Discrimination against applicants having limited proficiency in English constitutes unlawful discrimination based on national origin

Discrimination against applicants having limited proficiency in English constitutes unlawful discrimination based on national origin

2015 NY Slip Op 04239, Appellate Division, First Department

The Appellate Division held that the New York City Human Resources Administration, the City’s department in charge of the majority of the City’s social services programs, as a “provider of public accommodation,” violated New York City’s Human Rights Law’s* prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin by withholding from or denying “accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges” from individuals having  limited English proficiency as such action constitutes discrimination based on national origin.

* See Administrative Code § 8-107[4][a]

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_04239.htm

Disciplinary hearing held in absentia

Disciplinary hearing held in absentia

OATH Index No. 1114/15.

Following a default hearing, Administrative Law Judge Astrid B. Gloade found that petitioner proved charges that respondent, a job opportunity specialist, was AWOL and defrauded his employer.

The undisputed proof showed that respondent issued rental assistance checks to persons who were not landlords and who were not entitled to the funds. The proof further showed that the fake landlords gave respondent the amount of the issued checks and he, in return, gave them cash. Respondent pled guilty in criminal court to welfare fraud where he admitted that he had engaged in a kickback scheme that defrauded his employer of over $ 690,000 in agency funds. Termination of employment recommended.

Posted on the Internet at: http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/15_cases/15-1114.pdf

_____________

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 2100+ page e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

_____________

 

Grounds for vacating an arbitration award

Grounds for vacating an arbitration award

2015 NY Slip Op 04486, Appellate Division, Second Department

In this action to confirm an arbitration award Supreme Court granted the petition and denied the disappointed party’s [Lieberman] application to vacate the arbitration award. 

In the appeal that followed challenging the Supreme Court’s ruling the Appellate Division sustained, in relevant part, the confirmation of the arbitration award, explaining "Even where the arbitrator makes a mistake of fact or law, [an arbitration] award is not subject to vacatur unless the court concludes that it is totally irrational or violative of a strong public policy and thus in excess of the arbitrator's powers."

Here, said the court, Lieberman failed to demonstrate that the arbitration panel exceeded its power in making the award.

Citing Town of Haverstraw v Rockland County Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn., 65 NY2d 677, the Appellate Division said "An arbitrator may do justice as he [or she] sees it, applying his [or her] own sense of law and equity to the facts as he [or she] finds them to be."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_04486.htm

Seeking information pursuant to a Freedom of Information [FOIL] request

Seeking information pursuant to a Freedom of Information [FOIL] request

2015 NY Slip Op 04237, Appellate Division, First Department

The basic concept underlying the Freedom of Information Law  [FOIL], Article  6 of the Public Officers Law, is that all government documents and records, other than those having access specifically limited by statute,* are available to the public. However, the custodian of the records or documents requested may elect, but is not required, to withhold those items that otherwise within the ambit of the several exceptions to disclosure permitted by FOIL.

Accordingly, an individual is not required to submit a FOIL request as a condition precedent to obtaining public records where access is not barred by statute. A FOIL request is required only in the event the custodian of the public record[s] sought declines to “voluntarily” provide the information or record requested. In such cases the individual or organization is required to file a FOIL request to obtain the information. It should also be noted that there is no bar to providing information pursuant to a FOIL request, or otherwise, that falls within one or more of the exceptions that the custodian could rely upon in denying a FOIL request, in whole or in part, for the information or records demanded.

In this action Supreme Court denied a petition seeking to compel the disclosure of certain documents pursuant to FOIL. The materials sought related to the investigation of two complaints filed with the Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District (SCI) concerning whether a speech that was given by an employee of the New York State Department of Education (DOE) at a public high school and later reproduced on DOE's website violated Chancellor's Regulations D-130(I)(B)(2), (I)(B)(8), and (I)(C)(1).**

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision commenting that Supreme Court had “improperly suggested” that the individual filing the FOIL request [Petitioner] had the burden to establish that SCI’s denial of the FOIL request was "arbitrary and capricious," "an abuse of discretion," "irrational," or "unlawful."

The appropriate standard of review, said the Appellate Division, is whether SCI's determination "was affected by an error of law," citing Mulgrew v Board of Education of the City School District of New York, 87 AD3d 506. Rather than requiring the petitioner to show the denial the request was arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, the Appellate Division said that the burden is on the custodian of the records that are the target of the FOIL request to establish "that the material requested falls squarely within the ambit of one of the 'statutory exemptions' from disclosure" [and the custodian elected to apply the exemption in this instance].

The Appellate Division concluded that under the circumstances in this case, the application of an improper legal standard is reversible error since it resulted in substantial prejudice to Petitioner.

As the burdens placed on the custodian of the records demanded, the court said the custodian failed to establish that disclosure of the materials at issue would "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” within the meaning of Public Officers Law §87[2][b]) nor did the custodian claim that any personal privacy category enumerated in § 89(2) is applicable in this instance [see, also, Public Officers Law Article 6-A, the so-called  Personal Privacy Protection Law].

As to the merits of the request, the Appellate Division explained that a court must first determine whether any invasion of personal privacy would be unwarranted "by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information."

The Appellate Division said that the speech at issue “excoriated unspecified candidates in the 2013 mayoral election who had taken certain positions on education policy.” Although the speech did not name any individual candidate or political party, the complaints to SCI raised serious questions about the propriety of the speech and its publication on DOE's website.

Finding that there is a "significant public interest" in the requested materials, which may shed light on whether this matter was adequately investigated, the court indicated that SCI:

1. Failed to establish that the claimed privacy interests outweigh this public interest;*** and

2. Failed to demonstrate the applicability of the inter- or intra-agency exemption, since some or all of the materials may constitute "factual tabulations or data" or "final agency ... determinations," which do not fall within this exemption.

The Appellate Division directed SCI to “produce the requested information to the extent it constitutes factual data or final agency determinations” redacting “personal identifying information such as names, home addresses, dates of birth and social security numbers.” All other requested materials were to be given to the court for an in camera inspection [i.e., a review by the court “in chambers” in the course of an otherwise open trial].

* The release of some public records is limited by statute [see, for example, Education Law, §1127 - Confidentiality of records; §33.13, Mental Hygiene Law - Clinical records; confidentiality].

** These regulations govern the use of school buildings by political candidates, officials and organizations and the conduct of school employees and officers with respect to political campaigns and elections.

*** Although SCI had asserted that the materials contain personally identifying information such as home addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, the Appellate Division said such information could be redacted and thus did not provide a basis for withholding entire documents.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_04237.htm

An administrative agency’s acknowledgment of its authority to reconsider its determination, without more, neither rendered its determination nonfinal nor extended the relevant statute of limitations

An administrative agency’s acknowledgment of its authority to reconsider its determination, without more, neither rendered its determination nonfinal nor extended the relevant statute of limitations

2015 NY Slip Op 04369, Appellate Division, Third Department

The general rule followed in situations where an aggrieved party asks an administrative agency or tribunal to reconsider its determination is that the statute of limitations to appeal the administrative determination begins to run when notice of the final administrative action or decision is received by the party or, if the party is represented by an attorney, the party's attorney, notwithstanding the submission of such a request.

This point is illustrated in the Cardo case.* In Cardo one of the issues concerned the question of the timely filing of an appeal. The court said that although Cardo asked his employer to "reconsider" its administrative decision, such a request "did not extend the period within which the [Article 78] proceeding must be commenced." Indeed, in Kahn v New York City Department of Education 79 AD3d 52, the Appellate Division held that the statute of limitations for initiating a lawsuit is not tolled by the individual’s pursuing his or her opportunity to seek an administrative review of the determination.

In contrast to the legal impact of an individual merely submitting a "request for reconsideration," should the administrative actually agree to reconsider the matter and issue a new determination, the statute of limitations will begin running from the date of the new "final determination." This is true even if the new "final determination" confirms the original administrative decision.

In Orange County Economic Development Corporation, [Corporation], v State Of New York Authorities Budget Office, [Budget], the Appellate Division indicated that the same general rule applied with respect to challenges to Budget’s administrative determinations.

Corporation is a not-for-profit local economic development corporation. In November 2011 Budget wrote to Corporation stating that Budget considered Corporation to be a local authority subject to the reporting, disclosure and governance requirements of the Public Authorities Law. That letter also stated that “the lack of any response from Corporation by December 6, 2011 would indicate Corporation's acceptance of [Budget’s] determination.”

Corporation responded to Budget’s November 2011 notice by letter dated January 2012.

In the months that followed Corporation and Budget exchanged communications regarding Corporation's disagreement with Budget’s determination and Corporation requested that Budget reconsider its decision. Budget consistently responded that it considered Corporation to be a covered local authority and, in July 2013, publicly listed Corporation as noncompliant.

In November 2013 Corporation  filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 challenging Budget's determination. Supreme Court granted Budget's pre-answer motion to dismiss Corporations' petition on the ground that the proceeding was untimely, which ruling Corporation appealed to the Appellate Division.

In its appeal Corporation contended that the proceeding was not subject to a four-month statute of limitations because Budget acted in excess of its jurisdiction. The Appellate Division said that Corporation’s argument was unpersuasive. The court explained that Budget is authorized to ensure that "local authorities" comply with the reporting requirements of the Public Authorities Law and Corporation's claim that Budget's determination was in conflict with the relevant statutory language is "reviewable in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding, subject to a four-month statute of limitations."

The Appellate Division agreed with Supreme Court that Budget’s determination that Corporation was a local authority subject to the reporting, disclosure and governance requirements of the Public Authorities Law, became final and binding on the Corporation on December 6, 2011. Indeed, said the court, “Budget's November 2011 letter left no doubt that it had reached a definitive position regarding Corporation's status.”

The Appellate Division ruled that the fact that Corporation was not on the two public lists of noncompliant entities issued by Budget between December 2011 and July 2013 neither changed Budget's determination nor Corporation's obligation to comply with the Public Authorities Law. Further, said the court, “Budget's acknowledgment of its authority to reconsider did not render its determination nonfinal or extend the statute of limitations.”

* Cardo v Sielaff, 186 A.D.2d 424

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_04369.htm