Criminal conviction requires finding of guilt in administrative disciplinary proceeding

Criminal conviction requires finding of guilt in administrative disciplinary proceeding

Kelly v. Levin, 440 NYS2d 424

A school business administrator was charged with larcenies of school funds and bringing discredit upon the school district.

The Education Law Section 3020-a disciplinary panel found the administrator guilty of the charge of bringing discredit upon the district, but not guilty of the larceny charges.

Kelly, however, had been convicted of two counts of grand larceny for theft of school property prior to being charged under Section 3020-a (see People v. Kelly, 72 AD2d 670).

The court held that the fact that the administrator had committed two larcenies of school property was conclusively established under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. As the hearing panel’s decision was based on a finding of guilt of “bringing discredit” charge only, the matter was remitted after the Court reversed the panel’s finding of not guilty of the charges and remanded the matter to the panel for it’s reconsideration of the appropriate penalty to be imposed.

Termination date change does not adversely affect eligibility for Unemployment Insurance benefits

Termination date change does not adversely affect eligibility for Unemployment Insurance benefits

Kalichman v. Ross, 439 N.Y.S.2d 718

When a school secretary was informed that her last day of work would be August 22, she asked that the last date of her service be changed to August 18.

Although the school approved the change, her unemployment insurance claim was rejected because she left on a “voluntary basis”.

The Court held that the change of date in this case was not significant and did not change an involuntary termination into a voluntary one. It then ordered the payment of the unemployment insurance claim.

No claim for back pay upon reinstatement

No claim for back pay upon reinstatement

Koppman v. Board of Education, 95 A.D.2d 777

If a probationary employee reinstated to his or her former position was not removed from the  position unlawfully “neither the Constitution nor New York State Law recognizes the right of a reinstated probationer to an award of back pay”.

This, in a nutshell was the conclusion of the Appellate Divisions in the Koppman case.

The court’s rationale: “In the absence of a statute requiring the payment of back pay, the public employer is not required to pay back wages as the payment of such compensation without the performance of service would constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds (Article 8, Section 1, of the State Constitution).”

Town may terminate health insurance coverage for Medicare-eligible retirees

Town may terminate health insurance coverage for Medicare-eligible retirees

Op St Comp 80-105

The State Comptroller has issued an opinion indicating that a town may terminate the health insurance coverage of a retired town employee when the retiree becomes qualified for Medicare coverage benefits.

It appears that the view of the Comptroller is limited to local governments which are not participating in the State’s Employees’ Health Insurance Programs [NYSHIP]. 

Insofar as public employers participating in NYSHIP are concerned, Section 167-a of the Civil Service Law controls with respect to health insurance coverage available to NYSHIP retirees upon their becoming Medicare-eligible. 

With respect to public employers that do not participate in NYSHIP there may be provisions in a collective bargaining agreement that would control the health insurance participation of an entity's retirees upon their becoming Medicare-eligible.

Public official must claim his or her qualified immunity as a defense when sued in federal court

Public official must claim his or her qualified immunity as a defense when sued in federal court

Gomez v. Toledo, 64 L Ed 2d 548

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a public official sued under 42 USC 1983 (The Civil Rights Act) must claim that the acts alleged to be discriminatory were performed in good faith if he or she seeks qualified immunity as a defense.