Workers’ compensation benefits not available for injuries sustained by an individual in the course of an altercation unrelated to his or her employment

Workers’ compensation benefits not available for injuries sustained by an individual in the course of an altercation unrelated to his or her employment 

Belaska v New York State Dept. of Law, 2012 NY Slip Op 05046, Appellate Division, Third Department

Ann M. Belaska challenged a Workers' Compensation Board, ruling that her injury did not arise in course of her employment and denied her claim for workers' compensation benefits.

Belaska, a clerk employed by the Department of Law, sustained injuries to her chest, neck and shoulder after she was involved in an altercation with a fellow passenger on a shuttle bus ride from work to a satellite parking lot.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, explaining that injuries stemming from an assault which arose in the course of employment are presumed to have arisen out of the employment unless substantial evidence is presented that the assault was motivated by purely personal animosity, citing Matter of Rosen v First Manhattan Bank, 84 NY2d 856.

In this instance, said the court, Belaska testified that, at the end of the bus ride to her car after work, a passenger tried to exit before her and she told the passenger to wait for her because of her disabilities. When that passenger became frustrated because Belaska was not getting off the bus fast enough, a verbal altercation ensued which then became physical, leading to Belaska’s injuries.

Noting that Belaska had testified that she had never before met the person who allegedly assaulted her, the Appellate Division held that substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that the assault on Belaska arose from personal hostilities unrelated to her employment.

The decisions is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_05046.htm

ALJ recommends disciplinary charges be dismissed base after finding the testimony of witnesses not credible

ALJ recommends disciplinary charges be dismissed base after finding the testimony of witnesses not credible

OATH Index Nos. 525/12 and 526/12

Two correction officers who broke up a fight between two inmates were charged with beating and kicking both inmates. OATH Administrative Law Judge John B. Spooner found that the testimony of the two inmates, who did not report being assaulted by officers until a day later and who gave contradictory accounts, was not credible. He recommended that the charges against the officers be dismissed.    

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Dep’t of Correction v. Harris (in PDF)

Duty to defend and indemnify an employee being sued triggered by allegations of misconduct related to the performance of official duties

Duty to defend and indemnify an employee being sued triggered by allegations of misconduct related to the performance of official duties
Dreyer v City of Saratoga Springs, 22 Misc 3d 1109(A)

The principal issue in Erin Dreyer’s suit against the City of Saratoga Springs and its City Council is whether the City is required to provide or pay for Dreyer’s defending herself in two Federal court actions in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Moore v Dreyer and Curley, 05-CV-1060 and Cornick v City of Saratoga Springs, Curley and Dreyer, 06-CV-0138.

Dreyer served as the City’s Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety. The relationship between Dreyer and Police Chief Edward Moore and Assistant Chief James Cornick became strained and ultimately Moore and Cornick alleged that certain of Dreyer's actions constituted criminal violations and misconduct by a public official. This resulted in the New York State Police investigating Dreyer's conduct. Later a Special Prosecutor was appointed and a Grand Jury was convened to review Dreyer's conduct.

Although the Grand Jury returned a "no-bill", [it did not indict Dreyer for any crime], it reported that she had committed several acts of misconduct, performed negligently, and deliberately acted to create and foster dissension in the police department. The report recommended that she be disciplined or removed from office.

Subsequently Moore commenced a Federal court action to recover damages against Dreyer and Curley in which he alleges that the two conspired under color of law and state action to violate his constitutional rights through adverse employment actions designed to create a hostile work environment and to force him to resign, and further, that Dreyer, with Curley's approval, intentionally and maliciously implemented a course of hostile and disparaging conduct, disseminated, publicly and privately, defamatory information about him, and illegally retaliated when he spoke out against their conduct.

The City Council decided that Curley's conduct, as alleged in Moore's complaint, fell within the scope of his official duties as Commissioner of Public Safety, and adopted a resolution to defend and indemnify Curley but determined that Dreyer's acts, as alleged in Moore's complaint, were not within the scope of her official duties as Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety and refused to provide to her a defense and indemnification. It did the same with respect to the lawsuit filed by Cornick.

Dreyer sued the City, contending that the City's determination not to provide for her defense was made in violation of law, was irrational and was arbitrary and capricious. She argued that by enacting City Code §9-1, the City intended to give City officers and employees the same protections afforded to such personnel by Public Officers Law §18. Section 18, in pertinent part, provides “the provisions of this section shall apply to any public entity (a) whose governing body has agreed by the adoption of local law, bylaw, resolution, rule or regulation (i) to confer the benefits of this section upon its employees....”

Dreyer claimed that as Deputy Commissioner she was for all practical purposes the alter ego of the Commissioner and had been properly invested by the Commissioner to carry out his broad authority to manage and supervise the police department. The City, in rebuttal, said that it correctly concluded that claims alleged against Dreyer arose from actions taken outside of her official duties and did not give rise to an obligation of the City to defend her in both actions and that its determination was rational and proper. Further, said the City, its decision that Curley's conduct giving rise to these two actions fell within his official responsibilities and that hers did not, do not constitute disparate treatment of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.

Justice Nolan said that a defense under Public Officers Law §18 (a) must be provided even though an employee's actions "may be characterized as intentional wrongdoing" unless it can be determined that the conduct was "entirely unrelated to the employer's business". The court also noted that a municipal employer's statutory duty under Public Officers Law §18 to provide a defense to its officers and employees has been likened to an insurance company's contractual duty to provide a defense to one of its insured policyholders and, citing Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v Cook, 7 NY3d 131, commented that the Court of Appeals recently said that "when [an insurance] policy represents it will provide the insured with a defense, we have said that it actually constitutes litigation insurance' in addition to liability coverage".

Justice Nolan decided that in determining whether or not to provide Dreyer representation and indemnification, the City's inquiry should have been confined to merely a review of the two complaints "to ascertain whether [they] charge[d] that [Dreyer] was acting within the scope of...her employment at the time of the alleged wrongdoing" and “If the complaints made such allegations - and they do - the City's analysis ends there, and a defense must be provided unless, by local law, the City had adopted - which it had not - additional review requirements.”

In contrast, said the court, “any independent factual analysis by a municipality is appropriate only when the complaint fails to allege that an employee at the time of the wrongdoing was acting within the scope of employment.”

The bottom line: in determining whether Dreyer was entitled to be defended in the Moore and Cornick actions, the City was limited by Public Officers Law §18(3) and City Code §9-1 to a review of the allegations in the complaint, which did allege Dreyer was acting within the scope of her employment. By going beyond these allegations and engaging on its own in an independent assessment of the underlying facts, the City exceeded the limits on its discretion imposed by Public Officers Law §18(3) (a) and City Code 9-1. Accordingly, the court directed the City to provide Dreyer with a defense in both federal actions and to reimburse her reasonable costs of her defense to date in both actions.

Justice Nolan said that he would jurisdiction to fix said amount if the parties are unable to agree such amount.

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_52618.htm

Appealing an Education Law Section 3020-a arbitration award

Appealing an Education Law Section 3020-a arbitration award
Tarasow v NYC Dept. of Educ., 21 Misc 3d 1113(A)

Helen Tarasow, a tenured a guidance counselor employed by the New York City Department [DOE], was ordered removed from her school and subsequently disciplinary charges were filed against her alleging [1] that Tarasow failed to notify school authorities and parents of a12-year-old student counseled by her that the student exhibited “intentionally made scratches or cut marks on her wrists,” and [2] Tarasow failed to keep proper files and records for each assigned student, or to properly monitor and document students' progress and results of guidance interventions. A hearing on the charges pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a was held and the arbitrator concluded that:

1. DOE had proved the first specification, noting among other things, that a self-inflicted series of "cuts," "would certainly raise grave suspicion as to the mental state of the person," and that Tarasow should have reported her suspicion rather than allowing the child to go home alone; and

2. Although Tarasow has had "some training in psychotherapeutic counseling," she wrongly usurped the role of a psychiatrist or psychologist instead of reporting the self-inflicted cuttings, and that it was irrelevant that the psychiatric evaluation found the student not to be suicidal given his finding that Tarasow lacked the authority and was not empowered to make a determination about the student's mental status.

3. Tarasow proved that her files were likely discarded.

The Arbitrator concluded that "is no doubt [Tarasow] is a caring, dedicated Guidance Counselor," that her actions "were not borne of neglect," that she "truly believed she was doing the right thing," and that terminating her employment would "deprive the students of an individual who can and does provide effective counseling to students." However, noted the Arbitrator, Tarasow expressed no remorse for her actions, but only a "grudging acceptance of the requirement to do [the right thing] to stay out of trouble."

DOE asked that Tarasow be terminated; Tarasow asked that a non-monetary penalty be imposed.

The penalty imposed by the arbitrator: a two-month suspension without pay, so as to "produce a real change in her behavior" and both DOE and Tarasow filed petitions pursuant to CPLR Section 7511 seeking to vacate an arbitrator's decision.

Justice Feinman, after considering the petition by Tarasow and the cross-petition by the DOE to vacate the arbitrator's awards, denied both petitions and confirmed the arbitrator’s award.

The decision sets out a “Legal Analysis” of CPLR Article 75, which controls in situations involving a challenge to an arbitration award. The court noted that CPLR 7511(b) sets forth the limited grounds on which a petitioner can seek to vacate an award, namely misconduct by the arbitrator, partiality, exceeding the arbitrator’s powers, or procedural error.

Citing Wien & Malkin LLP v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 6 NY3d 471, the decision state that “Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited and where the arbitration hearing is conducted pursuant to Education Law §3020-a, judicial review is limited to the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511.

Further, where the parties are required to engage in compulsory arbitration, as occurred in the instant matter, judicial review under CPLR article 75 requires that the award "must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious" and the determination must be in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence, and must also be rational and satisfy the arbitrary and capricious standards of CPLR Article 78. "The test of whether a decision is arbitrary or capricious is "determined largely by whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified . . . and whether the administrative action is without foundation in fact.'" (See Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222].

Other points made by Justice Feinman:

1. A reviewing court must defer to the administrative fact finder's assessment of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses

2. In an Education Law Section 3020-a proceeding, the arbitrator is free to fashion a remedy as he or she believed proper, referring to the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Silverman v Benmor Coats, Inc., 61 NY2d 299.

3. As to DOE's petition seeking vacatur of the award on the ground that it was irrationally lenient, it must be denied based in part on the credibility finding of the arbitrator that Tarasow is a dedicated guidance counselor and a benefit to her students, and on the evidence in the record that she has always had satisfactory ratings in her job. His implicit finding that she was guilty of bad judgment on this one occasion is rationally based.

4. The arbitrator rationally credited Tarasow's statement that in the future, she would immediately report any similar incident, as sufficient proof that no matter what her personal thoughts might be in a situation, she would follow the DOE rules.

5. The award of an arbitrator need not conform to the traditional relief that a court might

N.B. Section 3020-a.5 sets out a very short statute of limitations to appeal a Section 3020-a arbitrator’s decision. Subdivision 5 provides as follows: 5. Appeal. Not later than ten days after receipt of the hearing officer's decision [emphasis supplied], the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York state supreme court to vacate or modify the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to section seven thousand five hundred eleven of the civil practice law and rules. The court's review shall be limited to the grounds set forth in such section. The hearing panel's determination shall be deemed to be final for the purpose of such proceeding. In no case shall the filing or the pendency of an appeal delay the implementation of the decision of the hearing officer.

In contrast, CPLR Section 7511 provides that “An application to vacate or modify an award may be made by a party within ninety days after its delivery ….”

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_52066.htm

Continuation on leave of absence from a teaching position upon permanent appointment to a classified service position critical to educator’s right to reinstatement to the teaching position

Continuation on leave of absence from a teaching position upon permanent appointment to a classified service position critical to educator’s right to reinstatement to the teaching position

Fehlhaber v Board of Educ. of Utica City School Dist., 2012 NY Slip Op 04904, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Craig S. Fehlhaber was initially employed by the Utica City School District as a tenured teacher. In 1997 the district appointed Fehlhaber as "Clerk of the Works" and later as Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds.

In 2010 the Board abolished the position of Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds and Fehlhaber asked to be "bump" vertically into the position of Maintenance Foreman or, in the alternative, to resume a teaching position. The Board denied both of these requests and Fehlhaber filed an Article 78 petition seeking a court order directing the Board to place him in one of those positions. Supreme Court dismissed his petition and Fehlhaber appealed..

Initially the Appellate Division resolved a procedural issue.

Supreme Court had ruled that Fehlhaber had failed to file a timely notice of claim. However, the Appellate Division agreed with Fehlhaber that “no notice of claim was required” in this instance.

Although, said the court, Education Law §3813(1) mandates that a notice of claim be filed when a claim is asserted against a board of education, "the notice of claim requirement is inapplicable to cases which seek to vindicate tenure rights which are legal rights guaranteed by State law and in the public interest," citing Cowan v Board of Educ. of Brentwood Union Free School Dist., 99 AD2d 831 and other decisions.

That said, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court had properly dismissed the petition on the merits. Although Fehlhaber contended that he was entitled to a vertical "bump" into the position of Maintenance Foreman pursuant to Civil Service Law §80(6), the court noted that the record established that the Utica Municipal Civil Service Commission, after consulting with the New York State Civil Service Commission, said that "[i]n order for the rights of bumping' to exist, the [Fehlhaber] would have to demonstrate a legal entitlement to that bumping right.”

The Utica Commission, however, determined that Fehlhaber did not have any such bumping right. 

Here, said the court, in a case concerning an employee's bumping rights under the Civil Service Law, Matter of Hughes v Doherty, 5 NY3d 100, the Court of Appeals ruled that "judicial review of [the Commission's] classification system and determinations are limited to whether there was a rational basis for the agency's conclusion.... Unless the [Commission's] determinations were arbitrary or capricious, a court should not undermine its actions."

As the Appellate Division found that Fehlhaber failed to establish that the Commission's determination was arbitrary or capricious, or that there was no rational basis for its determination, it sustained the Supreme Court’s dismissal of his Article 78 petition on the merits.

Fehlhaber had raised an alternative theory  -- that he is merely on a leave of absence* from his tenured teaching position and was thus entitled to be reinstated to that position. The Appellate Division said that it agreed with Supreme Court that “[Fehlhaber] voluntarily abandoned his teaching position and thereby relinquished his tenure rights, at the latest, upon leaving the position for which the leave of absence was approved.”

Although it is well settled that "[t]he burden of proving abandonment is upon the [Board] and must be established by clear and convincing evidence that the [educator], by a voluntary and deliberate act, intended to relinquish [his or] her teaching position and forfeit [his or] her tenure rights," in this instance the Board granted Fehlhaber a leave of absence in 1997 "[t]o assume duties as Clerk of the Works."

When Fehlhaber left the Clerk of the Works position in 2002, he received a permanent appointment to the position of Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, a position in the classified service, and he failed to seek reinstatement as a teacher or an extension of his leave of absence when he received that permanent appointment.

* 4 NYCRR 5.2, Leaves of Absence, 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. Subdivision (c) provides as follows: (c) Successive leaves of absence. Where a leave of absence without pay has been granted for a period which aggregates two years, or more if extended pursuant to subdivision (b) of this section, a further leave of absence without pay shall not be granted unless the employee returns to his position and serves continuously therein for six months immediately preceding the subsequent leave of absence. Many local civil service commissions have adopted a similar rule.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_04904.htm

=========================

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click On http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/ for additional information about this electronic reference manual.

=========================