Claim of qualified immunity not available to a public official when the law giving rise to the violation was clearly established at the time of the violation

Claim of qualified immunity not available to a public official when the law giving rise to the violation was clearly established at the time of the violation

Morse v Fusto, US Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Docket 13-4074

Qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known.

A grand jury indicted a dentist [Dentist], charging Dentist  with one count of Grand Larceny in the First Degree in violation of Penal Law §155.42 and eleven counts of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in violation of Penal Law §175.35.

These charges led to Dentist’s suspension from the New York Medicaid Program upon which his practice had depended; the liquidation of his dental practice as a consequence of such suspension; the loss of his teaching position at a New York hospital;* the public dissemination of the story of his indictment, including at least one press release issued by the Office of the Attorney General; and newspaper articles in various newspapers.

Upon his acquittal of all charges, Dentist brought an action against a Special Assistant Attorney General and an Audit-investigator [Defendants] in federal district court alleging that Defendants had deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial by intentionally manipulating certain information on spreadsheet summary charts before they were presented to the grand jury in order to create the false impression that Dentist billed Medicaid for dental services that he did not provide.

Essentially, Dentist contended that Defendants, acting as government officials in an investigative capacity, knowingly created false or misleading evidence.

Defendants, in rebuttal, claimed “qualified immunity,” and asked the federal district to grant them summary judgment dismissing Dentist’s complaint.

The district court denied Defendants’ motion and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dentist based on its finding that Defendants “knowingly created false or fraudulently altered documents” to the grand jury.

Defendants appealed the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment, contending that “their conduct was not clearly prohibited by the Constitution and that they were therefore entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.”

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling, denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment stating that it had concluded that the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court said that Dentist’s Constitutional rights had been violated and “the law giving rise to the violation was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Further, the Circuit Court also concluded that “the district court did not err by declining to order a new trial despite its conclusion that one of the factual assertions upon which the verdict was based was insufficiently supported by the evidence.”

* Dentist regained his teaching position following his acquittal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/09dd697f-b0ed-464a-9fbc-07c4e98c7a23/12/doc/14-1993_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/09dd697f-b0ed-464a-9fbc-07c4e98c7a23/12/hilite/

State’s removing a private lawsuit from State court to Federal court waives a State’s 11th Amendment immunity but may not affect its general sovereign immunity

State’s removing a private lawsuit from State court to Federal court waives a State’s 11^thAmendment immunity but may not affect its general sovereign immunity

Beaulieu v State of Vermont, US Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Docket #13-4198-cv

704 current and former employees of the State of Vermont [Plaintiffs], brought an action in State court contending that because their weekly pay is or was reduced for partial-day absences in excess of their accrued leave, they are or were not paid on a “salary basis” under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] and are thus entitled to overtime pay at one and one-half times their regular rate.

Vermont  removed the action from Vermont   state court to the United States District Court, District of Vermont.

Vermont then moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s action based on its claim that it was immune from private lawsuit. The District Court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit “by reason of Vermont’s sovereign immunity* from private lawsuits.” Plaintiffs appealed.

The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s ruling, explaining that although Vermont’s removal of Plaintiffs’ private lawsuit from Vermont state court to the United States District Court resulted in a waiver its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court, it had not waived its general sovereign immunity from private lawsuits within the meaning of Vermont State Law.

Plaintiffs had argue that a statutory provision, Vermont Statutes Title 21, §384(b)(7) constituted an express waiver of the Vermont’s immunity from private actions brought under the FLSA. The Circuit Court disagreed, noting that although Title 21 provides that “[A]n employer shall not pay an employee less than one and one-half times the regular wage rate for any work done by the employee in excess of 40 hours during a workweek,” the statute further provides that “this subsection shall not apply to: (7) State employees who are covered by the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.”

In the words of the Circuit Court, “Plaintiff's argument misunderstands the difference between the applicability of a federal statute to a state enacting lawful obligations upon the state, and the state's amenability to a private entity's suit to enforce such an obligation. There is no doubt that the FLSA applies to Vermont and creates a legal obligation on Vermont to pay its employees in accordance with the statute's terms. Nonetheless, Vermont's sovereign immunity—unless waived or forfeited—bars suit by a private entity seeking to enforce the FLSA's terms.”

Accordingly, said the court, “[t]he fact that Vermont state employees are covered by the FLSA does not mean that those employees are entitled to sue Vermont under the FLSA's private right of action,” concluding that the District Court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs private lawsuit on the basis of Vermont's general sovereign immunity, which Vermont had not waived. 

* The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity holds that the state cannot commit a legal wrong and thus is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution unless it has unequivocally waived such immunity.

 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e04cb9a1-65fc-473d-8e22-25494c8e1ec3/2/doc/13-4198_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e04cb9a1-65fc-473d-8e22-25494c8e1ec3/2/hilite/

Former NYS Member of the Assembly sentenced after being found guilty of fraud and theft

Former NYS Member of the Assembly sentenced after being found guilty of fraud and theft

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

Former New York State Assemblyman William Scarborough, of Queens, New York, was sentenced to 13 months in prison and two years of supervised release after being convicted of wire fraud and theft from a program receiving federal funds and related to his wrongful receipt of per diem payments from New York State for alleged travel expenses.

A written plea agreement required him to resign his position as a Member of the New York State Assembly.

The text of the Comptroller’s press release reporting this action is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/sept15/091415.htm?utm_source=weeklynews20150920&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091415release

An individual is entitled to be represented by an attorney in an administrative hearing

An individual is entitled to be represented by an attorney in an administrative hearing

Matter of Odom (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 06861, Appellate Division, Third Department

Odom appealed a determination by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, ultimately ruled, among other things, that Odom was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct.

The Appellate Division reversed the Board’s determination and remanded the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

The court said that the record demonstrated that at the commencement of the administrative hearing Odom informed the Administrative Law Judge that her attorney was unavailable, but that she "would like for him to come" to the hearing. 

Notwithstanding this statement by Odom, said the Appellate Division, “the Administrative Law Judge continued to question [Odom] until she agreed to proceed pro se.”*

The court found that Odom’s right to have counsel present to represent her a the administrative hearing was violated under these circumstances.

* By proceeding pro se, Odom would be serving as her own attorney in this quasi-judicial proceeding.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_06861.htm

A party's participation in the arbitration proceeding deemed a concession by the party that the arbitration panel has jurisdiction to consider and decide the matter

A party's participation in the arbitration proceeding deemed a concession by the party that the arbitration panel has jurisdiction to consider and decide the matter

D'Ropshitz v Schwartz, 2015 NY Slip Op 06814, Appellate Division, Second Department

An arbitration award dated August 20, 2012was issued by the arbitration panel. Schwartz then alerted the arbitration panel that the August 20, 2012, award had left an issue unresolved and met with the panel. This resulted in the arbitration panel issuing an award dated July 2, 2013.

When D’Ropshitz brought a CPLR Article 75 action to confirm the panel’s July 2, 2013 award Schwartz objected, contending that after issuing its arbitration award dated August 20, 2012 the arbitration panel did not have jurisdiction to issue the arbitration award dated July 2, 2013. Supreme Court, Kings Countyconfirmed the July 2, 2013 award, [in part] and Schwartz appealed the Supreme Court’s determination.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s confirmation of the award [in part], explaining that Schwartz waived any argument that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority or was without jurisdiction with respect to its issuing the July 2, 2013 award by alerting the arbitration panel that the August 20, 2012, award had left an issue unresolved and then meeting with the panel, during which Schwartz suggested "that the panel members visit the subject site so that they might have a better understanding of the issue.”

Also, as the Court of Appeals held in United Federation of Teachers, Local 2 v Board of Education of the City of New York, 1 NY3d 72, "a party that participates in the arbitration may not later seek to vacate the award by claiming it never agreed to arbitrate the dispute in the first place."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_06814.htm