The party alleging that an individual has changed his domicile has the burden of proving such a change of the individual’s “permanent place of abode”

The party alleging that an individual has changed his domicile has the burden of proving such a change of the individual’s “permanent place of abode”
Matter of Gigliotti v Bianco, 2011 NY Slip Op 02206, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The City of Niagara Falls School District terminated the employment of Vincent F. Gigliotti on the grounds that he failed to comply with the District's residency policy, which requires District employees to be domiciliaries of the City of Niagara Falls. Supreme Court properly granted the petition.

It is well established that "domicile means living in [a] locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home." As the Court of Appeals said in Matter of Newcomb, 192 NY 238, "For a change to a new domicile to be effected, there must be a union of residence in fact and an absolute and fixed intention to abandon the former and make the new locality a fixed and permanent home."

An individual may have but one domicile at time, i.e., his or her permanent place of abode, which continues until he or she has acquired a new one and any party alleging a change in an individual’s domicile “has the burden to prove the change by clear and convincing evidence."

In contrast, an individual may have multiple places of residence simultaneously, i.e., two or more residences in the same or at different geographical locations in which he or she may, from time to time, live, but only one such residence is his or her domicile.

According to the decision, the Gigliotti, a lifelong resident of Niagara Falls, divorced and while he was temporarily laid off from his position, remarried. Gigliotti and his wife, who owned a home in Ransomville New York, agreed that Gigliotti would continue to live in Niagara Falls with his ailing mother while his spouse would continue to live in her home in Ransomville.

The evidence considered by the Appellate Division in determining Gigliotti’s domicile included Gigliotti’s listing his Niagara Falls address on his federal income tax return forms, his New York State driver's license, his marriage certificate, and his bank and credit statements. In addition, the court noted that Gigliotti’s personal belonging remained at his residence in Niagara Falls, “although he keeps a set of golf clubs and some clothing at his wife's residence in Ransomville.”

The Appellate Division, after considering the evidence, determined that the District’s conclusion that Gigliotti had changed his domicile from Niagara Falls to Ransomville was arbitrary and capricious.

Significantly, the court commented that although the District did not conduct a hearing before terminating Gigliotti’s employment, such a hearing was not "required by statute or law," citing Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322 Assuming that the District had provided Gigliotti with an opportunity to show that he or she satisfied the District’s requirement regarding domicile, the problem here was that the court disagreed with the District’s conclusion that Gigliotti was not domiciled in Niagara Falls.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02206.htm
.

Protected speech vs. whistle blowing

Protected speech vs. whistle blowing

Ringle v Onondaga County, 267 AD2d 1088

The Ringle decision by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, addresses a number of important issues concerning the limits, if any, on the right of a public employee to publicly “to blow the whistle” on his or her employer.

The court’s conclusion: a public employee’s right to “blow the whistle” on his or her employer of his or her superiors is not absolute.

David Ringle and William R. Sawyer sued Onondaga County, contending that the county had retaliated against them for “whistle blowing” in violation of (1) their Constitutional right to free speech and (2) Section 75-b of the Civil Service Law.

Both Ringle and Sawyer alleged that they were unlawfully dismissed or constructively discharged from their positions as a result of their communicating with other government agencies and the media concerning alleged inappropriate activities in the Onondaga County Laboratory (OCL) and Medical Examiner’s Office (MEO) and inappropriate conduct by their supervisor, the Onondaga County Medical Examiner.

Constitutionally protected rights

The Appellate Division first considered the Constitutional free speech and civil rights claims under 42 US 1983 advanced by Ringle and Sawyer.

After noting that “it is well established that a governmental entity may not discharge or retaliate against an employee based on that employee’s exercise of the right of free speech,” the Appellate Division pointed out that:

1. The “Pickering test” [Pickering v Board of Education, 391 US 563] is used to determine if a public employee has been unlawfully dismissed from his or her employment for “engaging in speech.” This test balances the interests of the employee, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in providing efficient service to the public.

2. Consideration must be given to whether the speech to which the employer objects “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise”

3. The greater a “confidential relationship” and the “policymaking function” of the speaker, the greater the State’s interest in terminating the employee for expressions against the employer’s interests and the lesser the employee’s First Amendment rights.

According to the decision, Ringle’s and Sawyer’s comments concerning “mismanagement by the Medical Examiner and inappropriate activities in the OCL and MEO may fairly be categorized as a matter of public concern.”

The Appellate Division, however, found that both Ringle and Sawyer held positions requiring confidentiality and which involved policymaking and public contact, elements that the court determined to be mitigating factors insofar as their free speech rights were concerned.

The court concluded that given their job responsibilities, “[c]ommon sense tells us that the expressive activities of [such] highly placed supervisory, confidential, policymaking, or advisory employee[s] will be more disruptive to the operation of the workplace than similar activity by a low level employee with little authority or discretion.”

The Appellate Division held that the record established that the comments made by Ringle and Sawyer were disruptive to the operation of the workplace, created disharmony among co-workers, interfered with their working relationships with their supervisor, and affected the performance of their duties.

Given these circumstances, the court said that it concluded that terminating Ringle and Sawyer, even in retaliation for their comments to the media and other government agencies concerning the operation of the OCL and MEO, did not violate their First Amendment rights or their civil rights under 42 USC 1983.

Civil Service Law Section 75-b whistle blowing claims

In determining Ringle’s and Sawyer’s rights under Section 75-b of the Civil Service Law, different considerations were found to be controlling.

First, the Appellate Division said that lawsuits under Section 75-b sought to vindicate personal rights in contrast to efforts to vindicate a public interest.

Section 75-b prohibits a public employer from retaliating against a public employee who “blows the whistle.” Subdivision 2(a) states that a public employer shall not dismiss or take other disciplinary or other adverse personnel action involving an individual’s public employment who discloses information to a governmental body involving a threat to public health or constitutes improper governmental action.

Alleged violations of Section 75-b are typically challenged by the individual bringing an Article 78 action [Article 78, Civil Practice Law and Rules.]. In filing such a petition, said Appellate Division, the individual seeks to vindicate a private rather than a public right. What private right? The right not to be dismissed or otherwise subjected to reprisals because of his or her disclosures to other governmental agencies of the media.

This conclusion meant that both Ringle and Sawyer had fallen into a procedural trap.

The Appellate Division said that because the “Civil Service Law Section 75-b causes of action they brought sought to vindicate only the individual interests of Ringle and Sawyer, ... they were properly dismissed by the lower court because Ringle and Sawyer failed to file a notice of claim as required by Section 50-a of the General Municipal Law Section and Section 52 of the County Law.*

In addition, the court pointed out that Section 75-b does not serve as a shield against disciplinary action being taken against an employee where there is a “separate and independent basis” for discipline the individual.

Finally, the Appellate Division observed that “by commencing actions pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 75-b, Ringle and Sawyer are barred from asserting any other State law cause of action related to the alleged retaliatory discharges.”

* This ruling implies that where an individual sues a school district or BOCES claiming he or she was dismissed or subjected to punitive action in violation of Section 75-b, he or she must file a notice of claim in accordance with Section 3813(1) of the Education Law.

Reassigning a teacher to non-teaching duties

Reassigning a teacher to non-teaching duties

Taylor v Hammondsport CSD, 267 AD2d 987

May a school district assign a teacher to perform non-teaching duties against his or her will? This was the issue raised by David C. Taylor, a tenured high school science teacher.

The Hammondsport Central School District had assigned Taylor to perform nonteaching duties after he was found guilty of a number of specifications set out in disciplinary charges filed against him pursuant to Section 3020-a of the Education Law.

The hearing officer found Taylor guilty of portions of two charges filed against him. The penalty imposed: a $1,000 fine. However, the hearing officer in setting the penalty to be imposed did not provide for any remedial action.*

Taylor objected to his reassignment to non-teaching duties, contending that the assignment to such duties constitutes the imposition of an additional penalty or remedial action in violation of Education Law Section 3020-a. He challenged his reassignment, demanding that he be reinstated to his former teaching assignment and compensated for emotional distress he has endured as the result of district’s assigning him to nonteaching duties.

A State Supreme Court judge dismissed Taylor’s petition on the ground that he did not have any “clear legal right to the relief sought against [district], and therefore [an order in the nature of] mandamus* was not available to him as a remedy.”

The Appellate Division agreed with the lower court, pointing out that Section 3020-a “neither limits the authority of [the district] to assign [Taylor] to nonteaching duties nor requires [the district] to restore [Taylor] to his teaching duties following the completion of disciplinary procedures conducted pursuant to the statute.”

Addressing a procedural issue, the Appellate Division ruled that Taylor was required to give the district a notice of claim as required by Section 3813(1) of the Education Law prior to his commencing litigation.

The court said that in this instance complying with Section 3813 (1) was a statutory condition precedent to bringing an action or proceeding against the district because Taylor was attempting to vindicate his private rights. Accordingly, he was not exempt from the notice of claim requirement set out in the Education Law as might be the case were he attempting to vindicate a public interest in contrast to a personal one.

* Education Law Section 3020-a.4, in pertinent part, provides: …. In addition to or in lieu of the aforementioned penalties, the hearing officer, where he or she deems appropriate, may impose upon the employee remedial action including but not limited to leaves of absence with or without pay, continuing education and/or study, a requirement that the employee seek counseling or medical treatment or that the employee engage in any other remedial or combination of remedial actions.

** Latin for "we order." Mandamus is one of a number of ancient “writs.” In modern legal practice it describes a court order directing a governmental entity [or official] to perform an act required by law when it has neglected or refused to do.
.

Disciplinary penalty set out in a consent award agreed to in the course of disciplinary arbitration not within the power of a subsequent arbitrator to modify

Disciplinary penalty set out in a consent award agreed to in the course of disciplinary arbitration not within the power of a subsequent arbitrator to modify
In the Matter of Saderia Burke v Nassau Health Care Corporation, 2011 NY Slip Op 02887, Appellate Division, Second Department

This decision addressed two proceedings involving Saderia Burke’s arbitration award. Burke, a member of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc.

In the course of a disciplinary proceeding Burke and the Nassau Health Care Corporation entered into a "Consent Award" that was "so-ordered" by the arbitrator. The Award provided that Burke would be terminated if she committed certain disciplinary infractions within an agreed period.

Subsequently Health Care served a “notice of termination” on Burke after she allegedly committed “certain infractions.” CSEA filed another grievance and demand for arbitration.

After this second hearing, the arbitrator found that Burke, indeed, had committed infractions that would result in termination in accordance with the Consent Award. The arbitrator, however, issued an award imposing a penalty of suspension rather than termination.

Health Care filed an Article 75 petition seeking to vacate the award while CSEA filed an Article 75 petition seeking to confirm the award.

Supreme Court denied Health Care’s petition, granting so much of the arbitration award as imposed a penalty of suspension without pay on Burke.

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision, and vacated the penalty of suspension without pay awarded by the arbitrator, explaining that courts may vacate an arbitration award if the award "violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power," citing Matter of Falzone, 15 NY3d 530.

An arbitrator, said the court, may properly modify a prior arbitration award only to:

1. Correct a miscalculation or mistaken description in the prior award:

2. To correct so much of the prior award as was rendered on a matter not submitted to the arbitrator and which can be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision; or

3. To correct a prior award that is "imperfect in a matter of form."

In this instance the Appellate Division found that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority by determining an issue “not submitted to him.” Further, he ruled on an issue had been resolved via a “consent award” in a prior arbitration involving Burke, the penalty to be imposed for any other “certain” disciplinary infraction.

In view of this, ruled the Appellate Division, Supreme Court should have modified so much of the arbitrator's award as imposed a penalty of suspension without pay and reinstated the penalty of termination.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02887.htm

.

Termination of employment recommended as the penalty for failure to follow proper procedure in safeguarding the property of an agency client

Termination of employment recommended as the penalty for failure to follow proper procedure in safeguarding the property of an agency client

NYC Human Resources v Townsend, OATH Index #1325/11

A NYC Human Resources Administration client was arrested and Marvin Townsend, a supervising special officer, was assigned to process the arrest.

The client had a jacket with a Portable Sony Playstation (PSP) and wallet, in the pocket.

Townsend told the client he would not voucher the property and that she could get it from his office on the next day.

When the client retrieved the jacket, the PSP and wallet were missing. The PSP was subsequently returned to the client but the wallet was not.

ALJ Alessandra Zorgniotti found that the sergeant failed to follow vouchering procedures and attempted to cover up his actions and deceive the client. The Administrative Law Judge recommended that Townsend be terminated from his position.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-1325.pdf
.