Appellate Division, Fourth Department, hold employer’s decision not to hire an individual because the individual was pregnant a form of unlawful discrimination

Appellate Division, Fourth Department, hold employer’s decision not to hire an individual because the individual was pregnant a form of unlawful discrimination

2015 NY Slip Op 05384, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

A part-time school guidance counselor [Counselor] alleged that the School District [District] had discriminated against her on the basis of "sex/pregnancy" when it declined to renew her employment contract shortly after learning that she was pregnant.

Counselor was employed as a part-time counselor for the District for the 2011-2012 school year and the District invited her to apply for a position for the following school year. Counselor did apply for continued employment with the District and also requested a "pregnancy/disability leave" from the end of August 2012 through January, 2013. Counselor said that she was then notified that she would not be hired because of her anticipated absence.

Counselor filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights [SDHR] alleging the District had unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of "sex/pregnancy." SDHR found “no probable cause” and dismissed Counselor’s complaint without a hearing.

Counselor commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul SDHR finding that there was no probable cause to believe that the District had unlawfully discriminated against her. Supreme Court granted Counselor’s petition and remitted the matter to SDHR for a hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The court said that "Where, as here, a determination of no probable cause is rendered [by SDHR] without holding a public hearing pursuant to Executive Law §297(4)(a), the appropriate standard of review is whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis." However, explained the Appellate Division, “[t]he complainant's factual showing must be accepted as true on a probable cause determination.” Although the court’s “standard of review” is highly deferential to SDHR’s determination, in this instance the Appellate Division agreed with Supreme Court that SDHR’s determination "was not rationally based upon the evidence presented."

Executive Law §296 prohibits an employer from refusing to hire or employ an individual based on the individual's gender. Rejecting the District’s argument that it decided not to rehire Counselor because of her unavailability and its concern for continuity of counseling services for its students, the Appellate Division, noting that Counselor would be unavailable to work because of her pregnancy, said “we conclude that discrimination could be inferred from the record before us.”

The court observed that the District had relied on Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist. v State Div. of Human Rights, 72 AD2d 808, in support of its argument that it did not unlawfully discriminate against Counselor. However, said the Appellate Division, “to the extent that Roslyn holds that a decision not to hire an individual because the individual is pregnant is not a form of discrimination,” it declined to follow it.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_05384.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.

Fair Chance Hiring Application Revisions and Statewide Employment Application

Fair Chance Hiring Application Revisions and Statewide Employment Application

NYS Department of Civil Service General Information Bulletin No. 15-02

Scott DeFruscio, New York State Department of Civil Service Director of Staffing Services, announced the publication of NYS Department of Civil Service General Information Bulletin No. 15-02 addressing the Department’s Fair Chance Hiring Application Revisions and Statewide Employment Application

The Bulletin is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/Manuals/SPMM/GIBS/GIB15-02.cfm

Selected reports and information issued by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued during the week ending July 11, 2015

Selected reports and information issued by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued during the week ending July 11, 2015

[Click on text highlighted in color to access the full report]

Department of Agriculture and Markets - Food Safety Monitoring

An audit report issued in January 2014 found the department was unable to meet the demands of its inspection frequency schedule, and identified instances of both existing and new establishments preparing food prior to obtaining the required inspection. In addition, the department’s staff of 82 inspectors was below recommended staffing levels. In a follow-up, auditors found department officials made significant progress in addressing the problems identified in the initial audit. Of the three prior audit recommendations, two were implemented and one was partially implemented. http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/15f10.pdf

Division of the Budget - Quality of Internal Control Certifications

In 2012, auditors conducted a series of audits at 12 state agencies focusing specifically on their 2011-2012 Internal Control Certifications submitted to the Division of the Budget (DOB). Auditors examined whether these agencies submitted their certifications on time, answered all the questions with the appropriate level of detail, and maintained documentation supporting the answers given. The initial audit reports concluded that improvements were needed to the quality of Internal Control Certifications at 10 of the 12 agencies. In a follow-up report, auditors found agency officials made significant progress in addressing the problems identified. http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/15f7.pdf

Department of Health -Overpayments of Hospitals’ Claims for Lengthy Acute Care Admissions
An initial audit report issued in July 2013 identified $7.8 million in Medicaid overpayments. The overpayments occurred primarily because hospitals billed Medicaid for higher (and more costly) levels of acute care when, in fact, patients received lower-cost non-acute care. In a follow-up, auditors found DOH officials recovered the overpayments identified in the initial report, notified hospitals of the correct way to bill inpatient claims, and modified its contractor’s sampling plan to select and review similar claims at high risk of overpayment. http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/15f12.pdf

Roswell Park Cancer Institute - Security Over Electronic Protected Health Information

The institute has taken many steps to safeguard its electronic protected health information (ePHI) and meet security requirements. In addition, auditors found the institute has adequate protection policies in place and a plan to make mandatory notifications when ePHI is lost or stolen. However, auditors identified some improvement opportunities. http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/14s67.pdf

State Universityof New York - Selected Procurement and Contracting Practices

SUNY officials have generally established good internal controls over procurement and have effectively communicated these procedures to the campuses. Tests at seven campuses and system administration, however, found they don’t consistently follow some of these procurement policies. For example, of 924 procurements reviewed, 97 inthe $500 to $250,000 range and totaling more than $1.1 million lacked required documentation to demonstrate that the price was reasonable. Auditors also identified some campus practices that go beyond SUNY’s requirements to manage cost and could serve as best practice examples if more widely shared among the campuses. http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093015/14s19.pdf

A limitation on an arbitrator’s discretion to fashion a remedy must be contained, either explicitly or incorporated by reference, in the arbitration clause

A limitation on an arbitrator’s discretion to fashion a remedy must be contained, either explicitly or incorporated by reference, in the arbitration clause
Matter of Town of Scriba (Teamsters Local 317), 2015 NY Slip Op 05316, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Teamsters Local 317 (Union) appealed from an order and judgment of Supreme Court granting the application of the Town of Scriba [Scriba] to vacate an arbitration award. 

The stipulated issue submitted to the arbitrator asked "[w]as the suspension and termination of the [g]rievant, … for just cause? If not, what shall be the remedy?"

Among other things, the arbitrator had determined that, although maintaining a commercial driver's license (CDL) was a minimum standard for employment, the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) did not mandate the employee's discharge from employment upon forfeiture of his CDL and, thus, Scriba did not have just cause to terminate the grievant.

The arbitrator fashioned a remedy whereby the grievant would be suspended without pay, and Scriba could terminate his employment only if he did not regain a valid CDL on or before a particular date.

Scriba appealed to the Supreme Court seeking an order vacating the arbitration award on the ground that the award exceeded the scope of the arbitrator's power.  Union filed a cross petition seeking to confirm the award pursuant to CPLR 7510. Supreme Court granted the Scriba’s motion to vacate the arbitration award.

Union appealed the Supreme Court’s decision and the Appellate Division agreed with the Union that Supreme Court erred in vacating the arbitration award, concluding that the arbitration award should have been confirmed.

The court said that it agreed with Union that the arbitrator did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on his authority, explaining that "It is well established that an arbitrator has broad discretion to determine a dispute and fix a remedy and that any contractual limitation on that discretion must be contained, either explicitly or incorporated by reference, in the arbitration clause itself."

The Appellate Division said that the relevant part of the collective bargaining agreement [CBA] stated only that "[i]f the dispute [regarding a grievance] cannot be satisfactorily resolved, the issue may be submitted to final and binding arbitration."  The court concluded that the CBA provided no "specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power" and that "the remedy sought was expressed in open-ended terms that certainly did not limit the arbitrator's power to grant any specific relief."

 

The court also agree with the Union that the award was not irrational, explaining that "An award is irrational if there is no proof whatever to justify the award” and so long as an arbitrator offers “even a barely colorable justification for the outcome reached” the arbitration award must be upheld.

Here, said the Appellate Division, “the language of the CBA is ‘reasonably susceptible of the construction given it by the arbitrator’ and the arbitrator offered a ‘colorable justification for the outcome reached.'”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_05316.htm