Establishing a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination and, or, retaliation requires the complaints to set out the "protected activity" alleged to have been violated

Establishing a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination and, or, retaliation requires the complaints to set out the "protected activity" alleged to have been violated
2015 NY Slip Op 04937, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court granted agency’s' motion for summary judgment dismissing the probationary employee’s [Probationer] complaint alleging gender discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[1][a]). The court ruled that Probationer failed to establish a prima facie case that she suffered an adverse employment action and that that action was taken under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. 

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Appellate Division said that with the exception of her termination from her probationary employment, her complaints amounts to no more than "petty slights and trivial inconveniences" from which not harm resulted rather than her having suffered adverse employment action. The court explained that “While termination is indisputably an adverse action,” Probationer’s conclusory claim that her termination was motivated by a gender-related bias is insufficient to establish acts of unlawful discrimination as “stray derogatory remarks” without more, does not constitute evidence of unlawful discrimination.

Probationer also failed to raise an issue of fact whether the employer’s evidence of a legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reason for her termination was pretextual and the real reason was gender discrimination. In the words of the Appellate Division, Probationer “does not dispute that she kept a departmental vehicle for nine consecutive days, during which time she used it only once for the authorized purpose of driving to a facility being audited, and that she inaccurately reported, in a daily log, the vehicle's use and overnight location.”

As to Probationer’s allegations of “retaliation,” the court said that Probationer failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_04937.htm

Free Webinar addressing the taxation of accumulated sick and leave pay for retiring employees

Free Webinar addressing the taxation of accumulated sick and leave pay for retiring employees

Source: Federal, State and Local Government Newsletter [IRS]

Webinar to be held on July 30, 2015; 2 p.m. (Eastern)

Topics to be addressed:

Determining when accumulated sick and vacation pay are subject to federal employment taxes

Determining when taxation can be deferred to a later year

Defining an elective employee contribution

Defining a non-elective employer contribution

Click here to Register for this event.

NOTE: You will use the same link to attend the event.

If you have any questions or comments, click her to send us an e-mail.

Another free Webinar:: Don’t forget to register for the webinar, Taxability of Fringe Benefits Part Three: Other Compensation and Payments to Employees on July 9, 2015; 2 p.m. (Eastern) Click here to Register

Expunging materials from an employee’s personnel file

Expunging materials from an employee’s personnel file

2015 NY Slip Op 05257, Appellate Division, First Department

In 2011 a New York City firefighter [Firefighter] and the New York City Fire Department [FDNY] entered into an agreement settling disciplinary charges filed against him.

Firefighter subsequently initiated an Article 78 action in Supreme Court seeking to compel FDNY “to expunge all materials placed in [Firefighter's] personnel file concerning a finding that he violated [FDNY’s] Equal Employment Opportunity policy” or, in the alternative, a court order compelling FDNY to grant Firefighter “a full and fair opportunity to challenge the allegations that he violated the policy.”

Supreme Court dismissed Firefighter’s petition, which ruling was affirmed by the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division explained that Firefighter had waived any rights to the relief he now sought, the expungement of the certain materials from his personnel file or an opportunity to be heard on the allegations, when he and FDNY entered into the agreement settling the disciplinary charges that had been filed against him. Further, said the Appellate Division, Firefighter’s argument that the waiver provisions set out in the settlement agreement were inapplicable was improperly raised for the first time in a reply brief submitted by Firefighter.

Although Firefighter cited D’Angelo v Coppetta, 19 NY3d 663, in support of his claims for relief, the Appellate Division noted that his reliance on D’Angelo was misplaced “as there was no waiver [issue] in that case.” In D’Angelo the Court of Appeals concluded that “that the letter issued to [D’Angelo and placed in his file] constitutes a formal reprimand under [New York City’s] Administrative Code §15-113.” The D'Angelo court then ruled that because the appointing authority denied D’Angelo his right to due process by placing the letter in his file without conducting a hearing, “the letter was properly expunged from D’Angelo’s permanent EEO file.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_05257.htm

_____________

The 2015 edition of The Discipline Book, a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State, is now available in two formats - as a paperback print edition and in an electronic [e-book] edition.For more information click on
http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com

_____________

An employer may be required to provide an individual with a name clearing hearing if it has publicly disclosed stigmatizing material concerning the individual

An employer may be required to provide an individual with a name clearing hearing if it has publicly disclosed stigmatizing material concerning the individual
2015 NY Slip Op 04890, Appellate Division, Third Department

After a probationary teacher [Probationer] was terminated from her employment by the School District she commenced an action against a number of school administrators and board members [Defendants] alleging that Defendants had maliciously published defamatory statements about her and that her due process rights were violated by Defendants' failure to provide her with a name-clearing hearing.

Supreme Court granted Probationer's application to annul the School Board's determination denying her a name-clearing hearing and ordered such hearing to be provided.

Addressing Probationer’s due process claim, the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court erred in annulling the Board's determination and granting plaintiff a name-clearing hearing. The court explained that where "a government employee is dismissed for stigmatizing reasons that seriously imperil the opportunity to acquire future employment, the employee is entitled to an opportunity to refute the charge [or charges]" at a name-clearing hearing if the employer publicly disclosed the stigmatizing reasons or if there is a likelihood of future dissemination of such reasons.”  

Probationer had requested a name-clearing hearing “to specifically defend against and address the assertions” by school officials concerning her termination or her relations with students that had been made part of her personnel file. However, said the court, Probationer’s allegations as to the stigmatizing content of such material did not include any further allegations that Defendants and the Board had publicly disclosed those letters or their contents.

Further, said the Appellate Division, Probationer’s assertion that she was seeking relief in the form of removal of the statement of reasons letter from her personnel file was sufficient to apprise the Board of an allegation that there was a likelihood that such a letter or its content might disseminated. Members of the Board, however, said that, before deciding to deny Probationer’s request for a name-clearing hearing the Board determined that the statement of reasons set out in the letter had been and would remain confidential.

Thus, the court concluded, “given that [Probationer] did not allege that Defendants and the Board had publicly disseminated any stigmatizing materials and considering the evidence supporting the conclusion that [Probationer’s] allegation that the statement of reasons letter was in [Probationer's]  personnel file was factually incorrect, there is no basis to disturb the Board's denial of a name-clearing hearing.

Turning to Probationer's action alleging statements made by certain school officials had subjected her to "ostracism and rejection" in the community, the Appellate Division, after explaining the relevant law, held that “Given that defendants do not challenge the jury's determinations that [certain school officials] made the respective statements and that they were defamatory” and remanded the case for a new trial to determine damages, if any, “based upon proof of harms limited to those that can be linked by proximate cause to the two slanderous statements.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_04890.htm

NYS Employees’ Retirement System benefits are based on the member’s job title at the time of his or her retirement

NYS Employees’ Retirement System benefits are based on the member’s job title at the time of his or her retirement

2015 NY Slip Op 04555, Appellate Division, Third Department

In 2008, aNew York State Correction Officer [Officer] retired from his position and began collecting service retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law Article 14. Some four years later Officer requested that he be granted service retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15, contending that “other correction officers … had been granted service retirement under Article 15.”

After an administrative hearing, the Hearing Officer concluded that Officer was not eligible for Article 15 service retirement benefits and the Comptroller adopted the Hearing Officer’s decision, in which he included a supplemental conclusion of law, and denied the Officer’s request for Article 15 retirement benefits. Officer appealed the Comptroller’s decision.

The Appellate Division confirmed the Comptroller’s determination, noting that “The Comptroller has exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits and the determination must be upheld if the interpretation of [the] controlling retirement statute is reasonable and the underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence."

Retirement and Social Security Law §600 (a) (2) (a) provides that "[m]embers in the uniformed personnel in institutions under the jurisdiction of the [D]epartment of [C]orrections and [C]ommunity [S]upervision of New York [S]tate" are excluded from Retirement and Social Security Law Article 15 benefits.”

A representative from the New York Stateand Local Employees' Retirement System testified that retirement benefits are based upon an applicant's job title at the time of the individual’s retirement, and Officer admittedly retired from service from the position of correction officer.

While Officer argued that the denial of his request for Article 15 service retirement benefits was irrational based upon the fact that other correction officers were granted such benefits, the Appellate Division said the record reflects that those officers had “transferred to civilian job titles prior to retirement.”

The court’s conclusion: The Comptroller's determination that Officer was ineligible for Article 15 service retirement benefits is consistent with the applicable statutory provision and supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_04555.htm