Trial court may not substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator when the record supports the arbitrator’s ruling

Trial court may not substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator when the record supports the arbitrator’s ruling

Supreme Court, New York County, vacated, in part, an arbitrator’s finding that a tenured teacher guilty of disciplinary charges alleging sexual misconduct and dismissed certain specifications, vacated the penalty imposed by the arbitrator -- termination of the teacher's employment, and remanding the proceeding for a new hearing before a new arbitrator to determine if the teacher was guilty of the surviving allegations and for a redetermination of the penalty to be imposed in the event the new arbitrator found the teacher guilty of one or more of the surviving disciplinary charges and specifications.

The Appellate Division(1) reinstated the initial arbitrator’s finding of sexual misconduct and (2) reinstated the penalty imposed by the arbitrator, termination.

The court said that judicial review of the arbitrator’s award in this instance is limited to the grounds set out in CPLR §7511(b)1* as required by §3020-a(5) of the Education Law.

The court explained that where, as here, “the arbitration is compulsory,” the excess of power standard under CPLR §7511(b) includes review of "whether the award is supported by evidence or other basis in reason, as may be appropriate, and appearing in the record." Thus, 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 Appellate Division said there was adequate evidence to support the arbitrator's conclusion that teacher committed sexual misconduct by performing an "action that could reasonably be interpreted as soliciting a sexual relationship" within the meaning of the relevant provisions in the collective bargaining agreement. By finding to the contrary, the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court “impermissibly substituted its own judgment for that of the arbitrator” by crediting the teacher’s testimony that had been rejected by the arbitrator.

In light of the evidence, the Appellate Division said that the penalty of termination, notwithstanding teacher's “prior lack of disciplinary history,” did not shock its sense of fairness.

* §7511 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules provides for “Vacating or modifying” an arbitration award. With respect to “Grounds for Vacating,” §7511 (b)1 provides for the vacation of an arbitration award in the event the court finds that the rights of the party challenging the award were prejudiced by: 

     (i) corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award; or 

     (ii) partiality of an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, except where the award was by confession; or 

     (iii) an arbitrator, or agency or person making the award exceeded his power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made; or 

     (iv) failure to follow the procedure of this article, unless the party applying to vacate the award continued with the arbitration with notice of the defect and without objection.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06255.htm

Not all doctor visits constitute “medical treatment” for the purposes of the FMLA

 Not all doctor visits constitute “medical treatment” for the purposes of the FMLA

Jones v. C & D Technologies, Inc., USCA, 7^th Circuit, Docket No. 11-3400. 

Source: The FMLA Blog - http://federalfmla.typepad.com/fmla_blog/

Copyright © 2012. All rights reserved by Carl C. Bosland, Esq. Reproduced with permission. Mr. Bosland is the author of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation.

Jones had an approved FMLA-covered serious health condition requiring periodic treatment by his physician.  He asked for and was approved FMLA leave for an afternoon appointment to receive medical treatment by one of his physicians.  Although he was scheduled to work the morning, Jones did not show up to work.  Whether Jones timely called in his morning absence was in dispute.  Instead of working, Jones visited another of his physicians.  During the unscheduled morning visit, Jones ensured that his physician forwarded his medical records for his afternoon medical appointment.  As a result of a short conversation in the lobby, Jones also secured a prescription refill note from his doctor during his impromptu morning visit.  Jones was never examined or evaluated during the morning visit with his doctor.  Because he missed working his morning shift, Jones was terminated pursuant to the Company's attendance policy.

Jones sued alleging that his termination interfered with his FMLA rights.  Specifically, Jones argued that he received FMLA-covered "medical treatment" during his morning doctor visit, as evidenced by the prescription refill note.  The Company argued that Jones' morning visit was not "medical treatment" within the meaning of the FMLA. 

An employee is entitled to FMLA leave if she suffers from a "serious health condition" that renders the employee unable to perform the functions of the employee's position.  29 USC 2612(a)(1)(D).  Under the FMLA, an employee who must be absent from work to receive medical treatment for a serious health condition is considered "unable to perform the functions of the employee's position."  29 CFR 825.123(a)(emphasis added).  The parties do not dispute that Jones had an FMLA-covered serious health condition.  Instead, the case focused on whether Jones' impromptu morning visit with his physician constituted "necessary medical treatment."  

      

After initially noting that the statute does not define "treatment," the Court looked to the DOL regulatory definitions of "treatment" in sections 825.113(c) and 825.115 for guidance on the meaning of "treatment" in 825.123(a).  The Court concluded that 825.115 was not helpful in understanding the meaning of "treatment" in 825.123(a) because, while it refers to "continuing treatment," it fails to address the circumstances where a person actually receives medical treatment that prevents them from performing the functions of their position.  Similarly, while acknowledging the reference to a course of prescription medication as evidence of a "regimen of continuing treatment," the Court ultimately concluded that, while relevant to determining the existence of an FMLA-covered serious health condition, it was not helpful to determine whether an employee actually receives "treatment" that prevents him from performing his job.  According to the Court:

Many chronic conditions require a course of prescription medication, but the FMLA requires something more for an employee to become entitled to leave -- inability to perform her job functions.  A course of prescription medication and an inability to perform a job are not mutually exclusive.

Relying on its previous decision in Darst v. Interstate Brands Corp., 512 F.3d 903, 911-12 (7th Cir. 2008), the Court determined that treatment "includes examinations to determine if a serious health condition exists and evaluation of the condition," but not actions such as calling to make an appointment or scheduling substance-abuse rehabilitation."  Applying that standard, the Court concluded that Jones did not receive treatment preventing him from working that morning by visiting his doctor to ensure his referral to another lab was in order.  The Court also found that merely picking up a prescription refill note did not, under the circumstances, constitute FMLA-protected treatment.  The Court observed:

Although we can envision a scenario where obtaining a prescription note in connection with a physician's examination might constitute treatment, this case does not approach that hypothetical.  Here, Dr. Lubak never evaluated or examined Jones, and Jones even conceded in a deposition that he was never "physically examined" that morning.  Jones arrived at Dr. Lubak's clinic unannounced and appeared only to briefly speak with his physician in the office lobby. The entirety of Jones's interaction with Dr. Lubak consisted of the physician's acquiescence to refill a prescription.  There is simply no evidence that Jones was examined, and therefore treated, that morning.

Mr. Bosland Comments:  The decision of the Seventh Circuit is well reasoned.  To be covered by the FMLA, an absence to receive "medical treatment" under 825.123(a) requires, for the Seventh Circuit, the visit be "necessary" and a physical examination, which the Court equates with "treatment."  Jones' unscheduled, non-emergent morning doctor visit was not medically required.  Moreover, checking to ensure that medical paperwork was forwarded to a second doctor and securing a prescription refill after a brief lobby conversation with his physician, did not impress the Court as rising to the level of an "examination" and, therefore, treatment for purposes of the protections of the FMLA.  It will be interesting to see if other courts following the lead of the Seventh Circuit. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/LV0CM205.pdf

Suspension without pay during a pending disciplinary action

Suspension without pay during a pending disciplinary action
Elmore v Mills, 299 A.D.2d 545, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 9 N.Y.2d 509

Among the several issues considered by the Appellate Division, Third Department in Elmore case was the suspension of a tenured teacher without pay in the course of a disci­plinary action.

Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District filed disciplinary charges against the educator pursuant to Section 3020-a of the Education Law. Section 3020-a.2(b) provides that in the event a teacher is suspended during pendency of the hearing, such suspension shall be with pay unless the teacher pleaded guilty to, or was convicted of, one of several enumerated crimes.

However, in this instance the Taylor Law contract between the district and the teacher union, in pertinent part, provided that “A teacher who has been suspended from school pursuant to Section 3020-a of the Educa­tion Law shall receive his/her regular full pay to which he/she would otherwise be enti­tled pursuant to … the Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA] and all fringe benefits for a period of a maximum of fifteen (15) school months (11/2 years salary).... Thereafter, any suspension may be without pay.”

In December 1998, the District, relying on this provision in the CBA, suspended the teacher without pay, effective January 6, 1999, pending the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. The educator, however, had neither pleaded guilty to, nor was convicted of, any of the several crimes enumerated in Section 3020-a. Was the teacher's suspension without pay by the Dis­trict pursuant to the CBA lawful in view of the provisions of Education Law Section 3020-a.2(b)?

Although the Appellate Division declined to rule on this question, holding that because a final determination in the disciplinary action had been made and thus the issue was "moot," the court did elect to discuss a number of elements concerning the question of suspension without pay in a Section 3020-a proceeding. It said that:

A CBA may allow a school district to suspend its teachers without pay as long as the agreement's terms clearly manifest the parties' intent to do so, citing Board of Education of the City of Rochester v Nyquist, 48 NY2d 97.

The CBA relied upon by the District in this case clearly circumscribes a teacher's right to full pay during a protracted suspension.

The CBA provides for restoration of wages and benefits for any such period of leave without pay if the teacher ultimately is not terminated from employment but here the penalty imposed on Elmore was termination.

Thus, said the court, if the issue of the educator's suspension without pay was properly before it, it would find that this provision in the CBA was valid and that under the circumstances the District was authorized to suspend the teacher without pay as provided by the CBA.

 

Searching an employer’s computer for evidence of employee misconduct

Searching an employer’s computer for evidence of employee misconduct
People v David E. Wilkinson; People v Michael Casey, 2008 NY Slip Op 28192, Onondaga County Ct, Fahey, J. [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports.]

Two employees were each charged with the crimes of Defrauding the Government in violation of Section 195.20 of the Penal Law; and two counts of Official Misconductin violation of section 195.00(1) and 195.00(2) of the Penal Law.

Both individuals asked the court to suppress evidence obtained by District Attorney’s “White Collar Crime Unit” as the result of a search of their computers, contending that they did not consent to the search and that the search warrant issued by the County Court was issued without sufficient probable cause. They also argued that the fruits of the search of their computers must be suppressed because they had an expectation of privacy in their computers; that the investigators from the District Attorneys Office did not have the consent of either of them to search the computers; and that the search warrant obtained after the viewing of the document on the Casey computer was the "fruit of the poisonous tree."

Addressing the issue of “consent,” the Court said that both employees “have demonstrated a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in the computers searched.” Finding that the searches were conducted without such consent and that the seizures of the computers resulted solely from the warrantless search of the computer prior to the issuance of a search warrant, the motions made by both Wilkinson and Casey to suppress the resulting evidence was granted by Justice Fahey.

N.B. It should be remembered that this was a criminal proceeding and the rules of evidence are stringent and controlling in such litigation. Such is not the case in administrative disciplinary actions where the hearing officer or arbitrator is not bound by the formal rules of evidence.

Recent examples of the approval of the use of computer, or computer related, evidence to find an employee guilty of administrative disciplinary charges include:

Leo Gustafson v Town of N. Castle, 45 A.D.3d 766, Appellate Division, Second Department - The employee, an assistant building inspector with the Town of North Castle, was charged and found guilty of falsifying official records with respect to where he was while on duty. The individual was assigned a town vehicle for the purpose of making field inspections in connection with his employment. The vehicle had a global positioning system installed that transmitted information to the town’s computer reporting the vehicle’s location and movements. Based on this information, the Town charged the employee with falsifying town records as to his whereabouts. This, said the Appellate Division, constituted substantial evidence to support the determination that the employee was guilty of falsifying town records.

Ghita v Department of Education of the City of New York, 2008 NY Slip Op 30706(U), Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 0110481/2007 [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports] – the employee challenged an arbitrator’s determination terminating his employment with the New York City Department of Education after finding him guilty of downloading a file of pornographic material from his AOL email account and openly viewed such pornographic material from a school computer. Supreme Court rejected the individual’s claim that the arbitrator exceeded his authority under Education Law §3020-a, and the award terminating petitioner's employment is a violation of public policy and New York State Law.

Perry v Comm. of Labor, App. Div. 3rd Dept., 283 A.D.2d 754 – This unemployment insurance claimant challenged a determination by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board denying him benefits after finding that his employment was terminated due to his misconduct. The nature of the individual's alleged misconduct: his misuse of his employer's computer equipment. The employee, a human resource specialist, was terminated after his employer discovered that he used his computer terminal to frequently access pornographic websites during working hours.

In addition,a number of courts have considered the question of an employee's right to privacy in using his or her employer's computer equipment. In Fraser v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., USDC, 135 F. Supp. 2d 623, the court held that an employee using his or her employer's computer equipment for personal business does not enjoy any "right to privacy" barring the employer’s reviewing the employee's e-mail that is stored in its computer system. Federal District Court Judge Anita B. Brody decided that an employer may peruse an employee's e-mail files that are stored in the system without violating either federal or Pennsylvania wiretap laws.

As to the issue of the expectation of privacy, the appointing authority may wish to periodically advise its officers and employees that they have no right to privacy with respect to any data retrieved from the employer's computers, servers, video tapes, message tapes or other storage devices, electronic or otherwise.

The full text of the Wilkinson - Casey decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2008/06/searching-employers-computer-for.html

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

Issued during the week of September 10 - 16, 2012  [Click on the caption to access the full report]

DiNapoli: Tax Cap Reporting Made Easier

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced that the 2012–13 tax cap reporting form has been enhanced to make it easier for local officials to accurately calculate their tax levy limit.

After analyzing reporting errors from the first year of implementation, DiNapoli’s Division of Local Government and School Accountability developed an improved online property tax cap reporting system to address the most problematic areas encountered by local officials.

DiNapoli: Town Deficit Caused By Inaccurate Budgeting

Due to unreasonable budget estimates, the Town of Poughkeepsie was left with a $1.5 million deficit in its major fund balances at the end of 2010, according to an auditreleased by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The town has also failed to repay more than $3 million in inter–fund loans it made between different tax bases.

Comptroller DiNapoli Releases Municipal Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced his office completed the following audits:

Eastchester Fire District;

Owasco Fire Department;

Mohawk Fire District;

Town of Colonie;

Town of Hinsdale;

Town of Peru;

Town of Red House;

Town of Waterford; and,

Village of Ballston Spa.

Comptroller DiNapoli Releases School Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced his office completed the audits of:

Achievement Academy Charter School;

Green Island Union Free School District; and,

Madison–Oneida BOCES.