California to implement amended pregnancy regulations Source: Wolers Kluwer’s Employment Law Daily “Several noteworthy changes are in store for California take effect on December 30. The state’s Office of Administrative Law approved the changes on November 30 following an interactive process that included public feedback. “Definitions are changed significantly, starting with a more detailed definition of “disabled by pregnancy.” Lactation is specifically included as a “condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.” A “perceived pregnancy” is protected and is defined. “Four months”—the duration of available leave—is also revised in order to clarify how to calculate leave. The definition of health care provider is expanded as well. “The new regulations clearly articulate the employer’s duty to reasonably accommodate an employee’s pregnancy. Additionally, they change employers’ obligations regarding reinstatement of an employee after pregnancy leave. Specifically, for an employer to justify not reinstating an employee to a comparable position after pregnancy leave, it must prove either: A. that the employer would not have offered a comparable position to the employee if she would have been continuously at work during the pregnancy disability leave or transfer period, OR B. that there is no comparable position available. “Further, the regulations clarify employers’ health care coverage obligations under pregnancy leave (applicable to employers with five or more full or part-time employees) and under the California Family Rights Act (applicable to employers with 50 or more employees). The time that an employer maintains and pays for group health coverage during pregnancy disability leave must not be used to meet an employer’s obligation to pay for 12 weeks of group health coverage during leave taken under CFRA. This is true even where an employer designates pregnancy disability leave as family and medical leave under FMLA. The entitlements to employer-paid group health coverage during pregnancy disability leave and during CFRA are two separate and distinct entitlements.” The full text of the approved regulations can be found at http://www.fehc.ca.gov/act/pdf/pregnancyregulations/Approved_Preg_Regs_11_30_12.pdf. |
Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and possibly in other jurisdictions in general.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS
December 22, 2012
California to implement amended pregnancy regulations
December 21, 2012
The Ten Most Popular Administrative Law Blawgs For All Times [as of December 20, 2012]
The Ten Most Popular Administrative Law Blawgs For All Times [as of December 20, 2012]
Below, listed in rank order by “Popularity for all time” are the top 10 Administrative Law Blogs so classified by Justia on December 20, 2012 with Internet links to their most recent postings..
Dec 19
Dec 18
Dec 17
Oct 29
Oct 22
Oct 21
3. bevlog
Dec 11
Nov 19
Nov 6
Dec 14
Dec 7
Dec 6
Dec 13
Nov 30
Nov 27
Nov 26
Nov 19
Nov 13
Nov 14
Nov 14
Nov 6
Oct 1
Sep 14
Aug 8
Dec 17
Dec 10
Dec 5
Dec 19
Dec 17
Dec 12
December 20, 2012
The Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) annual report is now available on the Internet
The Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) annual report is now available on the Internet
Source: Dormitory Authority of the State of New York
Dormitory Authority of the State of New York [DASNY] Chair Alfonso L. Carney, Jr., and DASNY President Paul T. Williams, Jr., advise that DASNY's 2012 Annual Report is now available on the Internet at www.dasny.org/2012AnnualReport*
The Report highlights DASNY's efforts to fulfill its commitment to excellence, innovation and diversity while serving the needs of its public and private clients during 2012.
This includes DASNY’s emphasis on “green construction.” in its pipeline involving 763 projects for health care, higher education and other public purposes with an estimated value of more than $6 billion. For example, residence hall projects at State University of New York campuses at Brockport and Oswego earned Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] Gold certifications while this year DASNY’s headquarters in Albany was awarded LEED Gold status for its existing facilities.
A LEED Certification reflects an independent, third-party evaluation and verification that a building, home, or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at achieving high performance in key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality.
*N.B. In accordance with its "green policies", DSANY's 2012 Annual Report is only available as a PDF file posted on the Internet.
Proving that a work-connected injury suffered as the result of an unexpected or unforeseeable event is critical to the approval of an application for accidental disability retirement benefits
Proving that a work-connected injury suffered as the result of an unexpected or unforeseeable event is critical to the approval of an application for accidental disability retirement benefits
Suppa v DiNapoli, 2012 NY Slip Op 08622, Appellate Division, Third Department
Suppa v DiNapoli, 2012 NY Slip Op 08622, Appellate Division, Third Department
Frank J. Suppa, a police detective, suffered a back and knee injury when, in the course of his conducting a surveillance of a suspect, stones on the retaining wall on which he was standing shifted causing him to fall.
Contending that he was permanently disabled from performing his duties as a detective as the result of his fall, Suppa filed an application with the New York Employees' Retirement System for accidental disability retirement benefits and, in the alternative, an application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.
The Retirement System found that Suppa was permanently disabled from performing his duties as a police detective as a result of his injuries and his application for performance of duty retirement benefits was approved.
As to Suppa’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, the System denied that application, ruling that the incident leading to his disability “did not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law.”
The Appellate Division agreed, noting that the applicant ”bears the burden of proving that his [or her] injury was accidental” and the Retirement System’s determination to the contrary will be sustained “if supported by substantial evidence."
An accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, explained the court, is "a sudden, fortuitous mischance which is unexpected and out of the ordinary.”
Further, said the Appellate Division, "an incident does not qualify as an accident justifying the award of accidental disability retirement benefits where the injury results from an expected or foreseeable event arising during the performance of routine employment duties."
Suppa had testified that he was performing a routine job duty when he was injured and that he was aware that the stone wall that he climbed upon was made up of "large loose boulders" that were merely piled on top of each other, without anything holding the boulders together.
Under these circumstances, said the court, the possibility that one of the boulders would come loose under Suppa's weight as he was standing on it was a foreseeable event.
Accordingly, substantial evidence supported System's determination that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
====================================
General Municipal Law§§ 207-a and 207-c- a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder and other disability retirement issues is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://section207.blogspot.com/ for additional information about this electronic reference manual.
====================================
December 19, 2012
Backward-looking right of access claims
"Backward-looking" right of access claims
Sousa v Marquez, US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Docket No. 12-403-cv
The Supreme Court has categorized right-of-access claims as either forward-looking or backward-looking.
In the forward-looking category "are claims that systemic official action frustrates a plaintiff or plaintiff class in preparing and filing suits at the present time" (see Christopher v. Harbury, 536 US 403). In “forward-looking” claims, official action is presently denying an opportunity to litigate.
“Backward-looking” right of access claims involve claims not in aid of a class of suits yet to be litigated but of specific cases that cannot now be tried (or tried with all material evidence) no matter what official action may be in the future. To prevail in a backward-looking claims action, the plaintiff must show that the defendants caused the plaintiff to lose a meritorious claim or a chance to sue on a meritorious claim.
Bryan Sousa, a former employee at the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, sued Devin Marquez, a staff attorney at the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services, in an action characterized by the Second Circuit as a “backward- looking” right of access claim. Sousa contended that he did not win his earlier employment-related suit because of false statements and deliberate omissions in an investigative report issued by Marquez.
The Second Circuit rejected Sousa’s appeal from an adverse district court ruling, explaining that:
[1] “Even assuming that so-called ‘backward looking’ right-of-access claims are viable in this Circuit, such claims cannot proceed if the plaintiff, asserting that the government concealed or manipulated relevant facts, was aware of the key facts at issue at the time of the earlier lawsuit. In other words, “A plaintiff with knowledge of the crucial facts and an opportunity to rebut opposing evidence does have adequate access to a judicial remedy” available to him or to her in the course of that litigation.
[2] The District Court’s opinion in the prior suit demonstrates that the Court did not rely on statements or omissions in Marquez’s report and, therefore, Sousa has not shown that Marquez’s purported actions caused or resulted in a violation of his rights.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d78e4359-b8c7-4710-b019-28febe041619/1/doc/12-403_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d78e4359-b8c7-4710-b019-28febe041619/1/hilite/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
CAUTION
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL.
For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf.
Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law.
Email: publications@nycap.rr.com