Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption update

Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption update

The Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption hearing, held on October 29, 2013 in New York City, heard testimony focusing on campaign finance reform.

A 4 hour video of the hearing is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUSPXRXADyY

Videos of previous hearings of the Commission are available on the Internet as follows:

The Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption hearing, held on September 17th, 2013 in New York City, heard testimony focusing on federal and state criminal laws and the adequacy of existing state laws, rules and regulations involving misconduct by public officials.

A 3 ½  hour video of the hearing is posted on U-tube at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP1GeOYKRas

The Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption hearing, held on September 24, 2013, in Albany, New York, heard testimony focusing on campaign finance, outside income of state elected officials and political party housekeeping accounts.

A 2 ½ hour video of the hearing is posted on U-tube at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLEhNUVdQaU

.

Terminated employee must satisfy four tests in order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination because of his or her age

Terminated employee must satisfy four tests in order to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination because of his or her age

2013 NY Slip Op 06991, Appellate Division, First Department

The school principal [Principal] alleged that during the relevant period of her employment by the New York City Department of Education -- the 2010-2011 school year -- she was 54 years old and served as the principal of a school she had founded.  

Principal had received satisfactory performance reviews for two years but alleged that she had been subjected to unfair and excessive scrutiny and reprimands during the 2010 to 2011 academic year, including an investigation into allegations of misconduct.

Terminated from her position in June 2011, Principal sued, contending that she had suffered unlawful discrimination because of her age. Supreme Court granted her employer's motion to dismiss Principal’s complaint as against it, which ruling was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division said that although Principal had established three of the four elements necessary to establish a prima faciecase of age discrimination by showing that:

[1] Principal was a member of a protected class, being 54 years of age at the time of the alleged discrimination

[2] that Principal was qualified for the position by reason of having received satisfactory performance ratings during the relevant time period; and

[3] Principal had been subjected to an adverse employment action – termination;

Principal had failed to establish the fourth element required -- that she was either terminated or treated differently under circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination.

While Principal argued that she was treated adversely under the State law or less well under the City Human Rights Law, the Appellate Division said that Principal did not make any concrete factual allegations in support of that claim other than that Principal was 54 years old. Such an allegation, said the court, was but “mere legal conclusions, and did not suffice to make out the [required] fourth element of [Principal's unlawful discrimination] claim."

Another element in this action concerned Principal's claim of being employed in a “hostile work environment.” However, in the words of the Appellate Division, Principal's “failure to adequately plead discriminatory animus is similarly fatal to [any] claims of hostile work environment and violation of the New York State Constitution's equal protection and antidiscrimination provisions.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_06991.htm
.

The State Senate Republican Campaign Committee seeks to quash a Moreland Commission subpoena asking for its “housekeeping account” records

The State Senate Republican Campaign Committee seeks to quash a Moreland Commission subpoena asking for its “housekeeping account” records

The State Senate Republican Campaign Committee has filed a motion in New York State Supreme, New York County,*asking the court to quash the Moreland Commission’s September 20, 2013 subpoena duces tecum for records pertaining to its "housekeeping account." In addition, the Committee is seeking a “protective order directing that the Committee need not respond to the subpoena’s remaining demands.”**

According to the Committee’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition to Quash and for a Protective Order filed October 29, 2013, “Its 'housekeeping account' is a segregated account comprising 'monies received and expenditures made … to maintain a permanent headquarters and staff and carry on ordinary activities which are not for the express purpose of promoting the candidacy of specific candidates.'”

In response, on October 30, 2013 the Moreland Commission Co-Chairs Kathleen Rice, Esq., Milton Williams, Jr., Esq. and William Fitzpatrick, Esq. issued the following statement:

"In addition to Executive Law 6 and the Executive order, the Moreland Commission has full legal authority, as Deputy Attorneys General, granted by the Attorney General, under Executive Law 63(8) to proceed with this investigation. We had hoped the Senate Republicans would willingly cooperate and they did not. We will prevail in court."

*  New York State Senate Republican Campaign Committee, Petitioner v Commission To Investigate Public Corruption, Respondent, Supreme Court, New York County, Index Number 159965/2013. The Senate Republican Campaign Committee’s October 29, 2013 response, together with a copy of its Memorandum of Law, is posted on the Internet at:

 http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2013/10/30/senate-gop-seeks-to-quash-moreland-commission-subpoena-for-records/

** The Committee's Memorandum of Law alleges: "the Committee made a targeted production of documents that responded to the Subpoena’s demands 1 and 3."

.

Attempt to defeat the accuracy of a polygraph test results in removal of the candidate’s name from the eligible list

Attempt to defeat the accuracy of a polygraph test results in removal of the candidate’s name from the eligible list
2013 NY Slip Op 06682, Appellate Division, Second Department

The name of an individual [Candidate] seeking appointment as a Suffolk County Police Officer was removed from the eligible list certified for such employment.

Candidate filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order restoring his name to the eligible list. Supreme Court dismissed Candidate’s petition and the Appellate Division affirmed its ruling.

According to the Appellate Division’s decision, Candidate’s name was removed from the eligible list based on the opinions of several experts who reviewed the results of Candidate’s pre-employment polygraph [lie detector] examination. These experts concluded that Candidate had “deliberately engaged in the use of countermeasures in an attempt to improperly influence the results of the examination.”

The Appellate Division held that the employer reliance on the opinions of these experts was neither irrational nor arbitrary.

Further, said the court, Candidate failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the determination to remove his name from the eligible list lacked a rational basis or was arbitrary and capricious. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_06682.htm
.
.

Seeking reimbursement for attorney fees incurred by an employee in the course of judicial and quasi-judicial actions taken against the individua

Seeking reimbursement for attorney fees incurred by an employee in the course of judicial and quasi-judicial actions taken against the individual
2013 NY Slip Op 06910, Appellate Division, Third Department

This decision by the Appellate Division addresses a number of issues that arose in connection with the employee and his attorney seeking reimbursement for attorney fees incurred in the course of defending administrative disciplinary charges and federal and state civil and criminal action in which the employee was a party.

The elements considered by the court included claims and defenses based on an alleged unilateral contract; promissory estoppel; unjust enrichment; quantum meruit and fraud and the impact, if any, of the terms and conditions set out in the collective bargaining agreement between the employee’s union and his employer providing for the employer's reimbursing an employee for legal fees incurred by an employee in defending himself or herself in such judicial and quasi-judicial actions.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_06910.htm