 NY3d 275.
NYPPL Comment: Courts have viewed employees who lack licenses as being “unqualified,” in contrast to being “incompetent,” to perform the duties of the position. Indeed, it could be argued that the employer has no alternative, as it could be considered unlawful to permit an unlicensed individual to perform the duties for which a license is required.
Although the loss of a required drivers license if frequently the basis for an employee being summarily terminated, the loss of an attorney’s license to practice law or the expiration of a temporary permit to teach would also result such action.
All that appears to be necessary in such cases is for the appointing authority to make some reasonable inquiry to determine if the employee may lawfully perform the duties of the position and provide the individual a reasonable opportunity to produce a valid license or certificate.
Essentially, the courts have held that where an individual is required to hold a valid license in order to perform the duties of the position and the employee losses the required license or it expires, the individual cannot be allowed to perform the duties of the position.
This proposition was explored by the Appellate Division in Martin ex rel Lekkas, 86 AD2d 712.
Lekkas, an Assistant Clinical Physician had been permanently appointed to a position in the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,. He was subsequently terminated from his position without notice or hearing because he did not obtain the required license to practice medicine in New York State issued by the Education Department (Education Law Section 8522).*
The Appellate Division affirmed a lower court ruling that Lekkas’ termination was unlawful.
The court explained that although it was lawful to summarily discharge an employee without notice and hearing if the worker is unable to produce his or her required license, this could be done only if the duties being performed required the possession of the license.
According to the record, Lekkas was performing administrative duties rather than “practicing medicine.” As he was not engaged in the practice of medicine, Lekkas was not “unqualified” with respect to performing his administrative duties without the license that would have been otherwise required had he been engaged in the practice of medicine.
* The issue arose after the Education Law was amended to require persons previously appointed as physicians to obtain a license to practice medicine. Lekkas had been appointed to the position Assistant Clinical Physician prior to the amendment but had not obtained a New York State license to practice medicine within the prescribed time period.
The Cravatta decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06952.htm
NYPPL
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 information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL.
For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf.
Accordingly, the information and case 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