Refusal to provide doctor’s note concerning absence from work

Refusal to provide doctor’s note concerning absence from work

Carr v. Ross, 81 A.D.2d 999

A teacher, absent for five days, was paid for three days of the absence alleged due to a back injury but the school district refused to pay for absence beyond the third day without a doctor’s note verifying an illness or injury.

The teacher refused to provide a doctor’s note and resigned “because of his employer’s insistence that he furnish a doctor’s note before he would be paid for two of the days he was absent”. He also stated that he belonged to a religious group that forbids the use of medical doctors except in life or death situations.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board found that the educator had left employment for personal and non-compelling reasons and disqualified him for benefits.

Using time cards

Using time cards

Walker v. Washington, 657 F2d 541

An employee, claiming that his agency’s requirement that he fill out and sign a time card was demeaning, degrading and incriminating, sued the State of Washington. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that requiring an employee to complete a time card was not an “illegal search” and that the employer could properly ask an employee to account for the time for which he was being paid.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal from the decision filed by Walker.

Accepting a lower paying position to avoid layoff

Accepting a lower paying position to avoid layoff

Almond v Kansas Unified School District, USCA, 10^th Circuit, Docket #10-3315

Former employees of the Kansas Unified School District #501 alleged that they had suffered wage discrimination as the result of their having been offered, and their accepting, new positions with lesser pay within the District rather than being laid off as the result of a District-wide downsizing effort.

As they had not filed their claims until several years after the alleged pay discrimination took place, federal district court ruled that their action was untimely.

While the case was pending Congress enacted the "Ledbetter Act"* specifically aimed at addressing "discrimination in compensation" claims in which members of a protected class receive less pay than similarly situated colleagues.

Although the employees contended that their claims included “Ledbetter Act” violations, the Tenth Circuit concluded that because the employees had not alleged an unequal pay for equal work claim, the Ledbetter statute of limitations did not apply to their cause of action. Accordingly, said the court, the pre-Ledbetter rules applied and under those rules their claims were untimely.

* The Ledbetter Act came in response to the Ledbetter case. Lilly Ledbetter proved that her supervisors gave her poor performance reviews because of her gender — and that these reviews, in turn, caused her employer to pay her less than similarly situated male workers. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618.

The decisions is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-3315.pdf

Writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of records pursuant to FOIL

Writ of mandamus to compel disclosure of records pursuant to FOIL

State ex rel. Dawson v Bloom-Carrol Local School District, Ohio Supreme Court, Docket 2011-0145

A parent sought a writ of mandamus* to compel a local school district to provide her with itemized invoices of law firms for services it bill the district concerning the parent’s children, and any communications from the school district's insurance carrier concerning litigation she brought against the district on behalf of one of her children.

Ohio Supreme Court denied the writ, explaining that the requested records were exempt from disclosure under Ohio’s Public Records Act because the school district met its burden of establishing the applicability of the attorney-client privilege to the requested records.

* “Mandamus was one of a number of ancient common law writs and was issued by a court to compel an administrative body to perform an act required by law.

Selected PERB decisions

Selected PERB decisions

Duty of fair representation

     The Union violated its duty to represent a non-member of the Union in the collective bargaining unit when it refused to appear on behalf of the non-member teacher in a hearing before the School Board regarding the teacher’s unsatisfactory performance rating. (Case U-4165 Matter of United Federation of Teachers)

Bargaining in good faith

     A School District could not refuse to pay a school administrator benefits provided under an expired contract (pay for accumulated sick leave credits upon retirement) when the record shows that the District did not bargain in good faith regarding the continuation of such benefit. (Case U-4616 Matter of Levittown Union Free School District)

Work now, grieve later

     Employee’s mistaken belief that the employer was in violation of the contract did not excuse his refusing to work, but even if he were correct, he would have been wrong in absenting himself from work as the proper recourse was to grieve the matter. (Case U-4642, Matter of Nassau County Chapter CSEA)

Scott v Wetzler, 195 AD2d 905, illustrates an application of the general rule that except in life-threatening situations, or in situations where the employee is asked to perform a clearly unlawful act, if an employee objects to complying with a superior's directive, he or she should "work now, grieve later."

Non-mandatory subjects of collective bargaining:

    Benefits for employees already retired, the number of full-time employees required and demands to fill vacant positions are not mandatory subjects of negotiations under the Taylor Law. (Case U-4905, Matter of the Village of Hudson Falls)