Collateral Estoppel may bar a lawsuit involving essentially the same issues earlier adjudicated in a quasi-judicial administrative hearing

Collateral Estoppel may bar a lawsuit involving essentially the same issues earlier adjudicated in a quasi-judicial administrative hearing
Pisano v NYC Board of Education, 2002 WL 484305, [not selected for publication in the Official reports ], Affd. 303 A.D.2d 735

Sometimes an individual, unsuccessful in one lawsuit, will commence another legal action involving essentially the same issues and parties. However, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents a party from relitigating an issue which has already been decided by the courts involving the same parties and issues. The Pisano case involves such multiple litigations and illustrates how the court will apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel in case the subsequent litigation involves a challenge to an administrative determination.

In Abiele Contracting, Inc. v New York City School Construction Authority, 91 NY2d 1, the court held that the doctrine may apply to bar relitigating issues decided by administrative agencies if those decisions are "quasi-judicial" in nature. According to the ruling, an administrative agency is quasi-judicial in nature if it is given express statutory authority to act adjudicatively.

In contrast, if an agency only invokes its executive powers under the governing statute in making its determination, it is not exercising "quasi-judicial powers." In Venes v Community School Board, 43 NY2d 520, the Court of Appeals indicated that challenging the administrative agency's decision in court in situations where the agency did not arrive at its decision as a result of its acting in an adjudicative or judicial capacity would not be barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

In this case, a State Supreme Court judge decided the doctrine prevented Sheila Pisano from pursuing this lawsuit against the New York City Board of Education.

This action arose after a medical arbitrator sustained the New York City Board of Education Medical Board's ruling that Pisano's absence from work did not result from her job-related injury. According to the record, Pisano had fallen at work on October 18, 1996. As a result of injuries she alleged she suffered because of her fall, Pisano did not return to work.

After receiving the Medical Board's determination, Pisano asked for, and was granted, an independent evaluation by a medical arbitrator accordance with the provision of the collective bargaining agreement between the United Federation of Teachers and the Board. She also authorized the Board of Education Medical Board to release her entire medical file to the medical arbitrator.

Dr. David Kaufman, the medical arbitrator, sustained the Medical Board's decision based on his medical examination of Pisano as well as a review of her available medical records and his conversations with Pisano's personal physician. Dr. Kaufman noted in his report that he had not reviewed all of Pisano's medical records because Pisano "failed to provide the Medical Board with this essential material." His conclusion: the Medical Board therefore acted correctly in not accepting the accident as being the cause of [Pisano's] absence from October 18, 1996 until the present" on the basis of the record before it.

Pisano challenged the arbitrator's determination pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Her argument: the arbitrator's determination "was the result of misconduct by the Board and that the arbitrator failed to examine all of [her] medical records and thus did not conduct a thorough and exhaustive record."

A State Supreme Court justice dismissed Pisano's petition, ruling that the arbitration award was proper notwithstanding her allegations, as the award was "rational and unambiguous."

When Pisano filed second lawsuit based on the Medical Board's determination, the City asked the court to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel and dismiss her petition. The court granted the City's motion, noting that the Medical Board is an agency within the meaning of 2 NYCRR 353, which provides for medical examinations, the creation of a medical board and the right to a hearing to challenge any adverse findings adopted by the Board.

The court said that "[t]hese procedures demonstrate that the determinations of these agencies are not merely the exercise of any rule-making or policy-making resolutions but are adjudications pursuant to their specific authority to actually decide cases. The court's conclusion: the Medical Board acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and its rulings bar any subsequent proceedings pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

In addition, the court rejected Pisano's argument that "the arbitration award should be vacated since [she] was denied her Due Process at the arbitration hearing," noting that a Justice of the Supreme Court already ruled on "the propriety and manner of the arbitration proceeding and found that it fully conformed with the law." Thus, said the court, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel in this action is appropriate.

The court also commented that "while the [Pisano] apparently did not appear with an attorney when she underwent her medical examinations, she was represented by the Union, which under a collective bargaining agreement with the Board, represents the interests of its members." In addition, said the court, "a party's election to appear without counsel will not invalidate the award of any part of the proceeding in which the right to counsel was not exercised."

New parking placard policies for the executive branch and Legislature

New parking placard policies for the executive branch and Legislature
Source: Office of the Governor

In response to State Inspector General Ellen Biben finding systemic problems with how parking placards were distributed and how they were used by some state employees, Governor Cuomo set new rigorous new policies for state issued parking placards.

Currently, the state distributes two types of parking placards. One says "police" in all capital letters, the other says "official business."

The new parking placard policies for the executive branch and Legislature provide that:

1. State officials are required to fill out a form before receiving the placard indicating why the placard is needed and what vehicle it will be used in.


2. State officials are required to sign a certification acknowledging the proper use of a placard.

3. The Executive Chamber is recalling all outstanding "Police" placards so they can be redistributed to police personnel only.

4. State officials without police powers will be issued "Official Business" placards.

5.The State Police will review and distribute all "Police" placards.

6. The Governor's Office of Public Safety will review and distribute all "Official Business" placards.

7. Agencies will review requests by employees to ensure that their duties and responsibilities would require the use of a placard.

8. Complaints of improper use of "Police" placards will be handled by State Police.

9. Complaints of improper use of "Official Business" placards will be handled by the Inspector General's office. 

10. An employee who misuses the placard could face disciplinary action.

.

.

A statutory general power of appointment implies a power to terminate the services of the appointee

A statutory general power of appointment implies a power to terminate the services of the appointee
Matter of City Council of City of Mount Vernon v Batra, 2011 NY Slip Op 02664, Appellate Division, Second Department

Ravi Batra, former counsel to the Office of the Mayor of the City of Mount Vernon, contended that he was unlawfully terminated from his position, arguing that his appointment pursuant to Section 66 of the Mount Vernon City Charter was irrevocable and not at the pleasure of the mayor.

The Appellate Division, sustaining Supreme Court’s dismissal of Barta’s petition, held that “Where, as here, the power of appointment is conferred in general terms and without restriction, the right to remove the appointee is within the discretion or at the pleasure of the appointing power.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02664.htm
.

Arbitrating an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement

Arbitrating an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement

Albala v Nassau County, 270 AD2d 482

The Albala case illustrates the general rule that the employee organization, rather than an individual unit member, is the party that must prosecute any alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement negotiated under the Taylor Law to arbitration.

The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Albala’s petition, pointing out that a union member has no individual rights under a collective bargaining agreement, which he or she can enforce against his or her employer. In other words, the agreement is the property of the union.

Another factor mentioned in the court’s ruling: CSEA did not avail itself of the remedy provided by the collective bargaining agreement to press Albala’s complaint. This, said the Appellate Division, meant that the basic rule requiring that a party exhaust the administrative remedies otherwise available was not honored, thus precluding any judicial review of the matter.

The court also commented that determination of the Nassau County Office of Labor Relations was not arbitrary or capricious since it was rationally based on the facts before it.

One exception to the general rule that the union “owns the contract” for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the agreement: an individual may bring an action on his or her own behalf if he or she can demonstrate that the union had violated its duty of fair representation with respect to the rights of the unit member in the matter.

However, a claim that an employee organization violated its duty of fair representation cannot be argued in an Article 75 action to vacate the arbitration award.

Two rulings by state courts illustrate this point, Croman v City University of New York, 277 AD2d 185, and Parisi v NYC Housing Authority, Appellate Division, First Department, 269 AD2d 210.


Croman involved a disciplinary action. Croman, a member of the faculty at Borough of Manhattan Community College [BMCC], had been found guilty of taking a paid sabbatical leave of absence based on misrepresentations. The penalty imposed by the arbitrator: an unpaid suspension for one-half year, to reimburse the employer for the expenses it incurred during her sabbatical leave. BMCC had asked the arbitrator to terminate Croman.

Croman’s Article 75 petition asked the court to vacate the arbitration award because, among other things, her union representative did not fairly and adequately represent her in the disciplinary action. Justice York’s response:

Fair representation claims should be asserted in plenary [full and unlimited] actions in which the court is asked to determine [1] whether the union breached its duty was and [2] whether or not the collective bargaining agreement was violated.

Justice York’s conclusion: even assuming that Croman ha[s] a viable fair representation claim under New York State law ... a proceeding to vacate the arbitration award [is] not the proper forum for asserting it. Justice York cited Obot v NYS Department of Correctional Services, 89 NY2d 883 in support of his decision.

In sustaining Justice York’s determination, the Appellate Division said:

Absent clear language in Education Law §6212 (9) prohibiting arbitration of disciplinary matters involving tenured faculty, we reject petitioner's argument that, since that section vests the power to remove tenured faculty solely in respondent's Board of Trustees, public policy is violated by a collective bargaining agreement delegating the authority to discipline to an arbitrator at the employee's option. “It is well settled that a contract provision in a collective bargaining agreement may modify, supplement, or replace the more traditional forms of protection afforded public employees.” (Dye v New York City Tr. Auth., 88 AD2d 899, affd 57 NY2d 917.) Here, the collective bargaining agreement that governed petitioner's employment gave her the option to either accept the penalty recommended by respondent's designee or take the matter to arbitration. Petitioner elected arbitration. Public policy does not nullify the choice she made (cf., Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 450, cert denied 444 US 845).

In the Parisi case, the Appellate Division ruled that Katherine Parisi, a former employee of the New York City Housing Authority had no right to sue the Authority under the collective bargaining agreement.

Here, said the court, her remedies for challenging alleged breaches of the agreement were limited to filing a complaint under the grievance procedure set forth in the contract.

 Parisi had claimed that she was entitled to certain payments under the terms of the agreement. The court said that Parisi did not gain a right to sue by reason of her union’s refusal to take up her grievance, unless such refusal amounted to a breach by the union of its duty of fair representation. Dismissing Parisi’s petition, the court said that she had not shown that the union had breach this duty.

.

Liquidation of sick leave benefits upon retirement

Liquidation of sick leave benefits upon retirement

O’Brien v Deer Park UFSD, 127 F. Supp.2d 342

Federal District Court Judge Denis R. Hurley ruled that paying teachers who retire after age 55 less for their unused sick leave than that paid to teachers who retire before attaining age 56 as provided by the terms of an agreement negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA] and the Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act [OWBPA].

The collective bargaining agreement provided that teachers who retired during the first year after reaching age 55 would be paid in full for all of their accumulated sick leave; those who retired later, i.e. at age 56 or older, would per paid a decreasing percentage of the full value of their sick leave credits.

The court said that under ADEA and Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, employment benefits must be equally available regardless of age.

.