Quid pro quo sexual harassment

Quid pro quo sexual harassment

Pipkins v City of Temple Terrance [FL], CA11 267 F.3d 1197

In the Pipkins case the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided that harassment at the worksite as a result of a “failed consensual sexual relationship” did not support a quid pro quo sexual harassment claim filed pursuant to Title VII.

An employee alleged that she had suffered sexual harassment and retaliation within the meaning of Title VII and sued her employer, the City of Temple Terrace, Florida. A federal district court judge granted the city's motion for summary judgment and the employee appealed.

According to the decision,”[f]rom approximately June 1993 until May 1994, the employee maintained an on-again, off-again personal relationship with Daniel Klein, the City's Finance Director and Assistant City Manager. Klein was not the employee's immediate supervisor. After the employee and Klein ceased to have a sexual relationship the employee claimed that Klein continued to pursue her romantically....”

Initially given “exemplary job evaluations,” after October 1994 the employee's performance ratings began to suffer. She attributed this to the termination of her relationship with Klein and told the City's Human Relations Specialist of her concerns.

The employee alleged that in December 1994, the City Manager overheard a conversation between herself and Klein indicating the personal nature of their former relationship. After the City Manager completed an investigation, Klein was notified that he should immediately commence seeking alternate employment. Klein left the City's employ in June 1995.

The employee's job evaluations continued to deteriorate, scoring lower on her May 1995 evaluation than she had on previous ones, and worse yet on her October 1995 evaluation. As a result, The employee resigned effective January 2, 1996, approximately six months after Klein left the City's employ. She sued, claiming constructive discharge.

To establish prima facie case of quid pro quo sexual harassment, the employee was required to show: (1) that she belongs to a protected group; (2) that she has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) that the harassment was based on her sex; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment; and (5) that there is a basis for holding the employer liable.

As to the issue of what constitutes sexual harassment at the work site, in Oncale v Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, the Supreme Court said that “[t]he critical issue ... is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed”.

The Circuit Court said that based on Oncale, the employee did not meet the third factor -- she cannot establish that the harassment complained of was committed by reason of her sex.” Earlier rulings had distinguished between actions based on discriminatory animus and those based on personal animosity resulting from failed consensual relationships. In this case the court found that the consensual nature of the relationship between [the employee] and Klein and any resulting feelings of enmity determinative -- it was the result of personal animosity rather than any discriminatory animus.

Most of the actions of which the employee complained were committed by her immediate supervisor, Florence Lewis-Begin, rather than by Klein.

The employee contended, but offered no evidence, that Lewis-Begin was motivated by her friendship with Klein's wife to criticize her job performance. The court said that such motivation would be attributable to personal animosity and would not meet the Title VII requirement that the alteration of terms and conditions of employment be “because of... sex.”

The court, however, was quick to point out it was not deciding whether or not “once a consensual relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate is established, the subordinate could never then become victim to quid pro quo sexual harassment by that supervisor subsequent to the termination of the relationship.”

As to the employee's retaliation claim, the court found that her continuing negative evaluations were in response to well-documented job performance deficiencies. Although the employee claimed constructive discharge, her working conditions were not “so difficult ... that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign.”

As to repeatedly receiving poor evaluations, the court said that this would be unpleasant for anyone, but it does not rise to the level of such intolerable conditions that no reasonable person would remain on the job. The Circuit Court's conclusion: Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to [the employee], we agree with the district court's finding that harassment, if any, suffered by [the employee] was not the result of her gender, but rather in response to possible disappointment Klein may have experienced as a result of their failed relationship. We also agree that [the employee] has failed to establish a retaliation claim as a matter of law.

The lower court's dismissal of the employee's complaint was sustained.

Disclosing the unlisted telephone numbers called by public officials pursuant to a FOIL request

Disclosing the unlisted telephone numbers called by public officials pursuant to a FOIL request

Matter of Hawley v Village of Penn Yan, 35 A.D.3d 1270

This case arose when Robert Hawley submitted a Freedom of Information [FOIL] request to obtain a list of all of the telephone calls made and received by the Mayor of the Village of Penn Yan for a two-month period on a cellular telephone paid for the Village.

Responding to his request, the Village provided Hawley with the list of all of the mayor’s cell phone calls for the period requested but one. It did not provide that one telephone number because it was an “unlisted” number.

In the litigation that followed, the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court had “properly granted [Hawley’s] petition only in part, granting [Hawley] "the right to examine all requested telephone records, excluding unlisted wired and wireless numbers."

The general standard applied by the courts: "FOIL is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government."

The basic concept underlying FOIL -- all public documents are available to the public. However, an agency may, but is not required to, deny public access to documents if such records or documents fall within one or more of the "exemptions from disclosure" allowed under FOIL. Unless access or disclosure is otherwise specifically prohibited by law, the basic rule is that only those records that fall within the statutory exceptions may be withheld from the public if the custodian of such records, as a matter of exercising discretion, elects to do so.

In addition, a public body may exercise its discretion and apply the exemption to disclosure where disclosure “would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" (Public Officers Law §87[b]).

According to the decision, the question to be resolved in the context of this appeal was "What constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy as measured by what would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable [person] of ordinary sensibilities?”

The Appellate Division said that this determination requires “balancing the competing interests of public access and individual privacy." In the court’s view, a situation in which a person chooses to have an unlisted phone number suggests that disclosure of the number would, in that individual’s view, be unnecessarily intrusive or result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, citing NY Dept. of State Commission on Open Government, Advisory Opinions 9197 and 8740.

The court decided that in this instance FOIL did not require the disclosure of the unlisted telephone numbers Hawley asked to have revealed.

Resignation from a position in the public service must be in writing

Resignation from a position in the public service must be in writing

Plainedge UFSD v Raymond, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education 14644

The Commissioner's ruling in the Plainedge case points out the critical importance of the written resignation.

Early in 2001 Plainedge Union Free School District board member Donald Risucci announced that he was resigning from his position effective June 30, 2001. The district decided to include Risucci's “soon to be vacant” seat on the ballot of its annual school election in order to save the school district the approximately $7,000 that a special election would cost.

Ralph Raymond won the election for Risucci's seat and asked to be seated immediately. He was told that “the seat would not become vacant until June 30, 2001, the effective date of Risucci's resignation.

The school attorney had advised the superintendent that “Risucci's resignation did not meet legal standards and was a nullity.” Apparently Risucci had not submitted his resignation in writing as required by Section 31(2) of the Public Officer Law. An oral resignation does not satisfy the requirements of Section 31(2). Raymond, therefore, could not take office because no vacancy existed. In other words, Risucci was still a member of the board because he did not submit a lawful resignation. Raymond appealed his being denied a seat on the board to the Commissioner of Education.*

The Commissioner agreed that Risucci's March 8, 2001 announcement of his intention to resign at a board meeting did not constitute a valid resignation from the board. As the Attorney General indicated in a formal opinion [1971 Opinions of the Attorney General 12], a member of a school board, whether elected or appointed, is a public officer. Thus his or her resignation is subject to the mandates of Section 31 of the Public Officers Law. The Commissioner's decision notes that Section 31(2) requires that:

Every resignation shall be in writing addressed to the officer or body to whom it is made. If no effective date is specified in such resignation, it shall take effect upon delivery to or filing with the proper officer or body. If an effective date is specified in such resignation, it shall take effect upon the date specified, provided however, that in no event shall the effective date of such resignation be more than thirty days subsequent to the date of its delivery or filing.

It should be noted that Section 31(2) specifically addresses the “more than thirty day” situation -- i.e., what is the effective date of the written resignation if it specifies it is to take effect more than thirty days after its delivery?

Section 31(2) provides, in pertinent part, that if the written resignation specifies an effective date that is more than thirty days subsequent to the date of its delivery or filing the resignation shall take effect thirty days from the date of its delivery or filing.

In other word, had Risucci simultaneously submitted his written resignation at the time he orally announced his intention to resign indicating that the effective date of the written resignation was to be June 30, 2001, his resignation would have taken effect thirty days after his written resignation was delivered notwithstanding the fact that its terms demonstrated that Risucci intended that it not take effect until June 30, 2001. 

* The requirement that resignations be in writing also applies to employees in the classified service of the State and public authorities, public benefit corporations and other agencies for which the Civil Service Law is administered by the State Department of Civil Service. 4 NYCRR 5.3, which applies to individuals subject to the Rules of the New York State Civil Service Commission, provides as follows: Resignation. (a) Resignation in writing. Except as otherwise provided herein, every resignation shall be in writing.

4 NYCRR 5.3 also provides that “If no effective date is specified in a resignation, it shall take effect upon delivery to or filing in the office of the appointing authority.” If an effective date is specified in a resignation, the Rule provides that it shall take effect on such specified date. However, if a resignation is submitted while the employee is on leave of absence without pay, such resignation, for the purpose of determining eligibility for reinstatement, shall be deemed to be effective as of the date of the commencement of such absence.”

Further, in the event an employee submits his or her resignation when charges of incompetency or misconduct have been or are about to be filed against the employee, the appointing authority may elect to disregard a resignation filed by such employee and to prosecute such charges and, in the event that such employee is found guilty of such charges and dismissed from the service, his or her termination shall be recorded as a dismissal rather than as a resignation.

Many local civil service commissions have adopted similar rules.

Eligibility for accidental disability retirement benefits as the result of an event that occurred while the individual was off-duty

Eligibility for accidental disability retirement benefits as the result of an event that occurred while the individual was  off-duty

DeBoer v Hynes, 287 AD2d 626

Gregory J. DeBoer was eligible for disability benefits resulting from work-related injuries pursuant to Section 207-c of the General Municipal Law. The question here: Are Section 207-c benefits available to an otherwise eligible individual if he or she is injured while off-duty?

DeBoer, was injured while attempting to make an off-duty arrest of individuals allegedly vandalizing his premises. He applied for Section 207-c disability benefits. Clearly, if he had suffered the injury while on duty, he would have been eligible for Section 207-c benefits.

Charles Hynes, the Kings County District Attorney, denied DeBoer's application for Section 207-c line-of-duty benefits because it resulted from DeBoer's actions while he was off-duty. The Appellate Division said that this was incorrect.

The court said that Hynes' Section 207-c decision should be annulled, “as the determination that the [DeBoer] did not sustain injuries in the performance of his duties was an improvident exercise of discretion.”

The court's conclusion: Under these circumstances, DeBoer was entitled to line-of-duty benefits pursuant to Section 207-c retroactive to February 21, 2000.

Representation by a layperson in an administrative disciplinary proceeding

Representation by a layperson in an administrative disciplinary proceeding

Sam v Metro-North Commuter Railroad, App. Div., 1st Dept., 287 AD2d 378

One of the issues in the Sam v Metro-North Commuter Railroad was Sam's contention that he was denied administrative due process because a non-attorney union official rather than an attorney served as his representative at a disciplinary hearing.*

Carlson Sam, an employee of Metro-North Commuter Railroad (Metro-North), was discharged from his employment for conduct unbecoming a Metro-North employee and failing to comply with a lawful order of a Metro-North police officer. The Special Board of Adjustment, which reviewed the disciplinary administrative tribunal's trial and determination, sustained Sam's being found guilty and the penalty imposed, dismissal.

The decision states that Sam was found guilty of leaving his assigned post and becoming involved in an altercation with a homeless man whom he though had stolen his car radio. The altercation, in which both plaintiff and the homeless man brandished weapons, spilled over into the terminal and into the track area of the station. Sam refused to obey the orders of Metro-North Police present during the incident, and Metro-North police officer Barreto had to physically removed the weapon from Sam's control and wrestle him to the ground and arrested him.

In reaching its decision, the Board noted multiple reasons justifying Sam's termination, including the fact that he left his assigned post, engaged in a violent altercation, refused a police officer's lawful order to lay down his weapon, and engaged in conduct requiring his forcible arrest. As to the penalty of dismissal, the Board found that termination was warranted since Sam, who only had three years of seniority, had already been disciplined several times previously.

Sam then sued Barreto and Metro-North asserting claims of assault, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, defamation, as well a claim that his 42 USC 1983 civil rights were violated.

As to Sam’s assertions concerning the lack of counsel, the Appellate Division agreed that he was not represented by an attorney at his administrative trial. However, said the court, “here the absence of counsel is not determinative since [Sam] was represented by a union official whose competence and experience were amply demonstrated by the trial record.”

The union representative “thoroughly questioned the various witnesses, raised appropriate objections, and requested a continuance to present additional witnesses, a request that was granted.” This, in the view of the court, provided Sam with appropriate representation for the purposes of satisfying administrative due process in a disciplinary setting.

* Section 75.2 of the Civil Service Law provides that an individual against whom disciplinary charges have been preferred may be represented by an attorney or by a representative of a recognized or certified collective bargaining organization.