Employer held liable under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act for adverse action taken against an individual by supervisor

Employer held liable under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act for adverse action taken against an individual by supervisor
Vincent E. Staub, Petitioner v. Proctor Hospital , USSC, No. 09-400, [March 1, 2011]

While employed by Proctor Hospital, Vincent Staub served as a member of the United States Army Reserve. As such, he was required to attend drills one weekend per month and to train full time for two to three weeks a year.

Both Janice Mulally, Staub's immediate supervisor, and Michael Korenchuk, Mulally's supervisor, were hostile to Staub's military obligations. Mulally scheduled Staub for additional shifts without notice so that he would " 'pa[y] back the department for everyone else having to bend over backwards to cover [his] schedule for the Reserves.’"

Mulally also informed Staub's co-worker, Leslie Sweborg, that Staub's "military duty had been a strain on th[e] department," and asked Sweborg to help her "get rid of him". Korenchuk referred to Staub's military obligations as "a b[u]nch of smoking and joking and [a] waste of taxpayers['] money”' "He was also aware that Mulally was "out to get" Staub.

The Supreme Court held that “if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate [adverse] employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA [Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994].”
.

Removal from the payroll

Removal from the payroll
Kahn v SUNY Health Science Center, 271 AD2d 656

The employer tells the employee that he or she is off the payroll. The employee sues, seeking a court order barring this action pending the trial challenging his or her termination on the ground that he or she would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not issued because:

(1) If he or she were removed from the payroll he or she would have no one to support him;

(2) He or she he would be unable to live in the New York metropolitan area; and

(3) He or she would be unable to prosecute the lawsuit challenging the termination.

These were the claims made by Mahmood Khan when the State University of New York Health Science told him it was removing him from his faculty position with the university. Although a State Supreme Court judge issued granted the injunction, the Appellate Division, reversed the lower court and vacated the order.

The standards for granting a preliminary injunction are such situations are clear. The party seeking the order must show that:

(1) He or she is likely to succeed on the merits;

(2) He or she would suffer irreparable injury if the provisional relief is withheld; and

(3) A balancing of the equities weighing in favor of the moving party.

The Appellate Division, assuming that Kahn had indeed made an adequate showing of merit and that the equities balance in his favor, said that he failed to establish irreparable injury, the third element he was required to demonstrate. According to the court, Khan’s contentions were wholly speculative and conclusory, and, therefore, are insufficient to satisfy the burden of demonstrating irreparable injury.

Kahn also argued that if he were to be out of work for an extended period, he would have to return to Australia and would never be able to obtain United States citizenship. As he had not raised this argument before the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division said he was precluded from raising it in the appeal because absent matters that may be judicially noticed, new facts may not be injected at the appellate level.
.

Governor Cuomo to propose school superintendent salary cap

Governor Cuomo to propose school superintendent salary cap
Source: Office of the Governor

On February 28, 2011, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced that he will submit a program bill to cap the salaries of school superintendents across the state. The cap would be based upon student enrollment and if approved would save a combined $15 million.

The cap would impose salary limits as follows:

if 250 or fewer pupils, $125,000
if 251 to 750 pupils, $135,000
if 751 to 1,500 pupils, $145,000
if 1,501 to 3,000 pupils, $155,000
if 3,001to 6,500 pupils, $165,000
if 6,501 or more pupils, $175,000

The cap will apply only to school superintendents and will be applied prospectively as contracts expire. Local communities will have the ability to vote on overriding the salary cap, limited only to specific contracts. These votes will be held during normal school budget votes.

According to the Governor’s Office, currently, 223, or 33 percent of school district superintendents earn more than $175,000.

There is already a salary cap in place for BOCES district superintendents. The BOCES cap sets a single flat salary level ($166,572).

The Governor's press release is posted on the Internet at:
http://governor.ny.gov/press/salarycap
.

Denial of tenure – election of an alternate procedure challenging the board's decision

Denial of tenure – election of an alternate procedure challenging the board's decision
Spadone and Lackawanna CSD, Decision of the Comm. of Education, 14,337

The Commissioner of Education dismissed the appeal filed by Anne G. Spadone challenging the Lackawanna City School Board’s action denying her tenure. Spadone had also filed a contract grievance and an Article 78 protesting the board’s failure to grant her tenure.


Spadone had been appointed as a business teacher subject to a two-year probationary period.* The superintendent recommended that the school board grant Spadone tenure at the end of her probationary period.

The resolution to grant Spadone tenure was considered by the school board. The vote: three votes for tenure, two votes against tenure, one abstention. One board member was absent from the meeting. Accordingly, a majority of the board had not approved the resolution.**

The superintendent wrote a letter to Spadone advising her of the board’s action but noted that vote was advisory within the meaning of Section 3031(b) of the Education Law and that the board would take final action at its July 22 meeting. Spadone, however, fared no better at the July meeting: three board members voted to grant her tenure; three voted to deny her tenure; one board member abstained.

Spadone contended that the votes of at least four board members are necessary to take any action and that [the board] could not ‘override’ the superintendent’s recommendation with fewer than four votes. The board, on the other hand, claimed that an affirmative vote of the majority of the board was necessary to grant tenure.

Spadone also argued that (1) she had attained tenure by estoppel and (2) board failed to meet the deadlines set out in Section 3031 of the Education Law. The board contended Spadone had not been continued in service beyond her probationary period and thus did not attain tenure by estoppel. As to it satisfying the time requirements of Section 3031, the board claimed any such failure on its part was harmless error.

The Commissioner first addressed the technical issue of his jurisdiction to consider Spadone’s appeal. He concluded that he did not have jurisdiction because Spadone had commenced a grievance challenging her being denied tenure. Spadone, said the Commissioner, had elected her remedy and it would be contrary to the orderly administration of justice to have multiple tribunals making determinations concerning the same controversy.

Having said this, the Commissioner commented that even if Spadone’s appeal were not dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, it would have been dismissed on the merits. Why? Because, the Commissioner explained, a board of education has broad discretion in granting or denying tenure and need not accept the recommendation of the superintendent to grant tenure.

Section 2509(2)’s clear language states that a majority vote of a school board for tenure is required to grant a probationary teacher tenure. The Commissioner said that Spadone had not advanced any compelling argument that supported her theory that a majority voting against tenure was required to deny her tenure in the district.

The Commissioner agreed with the board that considering the relevant facts in this case, its failure to fully comply with the 30-day notice requirements set out in Section 3031 was harmless error and, in any event, reinstatement is not the proper remedy for a violation of Section 3031.

* As Spadone had held tenure as a teacher prior to her appointment by Lackawanna, she was given two-year rather than a three-year probationary period in accordance with Section 2509(1) of the Education Law.

** As New York State School Board General Counsel, Jay Worona, observed, “Under New York State law, a quorum is a simple majority of [more than half] the total number of board members, not merely those present. Mr. Worona provides the following example: “If a board has five members and three are present at a meeting, all three would have to vote in favor of a resolution for it to pass, a 2 to 1 vote would not be sufficient.”
.

Compelling reason for absence does not excuse misconduct

Compelling reason for absence does not excuse misconduct
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

Matter of Rivers v. Commissioner of Labor, ___A.D3d___(3d Dept. Oct. 7, 2010), is a tough unemployment decision. The law is settled that an employee who is terminated for misconduct is not eligible for unemployment. The law is also settled that being absent without leave is misconduct. What if it was for one day to visit your son who just returned from Iraq? That is still misconduct. As the court stated:

An unauthorized absence from work has been held to constitute misconduct, which can disqualify a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Roe [Commissioner of Labor], 62 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2009]; Matter of Britter [Commissioner of [*2]Labor], 54 AD3d 461 [2008]). Inasmuch as claimant admitted that he had requested leave and been denied, however compelling his reason for the request, we are constrained to find that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Roe [Commissioner of Labor], 62 AD3d at 1106).

Mitchell H. Rubinstein
.