Responding to Freedom of Information requests

Responding to Freedom of Information requests
McKethan v NY-NJ Port Authority, Appellate Division, First Dept., 277 AD2d 15

William McKethan obtained a court order pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law directing the New York-New Jersey Port Authority [New York Branch] to provide him with certain information. In a subsequent proceeding, State Supreme Court Judge Paula Omansky determined that the Authority had adequately respond[ed] to the court’s prior order. Not satisfied with the court’s determination, McKethan appealed.

The Appellate Division sustained Judge Omansky’s decision, holding that the Authority adequately established the nonexistence of additional records requested by [McKethan].

The reasoning of the court:

Once the Authority’s records access officer certified that respondent had provided McKethan with all responsive documents in its possession, McKethan was required to articulate a demonstrable factual basis to support his contention that the [further] requested documents existed and were within the [Authority’s] control.

Citing Gould v New York City Police Department, 89 NY2d 267, in support of its position, the Appellate Division ruled that McKethan has not met that burden.
NYPPL

Loss of a required license or certification bars the incumbent from performing the duties of the position

Loss of a required license or certification bars the incumbent from performing the duties of the position
Agriculture and Markets v Public Employees Federation, App. Div., Third Dept., 277 AD2d 564

Holding a valid license is sometimes an essential element to performing the duties of the position. What happens if the employee losses his or her license?

This was the issue when Sahedou Ousman, an assistant farm products inspector assigned to inspect eggs pursuant to an agreement with the US Department of Agriculture [USDA] lost his Federal egg product inspection license.

According to the decision, Ousman’s license was revoked by the USDA because of his failure to consistently follow instructions, adhere to established procedures and repeated instances of tardiness and unauthorized absences from his place of employment during his normal tour of duty.

Agriculture and Markets [A&M] terminated Ousman’s employment on the grounds that his loss of his license resulted in his being unqualified to perform the duties of an assistant farm products inspector.

A&M, pursuant to an agreement with the Public Employees Federation, Ousman’s collective bargaining representative, subsequently reinstated him. It then placed Ousman on administrative leave and initiated disciplinary action against him under the contract disciplinary procedure set out in a Taylor Law agreement.

The charge: incompetence in that he failed to maintain his Federal egg product inspection license that was required for his continued employment as an egg inspector.

Ultimately an arbitrator ruled that the Federal egg product inspection license was not a prerequisite for the position of an assistant farm products inspector and there were employment opportunities within that title to which Ousman could have been assigned that did not require Federal licensure at that time. The arbitrator’s conclusion: Ousman should not have been terminated.

The arbitrator’s ruling is consistent with the court’s ruling in the Lekkas case [Martin ex rel Lekkas, 86 AD2d 712]. Here the issue concerned Lekkas’ lack of license to practice medicine in New York State although he had been appointed to the position of Assistant Clinical Physician with a State agency. In Lekkas the Appellate Division ruled that although an employee who does not possess a valid license required to perform the duties of the position may be summarily discharged without notice and hearing, it determined that Lekkas was performing administrative duties rather than practicing medicine. Thus, said the court, Lekkas was not required by law to hold a license to practice medicine even though he held the title Assistant Clinical Physician. Accordingly, he could not be summarily removed from the position merely because he was not a licensed physician.

The arbitrator directed A&M to restore Ousman to pay status with all rights and benefits effective July 1, 1997, back pay to be adjusted to reflect any income or unemployment compensation benefits received since that time.

The decision also directed A&M to offer Ousman the next available position within title or, in the alternative, continue him on paid administrative leave and file charges against him based upon his unsatisfactory performance of his duties as a State employee prior to April 15, 1997.

The Appellate Division rejected A&M’s attempt to annul the arbitration award on the grounds that the award was wholly irrational and violated a fundamental public policy regarding civil service appointment requirements and the State’s compelling interest in ensuring a safe food supply to the public.

Noting that the notice of discipline filed by A&M limited the arbitrator’s inquiry to whether Ousman’s loss of his Federal license rendered him unqualified to perform the duties of an assistant farm products inspector warranting his dismissal, the Appellate Division ruled that the arbitrator’s determination did not require A&M to reinstate Ousman to another food inspection position since it allowed it the alternative of continuing Ousman on administrative leave and filing the appropriate disciplinary charge reflecting his general incompetence and lack of qualifications for any position within his title of employment.

The Appellate Division’s conclusion: the arbitration award simply extends to Ousman the protection of the collective bargaining agreement that A&M agrees is applicable and cannot be said to be violative of any strong public policy or the State constitutional mandate that civil service appointments be based on merit.

It is well settled that where a statute requires an individual to have a valid license or certification or permit in order to practice his or her profession or duties, the loss, expiration, revocation or failure to obtain or maintain the required license or certification or permit in a timely fashion means that the individual is not authorized to perform the duties of the position as a matter of law.

For example, the courts have little difficulty in upholding the immediate suspension of a teacher without pay where the educator is unable to present a valid license or certification when asked to do so.

Although such a person may continue to be qualified to perform the duties of the position, he or she is typically barred from doing so unless and until a valid license or permit is obtained. In such situations the courts have upheld the employer summarily suspending the employee without pay as was the case in Meliti v Nyquist, 41 NY2d 183. The rationale in such cases: it is unlawful to continue a tenured but unlicensed teacher on the payroll as he or she is barred from performing his or her teaching duties and to retain such a person on the payroll as a teacher would constitute an unconstitutional gift of public monies.

There is nothing, however, that would prevent the appointing authority from placing such an individual in another position for which he or she is qualified and for which a license is not required as an alternative to dismissal or removal from the payroll.

Another common situations that result in a bar to continued employment in a position: the expiration, suspension or revocation of a driver’s license when the duties of the position require the incumbent of the position to drive a motor vehicle.
NYPPL

Collective bargaining after the Taylor Law Agreement expires

Collective bargaining after the Taylor Law Agreement expires
Local 2562 v PERB, App. Div., Third Dept., 276 AD2d 184, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 96 NY2d 711

In the Local 2562 case, the Appellate Division sustained a Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] ruling that held that a nonmandatory subject of collective bargaining, if continued after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] under the Triboro Doctrine [Civil Service Law Section 209-a(1)(e)], is converted into a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

The Triboro Doctrine essentially requires a public employer to continue all terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement -- whether mandatory or nonmandatory subjects -- until the parties reach a new agreement.

Uniform Firefighters Local 2562 [City of Cohoes] appealed a PERB decision holding that certain otherwise nonmandatory proposals made by the City in the course of negotiating a successor to an expired CBA are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.

Local 2562 sued, contending that PERB’s determinations departed from its prior precedent and redefined what may constitute a mandatory subject of negotiation upon the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement between police officers and firefighters and their municipal employers.

In particular, Local 2562 objected to PERB’s rulings concerning the City’s proposal to delete or alter certain terms in the expired CBA relating to staffing composition and job assignment and the City’s proposal affecting General Municipal Law Section 207-a disability benefits.

Agreeing to the Section 207-a proposal, said the union, would require its members to give up certain statutory rights and privileges. In addition, Local 2562 complained that the City’s staffing proposals concerned officer replacement procedures and the obligation of firefighters to engage in snow removal and were previously viewed as managerial prerogatives deemed nonmandatory subjects of negotiation prior to their inclusion in the parties’ previous CBA.

According to the decision, PERB’s overruling its long-standing precedent meant that once nonmandatory subjects have been incorporated into a CBA involving police officers and firefighters, such items become mandatory subjects of negotiation for the purposes of negotiating a subsequent agreement in a Triboro Doctrine situation.

PERB also ruled that proposals concerning the terms and conditions of employment that would require an employee organization or its members to waive or modify statutory rights and privileges are also mandatorily negotiable, unless bargaining as to those matters is foreclosed by clear legislative intent or public policy.

PERB’s explanation: its new interpretation corrects an imbalance resulting from the enactment of Section 209-a(1)(e) of the Taylor Law which codified the so-called Triboro Doctrine.

The Appellate Division said that PERB provided “a detailed explanation for its decision to depart from its previous analysis on the ground that it intended to create a more equal bargaining posture between the parties in order to foster productive negotiation....”

Accordingly, said the court, recognizing the deference to which PERB’s determinations are entitled in the realm of improper labor practices, it found that its action was neither arbitrary nor irrational.

As to PERB’s determining the negotiability of proposals alleged to flow from a statutory right or benefit, in the past PERB automatically categorized such proposals as nonmandatory without analysis of whether negotiations concerning particular proposals would be consistent with the applicable statute’s legislative intent, public policy, or the furtherance of the objectives of the Taylor Law. Under its new policy, PERB would consider such demands on a case-by-case basis.

The Appellate Division said that PERB’s approach -- reviewing each such proposal case-by-case -- appears to be substantially the same as the method used to determine whether proposals of employee organizations that implicate the rights of public employers are mandatorily negotiable.

The court rejected Local 2562’s argument that by requiring that proposals relating to the waiver of statutory rights be subject to negotiation, PERB is effectuating the involuntary waiver of those rights. It said that although the Taylor Law clearly provides that the obligation to negotiate concerning terms and conditions of employment it does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a concession.

The bottom line: the court affirmed the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Local 2562’s challenge to PERB’s determinations, indicating that they were neither arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion nor affected by an error of law.
NYPPL

Timely appeal to the Commissioner of Education provides the pre-litigation Section 3813 Notice of Claim that must be filed with a school district

Timely appeal to the Commissioner of Education provides the pre-litigation Section 3813 Notice of Claim that must be filed with a school district
Mennella v Uniondale UFSD, Supreme Court, 287 AD2d 636, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 98 NY2d 602

As a general rule, Section 3813 of the Education Law requires that in order to sue a school district the plaintiff must file a timely notice of claim if he or she plans or expects to sue the district. Such notices are usually required with respect to claims related to or involving personnel decisions.

The Mennella case, for example, concerned the termination of a probationary employee and turned on whether the court should excuse a late filing of such a claim pursuant to Section 3813(2-a) of the Education Law.

As a condition precedent to commencement of an action against a school district, Education Law §3813(1) requires that a written verified claim be delivered to the school district within three months of accrual of the claim. The Section 3813 notice must set out the nature of the claim, and the “essential facts underlying the claim.” Citing Matter of Board of Educ. v Ambach, 81 AD2d 691, the Appellate Division noted that “a petition to the Commissioner of Education can constitute the functional equivalent of a notice of claim.”

In this instance, Mennella filed a petition with the Commissioner of Education challenging the school district’s decision terminating him from employment within a week of the district’s action. The petition included allegations that the acting principal made certain statements indicative of racial discrimination. In the proceedings before the Commissioner of Education, the school district asserted that the allegations of racial discrimination were "baseless."

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Mennella’s petition to the Commissioner of Education constituted the functional equivalent of a notice of claim for the purposes of Education Law Section 3813 insofar as his going forward with litigation regarding his allegations of racial discrimination is concerned.
NYPPL

Medical experts and conflicting medical opinions

Medical experts and conflicting medical opinions
Harper v McCall, App. Div., Third Dept., 277 AD2d 589

Pauline Harper challenged the rejection of her applications for ordinary and accidental disability retirement benefits by the New York State Employees’ Retirement System, contending that the Comptroller should have considered the expert medical opinion of her physician in making his determination.

Harper, a school bus driver, claimed that she was permanently disabled due to a neck condition. Her personal physician said that Harper was permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of a school bus driver as a result of a degenerative arthritic condition in her neck that was asymptomatic prior to a 1994 work-related accident that aggravated the condition.

The retirement system’s expert testified that, while Harper exhibited pain and discomfort when he examined her in 1997, he could find no objective evidence of neurological disease or injury that would cause her subjective symptoms, and he concluded that petitioner could perform the duties of a school bus driver.

The Appellate Division rejected Harper’s appeal, commenting that “[i]t is well settled that [the Comptroller] has the authority to resolve conflicts in medical opinion and to credit the testimony of one expert over that of another and may rely on an expert opinion based on a review of medical records and a physical examination is generally credible evidence.”
NYPPL