Communications between department’s attorney and agency employees privileged

Communications between department’s attorney and agency employees privileged
Coleman v City of New York, NYS Supreme Court, Judge Peck, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

In the private sector, conversations between an attorney and his or her client are private and cannot be disclosed without the client’s permission. If the employer is an entity such as the New York City Department of Health, and different employees speak with the department’s attorney, are such conversations privileged?

In the Coleman case, a state Supreme Court Justice ruled that the answer is yes.

State Supreme Court Judge George R. Peck said that the rules that applied in cases involving a private corporation were equally applicable to governmental employers. Just as the attorney-client privilege applies to confidential communications between a corporation and its attorneys, including communications between the corporation’s attorney and low-level corporate employees, the “Defendant City is a legal creation which acts through its employees, at all levels.”

Michael Coleman was terminated from his position at the Health Department in May 1998 as a result of having been prosecuted for taking bribes. Coleman denied taking any bribes and sued the city. His complaint alleged false arrest, malicious prosecution and related charges.

Coleman’s attorney attempted to depose a number of city employees concerning communications they had with an Assistant Corporation Counsel [ACC] concerning the case. The ACC objected, contending that conversations were privileged.

The attorney-client privilege generally excuses an attorney from having to disclose the content of communications concerning actual or potential litigation between the attorney and his or her client unless the client waives the privilege. Further, the attorney-client privilege may be invoked only by the client, or by the attorney on behalf of the client. The client, of course, may elect to “waive” the privilege.

Coleman’s attorney claimed that there was no attorney-client privilege because the employees he sought to depose had not asked the ACC to represent them in this litigation.

State Supreme Court Judge Peck decided that the communications were, in fact, privileged and prohibited Colemen’s attorney from deposing the employees concerning their conversations or other communications with the ACC. According to the ruling, it did not make any difference whether the employee-witness asked the Corporation Counsel to represent him or not -- the communications were privileged.

Judge Peck held that just as attorneys for corporations and for individual clients, the defendant City must have the same opportunity for a privileged “open dialogue” by its attorney in preparing city employee-witnesses for trial. Otherwise, the city “would be at a disadvantage in preparing for trial as compared to other types of parties.”

In the Matter of Lindsey Grand Jury Testimony, 148 F.3d 1100, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that if a public official wishes to claim the attorney-client privilege in connection with discussions involving “official business” with an attorney, he or she should employ and consult with a private attorney instead of discussing the matter with a government employee-attorney.

Here the issue was whether the conversation between the President of the United States and a federal government employee-attorney serving as his counsel for the purpose of obtaining legal advice triggered the attorney-client privilege with respect to compelling the attorney to testify before a grand jury concerning his conversations with the President. The Circuit Court ruled that in this instance no attorney-client relationship was created.
.

Social Media - its use by employers in pre-employment, employment and post-employment situations

Social Media - its use by employers in pre-employment, employment and post-employment situations
Source: Article by Eileen Morgan Johnson, Esq. of Whiteford, Taylor Preston [emjohnson@wtplaw.com ]. Copyright 2010 Eileen Morgan Johnson, All rights reserved
.

Part I - Social Media and Pre-employment Situations

Part II - Social Media and the Workplace

.

Part I

The use of social media in pre-employment situations

Pre-employment screening

Employers are taking advantage of the free information on social media websites and communication tools to screen applicants or to perform pre-offer due diligence on successful applicants. It's not just people in their 20's and 30's who have online profiles and the use of social media by human resource professionals is not a passing fad.

There are a variety of resources that can be consulted such as LinkedIn®, MySpace™ and Facebook. Users of these three sites create an individual profile that can include information about their work history, extracurricular activities, and contacts. Other sites such as Twitter™ and YouTube can also yield information on applicants that might be valuable in making a decision to extend or withhold an offer of employment. For those employers who are unsure about using social media sites, a simple search using Google™ or some other search engine can also yield potentially interesting information.

What are employers looking for? Social media profiles can provide a lot of valuable information. While an employer should not rely solely on these sites to verify information on employment applications, they can be used to discredit applicants or to provide another view of the person behind the resume or online application. Online profiles can provide information on the person's:

Professional credentials
Career objectives
Maturity and judgment
Abuse of drugs or alcohol
Current employment status

Red flags

A June 2009 CareerBuilder survey of 2,600 hiring managers found that 45% of them use social media in the hiring process. That was double the number of hiring managers that reported such use in 2008. What's more, 11% planned to start using social media for prescreening. Eighteen percent or almost one in five hiring managers surveyed reported finding information online that encouraged them to hire candidates:

Profile - good feel for personality and "fit"- 50%
Profile supported professional qualifications - 39%
Candidate was creative - 38%
Solid communication skills - 35%
Candidate well rounded - 33%
Good references posted by others - 19%
Candidate received awards - 15%

However, twice as many (35%) hiring managers reported finding information that led them to not hire a candidate, including:
Inappropriate photos or postings - 53%
Postings on drinking or drug use - 44%
Bad-mouthing previous employer, co-workers or clients - 35%
Poor communication skills - 29%
Discriminatory comments - 26%
Lied about qualifications - 24%
Shared confidential information from previous employer - 20%

Potential pitfalls of screening

Screening with social media has some drawbacks. It can provide too much information about job applicants, including some information that cannot be considered in the employment decision. Some online content can be questionable in terms of its origin or truthfulness. Moreover, some employers are concerned about invading applicants' privacy.

Too much information

Certain information that can be found in an applicant's online profile cannot be used as the basis for an employment decision. These include information on the applicant's race, religion, national origin, age, pregnancy status, marital status, disability, sexual orientation (some state and local jurisdictions), gender expression or identity (some state and local jurisdictions) and genetic information. While it is best to avoid obtaining or even seeing this information, it is often prominently displayed on social networking profiles.

A potential solution is to assign one person to review the social media sites who is not part of the decision making process. That person should filter out any information regarding membership in a protected class and only pass on information that may be considered in the hiring process. The most fundamental way to protect against discrimination claims in using information gleaned from social media sites in the employment decision process is consistency. Employers should keep records of information reviewed and used in any employment decision.

Quality of information

Online information is not always reliable. The first rule is to make sure that the person whose profile you are viewing is actually your job applicant. It is not unusual for people to have similar names or even the same name. If you have confirmed the identity of the applicant, keep in mind that there is a possibility that not all of the information in the profile is correct. Profile information might have been deliberately falsified by the applicant or a friend or significant other with access to the profile login information.

Employers should also recognize that any site provides a limited picture of the individual. Remember the intended audience. On sites like LinkedIn, the intended audience is other professionals. However, on Facebook and MySpace, profiles are often developed for close friends and family. And some people enjoy creating a new persona for their online life, one that has no relationship to who they are in real life.

Invasion of privacy

Employers have little risk that viewing applicants' profiles, blogs or other online postings will give rise to invasion of privacy claims. Users of social networking sites usually have the option to set privacy settings on their personal pages. Their personal pages can be available to any user of the network, or can be restricted to only individuals authorized by the user. A critical question to ask in evaluating an invasion of privacy claim is whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. To avoid the potential for liability, employers should avoid attempts at circumventing the privacy settings put in place by users. Only view information that is readily accessible and intended for public viewing.

Google™ and other search engines

In a recent Monster.com report, 77% of employers surveyed reported performing a "Google" search on job applicants. Google is popular for the amount of information that can be discovered and the ease of use. In addition to the concern noted above that a Google search might return too much information, there are additional concerns about the quality of the information retrieved. The breadth of information that a Google search can produce has its own drawbacks including difficulty in identifying sources of search results.

As of now, employers are unlikely to incur liability based on Google searches of job applicants. To further protect against liability, employers should be consistent in their search practices, recognize the limits of online searches, and be sure the information they find actually relates to their applicants.

Current law on reviewing social media sites

There are no court decisions yet imposing liability for an employer's review of a social networking site in the pre-employment context. This is not a guarantee that such liability will not be imposed in the future. For now, the potential for liability is minimal in the absence of misconduct or discrimination by the employer. The potential for liability can be further reduced by:

- Being consistent in prescreening all applicants for certain positions or only those already selected for interviews
- Having someone other than the decision maker filter out protected class information if possible
- Keeping records of the basis for each employment decision
- Not circumventing privacy settings established on applicants' networking sites

If employers have any questions about whether information found through pre-employment screening should be used in the decision making process, they should consult employment counsel before using that information.

Part II - Social Media in the Workplace

The use of social media in employment and post-employment situations.

Social media is changing communications between employers and employees and among co-workers.

Employee communications

The employee newsletter is out and the company Facebook group is in. Employees of the 21st century want a different relationship with their employer and co-workers than that of prior generations. They are used to receiving information that is current and relevant to them, and they expect the same ability to preselect and customize the information they receive in the workplace. Employees want to be able to ask questions and provide feedback to management. With more employees teleworking or working from multiple locations, they want the ability to communicate with their co-workers. Today's workers like to create their own news in their personal lives and share it with others electronically, and they expect to be able to do the same with their work lives.

The International Association of Business Communicators Research Foundation & Bucks Consultants surveyed 1,500 employers in June 2009. An astonishing 97% of the employers said that they frequently use social media to communicate with their employees. Of these, 19% reported occasional use, with only 1% reporting that they used social media rarely or never. Whether by company emails, an intranet website, Facebook group or other tools, clearly social media have become critical to employer/employee communications.

Social media usage policies

Just as employers adopted Internet and computer use policies in the 1990's, now they are developing social media usage policies. These policies can be part of the company's electronic communications usage policy or a stand-alone policy. The key to an effective social media usage policy is frequent adaptation to new technologies and programs, new legal requirements related to both technology and the workplace, and communication with employees.

Distractions and productivity

Employers worry about lost employee productivity due to the distractions of social media in the workplace. The temptations to communicate with their friends and family members are everywhere. Text messaging, cell phones and instant messaging provide near instantaneous dialogue which can be more interesting than the daily work assignments.

Twitter feeds and other alerts are used to notify blog followers when a new posting has been added. Younger workers are used to multitasking. They made their way through high school and college with laptops, iPods, and cell phones, and can write a paper, text a friend, and download music simultaneously while watching television and talking with friends. They want their work lives to function the same way their personal lives do with constant stimulation and communication.

Do employers have the right to force their employees to focus on the task at hand and not use social media while at work? The courts are still working that issue out, but at least one federal court has suggested that employers might have the right to prevent employees from accessing blogs while at work. Nickolas v. Fletcher, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23843 (E.D. Ky. 2007).

Monitoring

An employer might want to monitor its employees' online conduct while at work. The argument goes something like this: "The employee is on my time, in my facility, and using my computer equipment. Why shouldn't I be able to monitor what's going on?"

Any monitoring should be done with care. In Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, 2008 WL 6085437 (D.N.J. 2008), a Newark jury found that the employer violated the federal Stored Communications Act by secretly monitoring employees' postings on a private password-protected Internet chat room. This followed an earlier case, Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002), where the court also held that secret monitoring by an employer of a password protected website visited by an employee while at work violated the federal Stored Communications Act.

However, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a public employer's review of an employee's text messages on an employer-issued device was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. City of Ontario v. Quon, No. 08-1332, 560 U.S. ___ (2010). This case involved the use of a pager issued to the employee by the employer. The employer authorized a set number of text messages per month and allowed employees to pay for any overage. Employees were not prohibited from using the pager to send and receive personal text messages. The employer noticed that one employee had an excessive number of text messages and asked its service provider for copies of the text messages from that employee's phone. It found messages to the employee's wife and girlfriend. The employee claimed that his privacy had been violated. The lower court had held that the service provider violated the Stored Communications Act when it provided the employee's text messages to the employer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the employer had a right to see text messages sent and received on the employer's pager. While this case involved a public employer (and courts have typically allowed greater employer control of public employees), the court clearly stated that employees do not have an expectation of privacy when using equipment provided by the employer.

Other Worries

Employers have more serious potential issues than lost productivity to worry about. Social media tools present an easy method of accessing and communicating information. This can include the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. While the concerns about unauthorized disclosure using social media tools are similar to unauthorized disclosure in more traditional ways, now the disclosure is at the click of a mouse to multiple recipients. Unauthorized disclosure can include the business plans and information of clients as well as those of the employer.

Unfortunately, social media tools can also be used to harass co-workers. What might be a harmless exchange of jokes or photos between friends can take on a new life when they are spread around the office. The seemingly innocent friend request on Facebook from a co-worker can take on new meaning. How does a female employee respond to a "friend" request from her male supervisor?

The technology behind social media presents another new challenge to employers, the inability to effectively respond to misinformation. A fleeting complaint lingers forever and can be accessed or rebroadcast by other employees or those outside of the company. Information remains in cyberspace indefinitely. The employer's response to misinformation or even a later retraction by the defaming party is unlikely to reach all who received the initial communication. Any communication issued by an employee is seemingly valid, even when the employee is a self-appointed company "spokesperson."

Employers might consider charging employees who misuse social media at the workplace with using company equipment inappropriately and follow appropriate disciplinary measures. The social media usage policy should provide for discipline for abuse of the policy and explicitly state that social media may not be used to violate other employer policies, including harassment and non-discrimination policies.

Internal investigations

In a June 2009 survey, Proofpoint asked US employers to report on internal investigations at their companies in the past 12 months. The results of the survey show that employers do have a reason to be concerned about leaks of confidential or proprietary information. Employers reported conducting investigations of leaks by:

Email - 43%
Blog or message board - 18%
Video - 18%
Facebook and LinkedIn - 17%
Twitter or SMS texts - 13%

The same employers also reported on the results of their investigations, with a substantial number finding violations of company policies. The rates of employees disciplined or terminated for policy violations were:

Email - 31% terminated
Blog or message board - 17% disciplined, 9% terminated
Video - 15% disciplined, 8% terminated
Social networks - 8% terminated
Twitter/SMS texts - no reported actions

Employer responses

Employers can take a number of measures to reduce the problems that can arise from the use or misuse of social media. As a first step, employers should remind their employees that they have no expectation of privacy when using the employer's electronic equipment or network. This includes employer supplied smart phones, voice mail, and email. Next, employers should review and update as necessary their Internet usage policies to include the use of social media and clearly state what employee actions will result in discipline or even termination.

To address the potential misuse of social media, a social media usage policy should prohibit the use of the employer's name by employees outside of official company communications. The policy also should discipline employees for posting any negative statements about the employer or any derogatory comments about the employee's co-workers or supervisors.

Whether it is two pizza parlor employees abusing food for their YouTube video or anonymous misstatements on a blog about a company's products or services, an employer's reputation can be easily and speedily damaged through the misuse of social media tools. Postings favoring the employer's competitors or slamming its customers, or, in the case of associations, its members, can also be detrimental and the intentional disclosure of confidential employer information can be devastating.

Employer social media policies should prohibit:
Disclosure of confidential employer information
Discrimination against or harassment of co-workers
Using the employer's trademarks Infringing the intellectual property rights of others
Making statements adverse to the employer's business interests or reputation
Criticism of customers or business partners
Statements supporting competitors
Obscenity

Legal limitations

Multijurisdictional employers may face inconsistent laws when trying to establish uniform policies for their employees. Some states prohibit an employer from acting with respect to employee activity that is not related to the employer or is not on working time. In addition, there are laws that protect concerted activity by employees - the protected right of employees to discuss common issues related to the workplace (these are the laws protecting labor unions). There are also laws that protect complaints related to the violation of workplace laws such as state and federal whistleblower laws. However, employees do not have a right to engage in activity injurious to the employer that does not fall within these limited exceptions. Employers should consult with counsel before establishing policies or taking steps to address the misuse of social media by their employees.

Off- duty conduct

Employers can tread over the line when they attempt to discipline employees for their off-duty conduct. Many states have off-duty conduct laws that prohibit employers from basing employment decisions on legal activities of employees outside of work time. Employers need to be aware of the state laws applicable to each of the jurisdictions where their employees are located to avoid violating these laws.

Postings complaining about the employee's work, the employer, supervisors, or co-workers or postings critical of the employer's product or service can be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination. For example, a teacher who was fired for an inappropriate MySpace page sued the employer and lost in Spanierman v. Hughes, 576 F. Supp. 2d 292 (D. Conn. 2008). Even when the conduct does not rise to the level of disciplinary action, it can cause the employer to question the employee's maturity or judgment.

Post-employment

Former employees who left on their own or maintain a positive relationship with their former employer, supervisor and co-workers rarely raise concerns about the potential for harm to the employer through their online activities. However, the disgruntled former employee is a different story. Just as they are not concerned about the bridges they burn, these employees are not worried about the potential consequences of the statements they publish online or their tweets about their former employer, supervisor and even co-workers. The potential for a defamation claim against the former employee can be great. Alas, the opportunity to collect damages is not great.

Some employers have a real concern that confidential information will be released by disgruntled former employees. Requiring employees with access to confidential information, as a condition of employment, to sign a confidentiality and nondisclosure agreement which remains in effect following the termination of the employment relationship is one way to address this potential problem.

Social media non-compete

Employers who sanction employee blogs, Facebook groups, Twitter accounts, and other means of communicating through social media often do not think through the consequences of setting up these accounts with one employee as the face of the company.

What happens when the employee who has been regularly posting blogs on behalf of the company decides to leave? Who owns the profile? Who owns the content? More importantly, who owns the followers? Even if the now former employee does not object to the employer taking over his blog, what if the employer does not have the login name and password?

To address these issues, savvy employers are having their employees sign social media non-competition agreements. Under these social media non-competes, the profile, content and followers of a blog or other communication tool belong to the employer. These agreements are more akin to a non-solicitation agreement than a traditional non-compete.

They are difficult (if not impossible) to enforce but they clearly define the intent of the parties if the employer sees litigation (or alternative dispute resolution) as a necessary step to protect its brand or marketing position.

Conclusion

The now widespread use of social media in and outside of the workplace is not the end of the world as we know it. True, the situations employers can face are different, and small problems can very quickly magnify and multiply. But the sensible employer will respond appropriately, working with its employees to identify appropriate social media usage policies and exploiting the communication benefits that social media can bring to the workplace of the 21st century.

Eileen Morgan Johnson
Counsel
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, L.L.P.
3190 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 300 Falls Church, VA 22042
t: 703-280-9271 f: 703-280-8947 m: 202-615-0894
emjohnson@wtplaw.com Bio vCard http://www.wtplaw.com/

.

===========================

..

N.B. A relevant item, NY Ethics Committees Tackle Social Media Mining has been posted on Nicole Black's Law Blog Sui Generis--a New York law blog . It addresses the issue of the ethics of attorneys using social media and cites the New York City Bar’s opinion (Formal Opinion 2010-2) Ms. Black can be reached at nblack@nicoleblackesq.com .

NYPPL

As New York arbitration law is in accord with the policies of the Federal Arbitration Act, New York law governs federal court review of New York award

As New York arbitration law is in accord with the policies of the Federal Arbitration Act, New York law governs federal court review of New York award
County of Nassau v Chase, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, No. 09-3643-cv, Summary Order

Chase and other parties appealed a federal district court's granting Nassau County’s motion to confirm an arbitration award.

As the contract between the parties provided that “any appeal from an arbitration award is to be governed exclusively by New York state law,” the Circuit Court said that this provision “must be honored by the courts unless the state law conflicts with federal law.”

As, said the court, “New York law accords with the policies of the [Federal Arbitration Act] (in favor of binding arbitration), federal law does not preempt New York state law here. New York state law therefore governs our review of this arbitration award.*

The Circuit Court then set out the following basics with respect to New York State Law concerning arbitration:

1. The appropriate standard is whether the arbitration award "violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power," citing N.Y.C. Transit Auth. v. Transp. Workers' Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO, 6 N.Y.3d 332. [Zorc and Chase, said the court, fail to satisfy this standard.]

2. “Arbitrators are not bound by principles of substantive law or legal procedure: An arbitrator "may do justice as he sees it, applying his own sense of law and equity to the facts as he finds them to be and making an award reflecting the spirit rather than the letter of the agreement," citing Silverman v. Benmor Coats, Inc., 61 N.Y.2d 299

3. Misapplication of law and errors of fact are insufficient to overturn an award. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 89 N.Y.2d 214.
In this instance the Circuit Court said that the arbitration award did not violate any "strong public policy" of New York or federal law nor did the arbitration clause in question did not set out any limitations on the arbitrators' power, and Zorc and Chase never argue to the contrary.

Absent any limitations set out in the arbitration clause, the Circuit Court concluded that the arbitrators cannot have "clearly exceed[ed] a specifically enumerated limitation" on their power.”

Finally, the Circuit Court said that under New York state law, a sufficient showing of partiality can justify overturning an arbitration award, citing CPLR §7511(b) (ii). However, the decision notes that although Zorc and Chase make this assertion, they did not provide any evidence of any actual partiality by any arbitrator. Rather Zorc and Chase claim that because the arbitrators made factual findings adverse to them, the arbitrators must have been harboring secret bias against them. This assertion begs the question of partiality.

The Circuit Court confirmed the district court's grant of Nassau's motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied Zorc and Chase petition to vacate the award.

* The Circuit Court, agreeing with the District Court that the arbitral award must be confirmed, did so “pursuant [the CPLR] §7510, and not the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9, as the District Court did.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ab1178bc-bd21-46c7-8188-adf226ceac52/8/doc/09-3643_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ab1178bc-bd21-46c7-8188-adf226ceac52/8/hilite/
NYPPL

Civil Service Law Section 72 leave

Civil Service Law Section 72 leave
Lara v City of New York, 1999 WL 459803.

It is not unusual for an employee placed on disability leave pursuant to Section 72 of the Civil Service Law to allege that his or her employer’s action in placing the individual on such leave constituted unlawful discrimination because of a disability. In the Lara case, national origin discrimination was claimed to have motivated placing the employee on “an involuntary medical leave” that eventually resulted in Lara’s being placed on Section 72 leave.

Pablo Lara, who was born in the Dominican Republic, was employed as a Program Officer by the New York City Department for the Aging (DFTA). His duties included monitoring contracts between DFTA and community-based organizations.

The New York Foundation for Senior Citizens, for instance, wrote a letter complaining that Lara “continuously” compared the Foundation administration to “‘militant dictatorships in many African countries.’” Throughout a meeting, it was alleged, Lara’s voice was raised and “he seemed agitated.” He repeatedly mimicked Foundation staff at the meeting.

The department decided to place Lara on an involuntary medical leave of absence effective March 21, 1997. Lara was also instructed to report to Dr. Azariah Eshkenazi for a psychiatric examination. According to the decision, Dr. Eshkenazi diagnosed Lara as having a “personality disorder, paranoid type” and “generalized anxiety.”

Lara was also examined by a psychiatrist of his own choosing, Dr. Pedro Rodriguez. Dr. Rodriguez said he found no evidence of “serious psychiatric conditions, including psychosis and personality disorder that could have prevented [Lara] from doing his work.”

Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Ray Fleischhacker was designated to hold a Section 72 hearing. The ALJ decided to adjourn the hearing so that Lara could be examined by a third psychiatrist, Dr. Myron Gordon. Dr. Gordon diagnosed Lara as having “paranoid personality disorder.”

On December 3, 1997, the ALJ issued a “Report and Recommendation” in which he concluded that Lara was “mentally unfit to perform the duties of his position.” He recommended that Lara be placed on Section 72 leave.

The Department placed Lara on Section 72 leave effective December 15, 1997. While on such leave, Lara was re-evaluated by Dr. Eshkenazi, who determined that “Lara’s mental condition had not improved and that Lara remained unfit to return to work.” The department terminated Lara’s employment effective December 15, 1998. Section 73 of the Civil Service Law authorizes the termination of an individual who has been continuously absent on Section 72 leave for at least one year.

Meanwhile, Lara filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on April 16, 1997, contending that the department’s decision to place him on involuntary medical leave constituted national origin discrimination. EEOC issued Lara a “right to sue letter” and Lara initiated litigation in federal district court.

A federal district court judge dismissed Lara’s petition, agreeing with the department that Lara had failed to perform his duties satisfactorily and, consequently, he failed to satisfy one of the critical elements required to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination -- the individual’s ability to satisfactory perform the duties of the position.

Judge Cote said that the city had submitted “uncontroverted evidence” of Lara’s inappropriate behavior at staff meetings and that there was unrebutted evidence that “DFTA contractors complained repeatedly about Lara’s unprofessional behavior and requested that Lara be replaced by another program officer.” Accordingly, said the court, “Lara fails to raise an issue of fact that he was performing his job satisfactorily and [thus] fails to establish a prima facie case.”

The decision also notes an important procedural element. Lara had named the City, Shaffer, and DFTA as defendants. Judge Cote said that “[t]here is no individual liability under Title VII and the Title VII claims against Shaffer must be dismissed.” In addition, the court ruled that the Title VII claims against DFTA also had to be dismissed because under Chapter 17, Section 396 of the New York City Charter all actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the City of New York, and not that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.
.

Terms and conditions of the appointment

Terms and conditions of the appointment
Carney v Insetta, App. Div., 3rd Dept., 263 AD2d 743, motion for leave to appeal denied, 94 NY2d 753

How does one determine what an individual is entitled to as an employee?

In resolving the Carney case, the Appellate Division said: just look at what the individual was offered when he or she was appointed to the position.

Julie Carney was appointed to the position of Animal Control Officer by the City of Oneonta. Previously a “full time” position, Carney was appointed as a part-time employee on an hourly basis. Carney initially was to work at least 24 hours per week and was paid at an hourly rate -- $8 per hour. She was also provided with health insurance benefits. When her work schedule was reduced, Carney said that she was entitled to the “salaried position” and the fringe benefits described in Oneonta’s personnel manual.

Told that she was not entitled to such benefits because she was a part-time employee, Carney for “breach of contract.”

Eventually the issue came before the Appellate Division. The court commented that while “a significant portion” of the briefs submitted by the parties debated the meaning and significance of certain passages set out in the city’s personnel manual, the question of Carney’s entitlement to the benefits she sought was “readily resolved by looking to the terms of her appointment.”

The Appellate Division said that while the position of Animal Control Officer was a full-time, salaried position and, pursuant to the terms of the City’s personnel manual, the incumbent was entitled to certain additional benefits, such as sick leave and vacation time, the record clearly shows, and Carney concedes, she was hired on a part-time, hourly basis.

The court noted that notwithstanding any benefits that may have been available to previous appointees holding the full-time, salaried Animal Control Officer position, there was nothing in the record to indicate that such benefits ever were intended to apply to a part-time, hourly appointee such as Carney.

The fact that the Animal Control Officer title is a “covered position” in the personnel manual was deemed irrelevant, since Carney’s position and the position covered by the manual “is not one and the same.” Significantly, noted the Appellate Division, the benefits described in the personnel manual were not offered to Carney at the time of her appointment and thus could not have formed the basis for her acceptance of the position.

Unless certain rights and benefits are mandated and thus available to an individual as a matter of law or pursuant to a Taylor Law agreement, the employer may set the terms of the appointment, including compensation and entitlement to fringe benefits.

The individual, unless he or she is able to negotiate an alternative arrangement, may either accept or decline the appointment under the terms and conditions offered by the appointing authority.
.