Student Intern Program announced by the NYS Department of Civil Service

Student Intern Program announced by the NYS Department of Civil Service

Acting NYS Civil Service Commission President Patricia A. Hite has distributed the following "General Information Bulletin #12-01" to State Departments and Agencies describing a new Student Intern Program that is to be made available to qualified college and graduate school students interested in a career in public service and inviting their respective Department and Agency participation.

GENERAL INFORMATION BULLETIN No. 12-01

TO: Department and Agency Directors of Human Resource, Personnel and Affirmative Action Officers
FROM: Patricia A. Hite
SUBJECT: New New York Leaders: Student Intern Program
DATE: May 10, 2012

On February 15, Governor Cuomo launched the New New York Leaders: Student Intern Program, the first ever centralized Student Intern Program for state government. The Program will provide talented undergraduate or graduate students who are New York State residents or who attend a New York State college, university or graduate program and are interested in exploring a career in public service with a single location to apply and be considered for internship opportunities. Students will be exposed to the work of governing and the increasingly complex policy challenges facing New York State. This group of diverse and talented students is the future of state government.

A memorandum from Howard Glaser dated May 9, 2012, advised agency heads of this important initiative, the success of which depends upon agency participation. The Department of Civil Service is hosting the portal for the Student Intern Program which will function as the primary location where agency internship opportunities will be posted and applications will be accepted. Based on the preferred candidate profile submitted by the agency for each internship opportunity, the Department will provide agencies with a list of qualified candidates. It is expected that by fall 2012, all New York State internship opportunities will be included on the New New York Leaders: Student Intern Program portal.

This Program is not intended to replace established agency relationships with colleges and universities; rather, the portal is to serve as a comprehensive recruitment tool for agencies and a single resource to which schools may direct students. The Department will notify New York State colleges and universities of the Program and develop a recruitment plan to actively recruit students from schools with diverse populations. Agencies are encouraged to continue their recruitment efforts. Communication with college and university internship coordinators should continue to ensure the inclusion of candidates with agencies' preferred qualifications; however, students should be directed to the portal to apply for and select specific agency opportunities. Appointments must be made through the centralized process.

We are making every effort to meet agencies' needs while providing schools and students a centralized portal for the Student Intern Program. This fall we will ask for your feedback on the portal and, based upon that input, will seek to expand the visibility of the Program and increase efficiency and transparency in the process of hiring interns.

Student Intern Program Overview

The internship opportunities offered by the New New York Leaders: Student Intern Program may be paid or unpaid, and for graduate or undergraduate students. Applications will be accepted three times a year for internships to be filled in the fall, spring and summer. The internship portal will allow candidates to submit applications, upload resumes and review and identify preferences for internships. Agencies will use the internship portal to post internship opportunities, set hiring criteria, and receive a list of qualified candidates.

Between June 1 and June 27, 2012, agencies will post their Fall 2012 internship opportunities on the internship portal. An agency guide and further directions will be made available to assist you with this process. Agencies will also have the opportunity to attend a Student Intern Program briefing on May 30, 2012 in Room 354 in the Alfred E. Smith Office Building in Albany. Agency staff in locations outside of Albany will have the ability connect to the briefing via webinar. During the briefing, Student Intern Program staff will provide programmatic details of the Program, a demonstration of the internship portal, and guidelines for submitting internships.

Student Intern Program Liaisons

We request that all agencies designate an agency liaison to serve as a point of contact for future communication related to the Student Intern Program. The Student Intern Program Liaison will be responsible for:

• communicating all relevant Student Intern Program information and deadlines to agency staff; and,

• coordinating your agency's input and maintenance of internship posting information in the internship portal.

• May 15, 2012
 - Agencies designate Student Intern Program Liaison

• May 23, 2012
 - DCS provides agencies a guide and template for posting internships

• May 30, 2012
 - Student Internship Program Briefing for Liaisons

• June 1, 2012
 - Access to Internship Portal for Agencies

• June 27, 2012
 - Deadline for Posting Internships

• July 23, 2012
 - Deadline for Students to Apply and Identify Internship Preferences

• July 24 - 31, 2012
 - Agencies Establish Criteria and Receive List of Qualified Candidates

• July 24, 2012 - August 31, 2012
 - Agencies Contact Candidates for Interviews

• September 2012
 - Internships Begin

The Student Intern Program Liaison should be, whenever possible, a professional member of your human resource team. All human resource or personnel staff with access to NYSTEP will have permissions to access the Internship Portal using their Department of Civil Service Web Applications Log In information. Please contact Lynne Harting via email atnysinternships@cs.state.ny.us by Tuesday, May 15, 2012, with the name and contact information for your agency liaison. Please also indicate if the Student Intern Program Liaison will be attending the Student Internship Program briefing in person or connecting via the webinar.

Timeline

To assist you in your planning efforts, the timeline for the New New York Leaders: Student Intern Program for Fall 2012 internships is as follows:

We look forward to your participation in the New New York Leaders: Student Intern Program. For more information on the program, visit our website http://www.nysinternships.com beginning the week of May 14. If you have any questions, please contact Lynne Harting at (518) 473-9721 or contact us at nysinternships@cs.state.ny.us.

The school board rather than the Commissioner of Education in the party that may initiate disciplinary action against a school officer

The school board rather than the Commissioner of Education in the party that may initiate disciplinary action against a school officer

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 16,350

An individual challenged the actions of the school board and various officers of the school district by filing an appeal with the Commissioner of Education in which he include a request that the Commissioner remove certain school officials from their respective positions.

The Commissioner dismissed the appeal and denied the removal application.

Addressing the denial of the individual’s “removal application” with respect to the superintendent and the assistant superintendent, the Commissioner explained that the individual must seek disciplinary action from the [superintendent’s and the assistant superintendent’s] employer, the board of education, in the first instance. 

Disciplinary action against a superintendent or assistant superintendent, said the Commissioner, is within “the discretion of the employing board of education.”

Accordingly, the individual should have brought his complaint to the board of education, whose decision may then be reviewed in an appeal to the Commissioner of Education.

The decision of the Commissioner is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume51/d16350.html

Individual must prove four elements to prevail in a claim that he or she was subjected to retaliation for having filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination

Individual must prove four elements to prevail in a claim that he or she was subjected to retaliation for having filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination

A correction officer employed by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision filed an action in the Court of Claims alleging that he had been subjected to retaliation and a hostile work environment in violation of Executive Law §296.

The officer had claimed that he was disciplined after engaging in an on-duty physical confrontation with another correction officer, contending that the other correction officer involved in the confrontation was not disciplined at all and that a different correction officer involved in a similar but unrelated incident received a lesser punishment. He contended that the disciplinary action taken against him was in retaliation of his having previously filed complaints against his supervisors alleging racism.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims’ ruling that the correction officer had failed to establish either claim.

Citing Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, the court explained that to establish a claim for retaliation, a claimant was required to prove the following four elements:

[1] he or she had engaged in protected activity;

[2] his or her employer was aware that he or she had engaged in such activity;

[3] he or she suffered an adverse employment action based upon his or her activity;

[4] there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.

The Appellate Division noted although the first three elements of a retaliation claim were not disputed here, the Court of Claims concluded that there was no evidence of a causal connection between the protected activity and the discipline imposed on claimant.

The Court of Claims had [1] credited the version of events reported by the witnesses to the confrontation and determined that claimant was the aggressor and [2] the confrontation in which the officer had been involved “was more serious than the unrelated incident.”

As to the officer’s “retaliatory hostile work environment claim,” the Appellate Division said that the actions giving rise to such a claim “must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable harassment and stem from a retaliatory animus.”

The Appellate Division held that in determining if such a hostile work environment existed “All of the circumstances must be considered, including ‘the frequency of the [retaliatory] conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.'"  Further, said the court, "[T]he conduct must both have altered the conditions of the victim's employment by being subjectively perceived as abusive by the [claimant], and have created an objectively hostile or abusive environment — one that a reasonable person would find to be so."

Noting that the record supported the conclusion of the Court of Claims that the supervisor's conduct did not pervade claimant's work environment or rise to an actionable level, the court dismissed the correction officer’s appeal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03487.htm

Comptroller’s audit alleges that a former Village of Wolcott clerk-treasurer made unauthorized payments to herself

Comptroller’s audit alleges that a former Village of Wolcott clerk-treasurer made unauthorized payments to herself

An audit report issued by the State Comptroller's Division of Local Government and School Accountability  alleges that a former Village of Wolcott clerk-treasurer misappropriated more than $68,000 of the village's funds over a four-year period.

The village had contacted the Comptroller's office. After reviewing the village's financial records the auditors reported that the village’s accounting records indicated that unauthorized disbursements in the form of extra payroll payments, unauthorized overtime payments, excessive health insurance buyouts, unearned leave payouts, overpayment of vital statistics fees, and payments inappropriately charged to the village’s records management grant had been made.

The audit report recommended the village:

1. Ensure the village's clerk-treasurer maintains adequate, accurate and timely records and reports on an ongoing basis;

2.Require and review detailed monthly financial reports, which should include cash balances, cash receipts and disbursements made during the month, a comparison of actual revenue and expenditures to budget amounts, and bank reconciliations with copies of the bank statements.

3. Adopt and distribute a Code of Ethics, as required by law; and

4. Monitor cash disbursement records to ensure accuracy.

The Division's audit report is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/villages/2012/wolcott.pdf

An internal investigation of a sexual harassment complaint prior to the filing of a complaint with EEOC not a protected activity within the meaning of Title VII

An internal investigation of a sexual harassment complaint prior to the filing of a complaint with the EEOC not a protected activity within the meaning of Title VII

In a case characterized by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, as one of “first impression,” the court ruled that internal investigations by conducted by an employee of alleged acts of unlawful discrimination in accordance with the employer's policy but initiated prior to the filing of a Title VII complaint does not qualify as a “protected activity.”

The genesis of the case was a complaint made to the employer’s Human Resources Director [HRD] by an employee alleging she had been sexually harassed by a corporate executive.

The HRD began to conduct an internal investigation of the allegations. However, before completing the investigation, the HRD was terminated by employer. Contending that her termination was in retaliation for her participation in the internal investigation, the HRD brought an action againt the employer claiming her investigation activities constituted a protected activity within the meaning of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.*

The federal district court granted the employer’s petition for summary judgment, holding that the  HRD’s participation in an internal employer investigation into the employee’s sexual harassment allegations, “an investigation that was not connected to any formal charge with the EEOC,” did not qualify as protected activity under the participation clause of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.

Citing Correa v. Mana Prods, Inc., 550 F. Supp. 2d 319, the district court said that “[i]n order to gain protection under the participation clause, the participation must be in an investigation or proceeding covered by Title VII, and thus not in an internal employer investigation.”  In this instance the court found that the HRD’s investigation was conducted pursuant to the employer’s internal procedures and were not  associated with any Title VII proceeding. 

The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s ruling.**

Noting that EEOC had submitted an amicus brief urging the court to adopt a  “contrary interpretation of the participation clause, one that embraces internal employer investigations,” the Circuit Court said that although EEOC’s views are entitled to deference to the extent they have the power to persuade, “it did not find the EEOC’s interpretation persuasive in this case and affirmed the district court’s granting of summary judgment dismissing the HRD’s Title VII retaliation claim. 

* Title VII's anti-retaliation provision extends protection both to employees who have "opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice" under Title VII (the "opposition clause") and to employees who have "made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under" Title VII (the "participation clause)." On January 24, 2011 the United States Supreme Court unanimously supported a broad reading of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. The high court said that the alleged victim of retaliation has standing to sue even if he or she was not the person who engaged in protected activity [Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, 131 S.Ct. 863, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 913]. In Thompson the court ruled that, under certain circumstances, a third-party termination may constitute an unlawful reprisal under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision and that “a person claiming to be aggrieved … by an alleged employment practice” and who 'falls within the zone of interests protected by Title VII' has standing to sue his employer." Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier, in a concurring opinion, cited Thompson and said that Congress should clarify whether the kind of investigation the HR conducted falls within the protective sweep of the participation clause.

** The court said that it expressed no opinion as to whether participation in an internal investigation that is begun after a formal charge is filed with the EEOC falls within the scope of the participation clause, noting that some courts “have answered this question in the affirmative noting that in Abbott v. Crown Motor Co., 348 F.3d 537, the USCA, 6th Circuit, held that “Title VII protects an employee’s participation in an employer’s internal investigation into allegations of unlawful discrimination where that investigation occurs pursuant to a pending EEOC charge.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/855b7c0d-e303-49c2-a5f6-399603d29346/1/doc/09-0197_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/855b7c0d-e303-49c2-a5f6-399603d29346/1/hilite/