Rating the oral test performance by applicants in a civil service examination to be based on objective standards

Rating the oral test performance by applicants in a civil service examination to be based on objective standards
Merlino v Schneider, Ct. of Appeals, 93 NY2d 477

Oral tests are sometimes included as part of the examination for appointment and promotion in the public service. The Merlino case sets out the basic standard used by the courts in reviewing appeals challenging the candidate’s oral test score.

Carmen Merlino challenged her oral test score for an examination for language proficiency. The Court of Appeals held that Merlin’s test results were based on “objective standards,” commenting that the abilities for which candidates would be tested and the substance, form and method of the oral exam were all clearly delineated. Essentially, courts require oral tests to provide a reviewable record and an objective rating scheme to pass judicial scrutiny.

The court said that in this instance:

The oral language exam tested grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary in the context of a 15-minute extemporaneous conversation. These qualities cannot be measured solely by objective criteria. Although some subjective elements, of necessity, entered into the evaluation, the fact that a subjective element may have been involved to some degree in petitioner's rating is not sufficient in and of itself to invalidate the Department's ultimate determination: "The mandate of the Constitution for the ascertainment of merit and fitness, so far as practicable, by competitive examination, may not be transformed into an interdict against the examinations which are best adapted for the demonstration of fitness. It would be impossible to formulate a standard by which such qualities may be defined or measured with entire objectivity.”
.

Overtime and the Fair Labor Standards Act

Overtime and the Fair Labor Standards Act
Alden v Maine, US Supreme Court, 527 U.S. 706

The question of the enforceability of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s [FLSA] mandates concerning overtime with respect to employees in the public service, especially those engaged in law enforcement and firefighting, has been an issue for a number of years.

In Alden v Maine the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate alleged FLSA violations insofar as states are concerned, nor does a state court have jurisdiction to consider a state’s alleged FLSA violations without the consent of the state. Why? Because the 11th Amendment, which provides states with sovereign immunity, bars such lawsuits in federal court.

In the words of the High Court, “Congress lacks power under Article I to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity from suits commenced or prosecuted in the federal courts.” Further, the court held that “the powers delegated to Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution do not include the power to subject nonconsenting states to private suits for damages in state courts.” This means that state workers are unable to sue their employer concerning alleged FLSA violations unless it has consented to such suits.

However, the “overtime provision” set out in Section 134 of New York’s Civil Service Law preceded Congress’ attempt to make the states subject to FLSA. Accordingly, it could be argued that New York State, as an employer, did not “deliberately” waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by state workers for alleged violations of the FLSA in federal court based on the decision in Mueller v Thompson.

If a state adopts the FLSA as state law and allows state employees to sue it for alleged violations of the state’s law, it loses its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit by its employees brought in the federal courts for alleged violations of the federal FLSA [Mueller v Thompson, 858 F.Supp. 885].

In Mueller, where Wisconsin was the employer, the court said that there is no waiver of a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity “unless the state has made its intention to waive its rights under the amendment clear.” Wisconsin had incorporated FLSA into state law in 1971. In 1974 Congress amended the FLSA, making it applicable to the states and their political subdivisions. The 7th Circuit concluded that “on this legislative history” Wisconsin had not waived its 11th Amendment immunity because it adopted a state FLSA prior to 1974. Does this mean that payment for overtime is no longer required to be paid to employees of New York State? No, for a number of reasons.

Section 134 of the Civil Service Law provides for the payment of overtime at “time and one-half” to eligible state workers. Alleged violations of Section 134 - a state law - may be tested in state court. In addition, collective bargaining agreements negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law may require payment for overtime. Violation of such types of provisions are typically subject to contract grievance arbitration procedures.

What about suing a political subdivision of a state for alleged violations of FLSA in federal court? According to the Alden ruling there is an “important limit” to the principle of sovereign immunity barring suits against States -- the immunity does not extend to suits prosecuted against a municipal corporation or other governmental entity that is not an arm of the State.
.

The employee organization's duty of fair representation

The employee organization's duty of fair representation
Pietraszewski and CSEA Local 1000, 32 PERB 3019

Does a union’s duty of fair representation require it to provide assistance -- financial or legal -- simply because a unit member wishes to file a lawsuit against his or her employer? This was the significant question raised by Arthur Pietraszewski, Jr. when he filed an improper practice charge against CSEA Local 1000.

CSEA Local 1000 declined to represent Pietraszewski in his age discrimination lawsuit against the state. It also refused to reimburse him for the fees he paid to a private attorney whom he retained to represent him in that lawsuit.

Contending that CSEA’s actions violated its duty of fair representation, Pietraszewski filed improper practice charges against CSEA with PERB.

CSEA told PERB that it decided not to provide Pietraszewski with legal assistance or financial support in his lawsuit because, after reviewing his allegations, it believed that his case was “not sufficiently meritorious for CSEA to take it on.”

PERB dismissed Pietraszewski’s complaint, commenting that a union enjoys “wide latitude” with respect to the investigation and prosecution of contract grievances. In other words, the union can exercise its discretion with respect to filing the grievance or prosecuting the grievance beyond a particular step in the grievance procedure.

This same “wide latitude,” said PERB, is equally applicable with respect to a union’s decision regarding its providing legal services concerning matters arising outside the collective bargaining agreement.

PERB found that CSEA had made its decision in good faith, commenting that even if CSEA were in error regarding the merits of Pietraszewski’s age discrimination allegations, that judgmental mistake would not constitute a breach of its duty of fair representation.

According to the ruling, having properly denied Pietraszewski’s request for representation, CSEA was not required reimburse him for his attorney’s fees and other expenses he may have incurred in pursuing the litigation he initiated.

In another case duty of fair representation case, Brignoni and Council 82, 32 PERB 3020, PERB said that settling a grievance under terms that may adversely affect some, but not other, unit members does not support a finding that the employee organization violated its duty of fair representation without evidence of arbitrary or discriminatory action or bad faith on the part of the employee organization, citing United University Professionals, 22 PERB 3013.
.

Accidental disability retirement

Accidental disability retirement
Bloom v City of New York, NYS Supreme Court, 7/99, Justice Braun [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Bloom, a guidance counselor for the New York City School District, filed a grievance contending that she was disabled as a result of her inhaling toxic substances that arose from construction, repairs, and renovation of her school. Former New York City Board of Education Chancellor Joseph Fernandez sustained her grievance, holding that Bloom had suffered “a line of duty injury.”

But when Bloom filed an accidental disability retirement application with the New York City Teachers’ Retirement System [TRS], TRS held that her injuries were not causally related to the alleged exposure to construction materials and rejected her application. TRS’ decision was upheld by the courts (Bloom v TRS, 233 AD2d 254, dismissed in part and denied in part, 90 NY2d 838.

Bloom then sued the district and the City for “a personal injury,” negligence and reckless conduct. The board of education moved for summary judgment, arguing that TRS’s determination “has a collateral estoppel effect.”

Bloom, also relying on “collateral estoppel,” asked the court for summary judgment based on the favorable grievance determination by the Chancellor, contending that the Chancellor’s determination constituted an admission of the district’s liability.

As to the board’s claim of collateral estoppel, the court explained that Bloom had “voluntarily chose to participate in the adjudicative resolution process of TRS by applying for benefits, and thus she may fairly be collaterally estopped by the TRS determination.”

With respect to Bloom’s argument, the court said that the Chancellor’s acknowledgement of the causal connection in the grievance adjudication normally would be a binding admission against the board.

Justice Braun said that although “... a quasi-judicial agency determination can have a collateral estoppel effect” that would bar further litigation; here there are “two conflicting decisions.” Therefore, the court concluded, “logically they must be held to cancel out each other.”

Since there is a significant issue of fact exists as to whether the actions and inactions of board was the proximate cause of Bloom’s injuries, granting summary judgment to either Bloom or the board would not be appropriate.

Accordingly, a trial was required.
.

Union sued for negligence for allegedly providing misinformation concerning retirement benefits

Union sued for negligence for allegedly providing misinformation concerning retirement benefits
Grahame v Rochester Teachers Association, 262 AD2d 963, motion to appeal dismissed, 94 NY2d 796

May a union be sued for alleged negligence with respect to information it provided to a member? This was the question presented by Harriet E. Grahame, as the executrix of the estate of Carole A. Wemett. Grahame is suing the Rochester Teachers Association for negligence, alleging that it provided Wemett with “erroneous information ... regarding her retirement benefits.” The Appellate Division has upheld a State Supreme Court’s refusal to dismiss Grahame’s negligence action.

The association attempted to have the case dismissed because Grahame “failed to allege that the individual members of defendant union ratified the acts of their representative.” The Appellate Division said that it was unnecessary for Grahame to do so as her action against the union is based on the negligence of its agent “in the course of performing an essential activity of the [union].” Also rejected was the association’s argument that Grahame’s complaint “is in essence one for breach of the duty of fair representation but is couched in terms of negligence in order to circumvent the Statute of Limitations and evidentiary problems.”

The Appellate Division said that because the collective bargaining agreement does not address employees’ retirement benefits, “the alleged negligent misrepresentation action was not subsumed by the duty of fair representation.”
.