New York Public Personnel Law statistics for October 2012

New York Public Personnel Law statistics for October 2012

Total number of postings through October 31, 2012: 2887

Number of readers during the month of October 2012: 18,937

The five most read postings during the month of October 2012: 

Termination by operation of law at:

http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/termination-by-operation-of-law.html;

The legal distinction between domicile and residence at:

http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/legal-distinction-between-domicile-and.html;

Essentials of the "Pickering Balancing Test” at:

http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/essentials-of-pickering-balancing-test.html;

A school board member seeking the removal of another member must demonstrate willful misconduct or neglect of duty of the part of the member at:

http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2011/04/school-board-member-seeking-removal-of.html; and

Ordering a correction officer to submit to a drug test, without more, does not violate the officer’s rights under the Constitution or §75 of the Civil Service Law at:

http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2011/04/ordering-correction-officer-to-submit.html

PERB’s policy of initially deferring to a contract arbitration procedure between the parties to resolve an “alleged improper practice” challenged

PERB’s policy of initially deferring to a contract arbitration procedure between the parties to resolve an “alleged improper practice” challenged

Westchester County Dept. of Pub. Safety Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2012 NY Slip Op 07178, Appellate Division, Third Department

The New York State Public Employment Relations Board’s [PERB] “deferral policy” in cases alleging "improper practices" was challenged by Westchester County. The County contended that the policy constituted “an abandonment of the exclusive, nondelegable jurisdiction over improper practice charges granted to PERB by Civil Service Law §205(5)(d).”

Essentially, PERB’s policy utilized an agreed-upon binding arbitration procedure set out in a collective bargaining agreement between the parties to resolve a “claimed improper practice” before it would consider the allegation.

The union had filed an improper practice charge with PERB alleging that the County had refused to negotiate an issue concerning the "maintenance of standards" clause in the governing collective bargaining agreement in violation of Civil Service Law §209-a(1)(d).

When PERB applied its deferral policy and conditionally dismissed the charge pending the outcome of binding arbitration conducted pursuant to the negotiated grievance procedure over Westchester's objections, Westchester filed a petition in Supreme Court appealing its ruling.

Supreme Court dismissed the County’s petition, agreeing with PERB that the charge raised an issue covered by the CBA and thus provided a reasonable basis for PERB to apply its policy of deferring the matter to binding arbitration. The Appellate Division agreed, noting that PERB had earlier ruled on this issue, which decision was affirmed in Matter of Westchester County Police Officer's Benevolent Assn. v Public Empl. Relations Bd., 301 AD2d 850. This, said the Appellate Division, gave the union “a reasonably arguable right to submit the conduct alleged in the improper practice charge to binding arbitration.”

The Appellate Division, in sustaining the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the County’s appeal, explained:

1. The application of the policy resulted in a conditional dismissal, meaning that the improper practice charge remains subject to being reopened before PERB after the conclusion of the arbitration process; and

2. The courts have generally deferred to PERB's interpretation of its jurisdiction under Civil Service Law §205(5)(d), citing Matter of Roma v Ruffo, 92 NY2d 489.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07178.htm

Employee served with disciplinary charges alleging he was intoxicated at work

Employee served with disciplinary charges alleging he was intoxicated at work

Human Resources Administration v Grimes, OATH Index #1985/12   

OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin F. Casey sustained charges that alleged that an employee was intoxicated at work.

Coworkers noticed the individual looked disheveled and was laughing and crying to himself at his desk, in marked contrast to his usual demeanor. "911" was called and the employee was taken to a hospital by the first responders.

Noting that the Emergency Medical Technician's records indicated that the first responders had made a presumptive diagnosis that employee was intoxicated based on his unsteady gait, slurred speech, and the odor of alcohol on his breath, Judge Casey found the individual’s claims to the contrary to be vague and unsupported.

The ALJ recommended that the appointing authority impose a penalty of a 20-day suspension without pay

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/12_Cases/12-1985.pdf

A two prong test is applied in determining if a public official is entitled to "qualfied immunity" when he or she is sued

A two prong test is applied in determining if a public official is entitled to "qualfied immunity" when he or she is sued
Coollick v. Hughes, USCA, 2nd Circuit, 10-5248-cv

The US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Superintendent of the Connecticut Technical High School System was entitled to qualified immunity in a §1983 action in which she was alleged to have deprived the plaintiff of “sufficient notice” before the elimination of her position as a guidance coordinator at a high school.

The Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that in this instance the Superintendent’s conduct, “even when viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], did not violate the plaintiff’s clearly established rights."

The court explained that “Qualified immunity protects federal and state officials from money damages and 'unnecessary and burdensome discovery or trial proceedings.'” It, however, is an affirmative defense and the federal or state officials being sued “have the burden of raising in their answer and establishing at trial or on a motion for summary judgment.”

In determining if an official is entitled to a claimed right to “qualified immunity” the courts apply the two-prong test set out in Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808.

The first prong addresses the question of whether the petitioner “stated a cause of action.”

The second prong of the test asks did the “[g]overnment official’s conduct violates clearly established law when, at the time of the challenged conduct, the contours of a right are sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he [or she] is doing violates that right.”

In this instance the Circuit Court concluded that the Superintendent’s action “were not objectively unreasonable in light of the law that existed at the time of her conduct.”

Further, the Second Circuit said that it has held that when a plaintiff is subject to a collective bargaining agreement that provides adequate post-deprivation procedures, “such post-deprivation procedures . . . are sufficient to satisfy due process” citing Harhay v. Town of Ellington Bd. of Educ., 323 F.3d 206

The plaintiff , said the court, “utilized the grievance procedures provided for in the collective bargaining agreement and received a favorable decision" restoring her to the status she had prior to the Superintendent’s actions and awarding her back pay and benefits.*

In any event, the court held that there was nothing “objectively illegal, in a constitutional sense,” in the Superintendent’s action and although she may have been incorrect in deciding that the plaintiff did not have certain rights under the collective bargaining agreement, the plaintiff was able to avoid any harm through the very grievance procedures in place to remedy any such deprivation.

Deciding that there was no constitutional bright lines transgressed by the Superintendent in the course of her handling the plaintiff’s termination, the Circuit Court ruled that the Superintendent was entitled to qualified immunity.

* The Circuit Court observed notwithstanding her prevailing in the grievance she filed, the plaintiff “persists with this lawsuit for additional recovery of punitive damages and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/f1968e72-dc4f-4691-a240-38fa0d574732/5/doc/10-5248_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/f1968e72-dc4f-4691-a240-38fa0d574732/5/hilite/

Firefighter’s injury suffered at the World Trade Center after 9/11 ruled the result of a personal activity rather than the performance of official duties

Firefighter’s injury suffered at the World Trade Center after 9/11 ruled the result of a personal activity rather than the performance of official duties
Cavanaugh v DiNapoli, 2012 NY Slip Op 07177, Appellate Division, Third Department

A firefighter for the City of Syracuse filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits following an injury he suffered at the World Trade Center [WTC] in the aftermath of 9/11.

The Comptroller denied the application on the grounds that the firefighter had not established he was performing duties in his official capacity at the time he was working at the WTC.

The firefighter appealed the Comptroller’s determination contending that it was not his burden to establish that he was working in his official capacity as a firefighter at the time of his injury because the rebuttable presumption set forth in Retirement and Social Security Law §363(g)(2)(a) placed that burden upon the New York State and Local Retirement System.

The Appellate Division never reached that issue as it found that there was substantial evidence that firefighter presence at the WTC following 9/11 was a “personal pursuit” rather than part of his job as a Syracuse firefighter.

According to the decision, the record showed that the firefighter had been granted a leave of absence from his position to go to the WTC and was considered to be on vacation during the time he was there. Thus, said the court, the firefighter was not working in an official capacity when the 9/11 attacks occurred and he went to the WTC the next day at the invitation of a friend who owned a private ambulance service.

The bottom line: Although the firefighter had the approval of his fire chief to go to the WTC and took his firefighting gear with him, the Appellate Division said that there was substantial evidence supports the Retirement System’s finding that he was engaged in a personal activity and not performing or discharging his official duties as a Syracuse firefighter while at the WTC site.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07177.htm