Worker Classification: Employee or Independent Contractor?

Worker Classification: Employee or Independent Contractor?

An Internal Revenue Service Webcast

This Webcast will be online on Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 2 p.m.(Eastern)

The link to register for this Free Webcast is at:

https://www.webcaster4.com/Webcast/Page/925/14635

This same link will be used to log on to the Webcast on May 12, 2016.

Learn about:

Why this matters

Recognize Control Factors

Benefits of Voluntary Compliance

How the Form SS-8 can help

Resources:

Government Workers: Employees or Independent Contractors?
Overview of the issue at https://www.irs.gov/Government-Entities/Federal,-State-&-Local-Governments/Government-Workers-Employees-or-Independent-Contractors

Independent Contractor - Self-Employed or Employee? 

Details regarding the issue at https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Independent-Contractor-Self-Employed-or-Employee

Evaluating claims of mitigating circumstances in considering challenges to the disciplinary penalty imposed by the appointing authority

Evaluating claims of mitigating circumstances in considering challenges to the disciplinary penalty imposed by the appointing authority
Gomez v Kelly, 2016 NY Slip Op 03582, Appellate Division, First Department [Gomez II]

Manuel Gomez, a New York City Police Officer, was found guilty of disciplinary charges that alleged he brandished his gun during the course of a violent off-duty domestic dispute, pointed the firearm at the civilians who were attempting to assist the victim, failed to comply with the responding police officers' instructions, and resisted being handcuffed. The penalty imposed by the New York City Commissioner of Police in Gomez II: termination of Gomez’s employment as a police officer.

Gomez appealed but the Appellate Division dismissed his petition explaining that the finding that he was guilty of the disciplinary charges in Gomez II was supported by substantial evidence, including testimony of civilian witnesses and police officers.  The court said that “[t]here exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Hearing Officer” and sustained the penalty imposed by the Commissioner, dismissal from the New York City Police Department.

In an effort to “mitigate” the penalty imposed, dismissal, Gomez argued that termination was excessive in light of his excellent service record in the department and in the military. The Appellate Divisions said that this argument was unavailing in light of his disciplinary history, citing Gomez v Kelly, 55 AD3d 305, reversed 12 NY3d 883 [Gomez I].

In Gomez I the Appellate Division said that substantial evidence supported the findings that Gomez violated [1] his commanding officer's order to terminate his involvement in a criminal investigation; [2] failed to take possession of drugs during a police department integrity test; [3] failed to voucher his helmet, mace and shield before leaving for active military duty; [4] retrieved his service handgun before the official date of his discharge from active military duty; and [5] failed to report a domestic incident to the department. The court also noted that “[t]here is no basis to disturb the hearing officer's rejection of [Gomez’s] explanations for these actions.”

The Appellate Division, however, held that the penalty imposed by the Commissioner, a one-year “dismissal probation” and a 30-day forfeiture of annual leave credits, was “excessive in light of the mitigating circumstances, i.e., [Gomez’s] several tours of active military duty, including a year in Afghanistan for which he was decorated, and the substantial pay lost in connection with his military service.”

The Commissioner appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s ruling, explaining that it could not conclude that “the penalty . . . imposed by the Commissioner shocks the judicial conscience.”

The decision in Gomez I is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07181.htm

The decision in Gomez II is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_03582.htm

 _____________________ 

 A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York State court and administrative decisions addressing an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/7401.html

 _____________________ 

Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending May 7, 2016

Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending May 7, 2016

Click on text highlighted in color to access the entire report

State Budget increases education aid and enacts paid family leave
The recently enacted fiscal year 2016-17 state budget includes a $1.4 billion increase in school aid, as well as increases to the minimum wage and phased-in personal income tax cuts for most taxpayers, but adds to state debt and shifts significant spending off-budget and to authorities, according to a reportreleased by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. The report also notes the budget sacrificed public transparency both in process and content.

Remaining defendants in a multi-million dollar bid-rigging of Monroe County public contracts sentenced
State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced the sentencing of the remaining three defendants in an elaborate bid-rigging conspiracy that illegally steered multi-million dollar public works contracts for Monroe County to favored and connected companies, resulting in the restraint of competition. The defendants profited from this scheme and defrauded the taxpayers of Monroe County. The report is posted on the Internet at:
http://osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/may16/050616a.htm?utm_source=weekly+news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=corruption&utm_content=20160508&utm_campaign=fiscal+oversight

State audits released:

City University of New York - Controls Over Bank Accounts - Lehman College

Empire State Development Corp. - Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises Program; and

Ogdensburg Bridge and Port Authority - Capital Planning and Maintenance

State law governing voter registration does not require a “wet signature” and asignature can be affixed electronically if the application form is completed “on-line”

State law governing voter registration does not require a “wet signature” and asignature can be affixed electronically if the application form is completed “on-line”

Informal Opinions of the Attorney General, Informal Opinion 2016-1

Dennis M. Brown, Suffolk County’s County Attorney, explaining that Suffolk County was considering a voter registration system that would allow an individual to register to vote by completing an application online, wrote to the Attorney General to inquire if state law governing voter registration requires that the signature of a registrant be hand written, i.e., written with ink, or a “wet signature.”

Kathryn Sheingold, Assistant Solicitor General in Charge of Opinions, responding to Mr. Brown, opined that “state law governing voter registration does not require a wet signature,” indicating that a signature can be affixed electronically as the “election law does not specifically require a signature written with ink on a voter registration application.” However, cautioned Ms. Sheingold, “the technology … must capture a handwritten signature that can be incorporated into the registration records and compared with the signature that the applicant will write at the polling location at the time of voting.”*

Another element to consider relating to a registration application completed online is that the application, once so completed, would have to either (a) be printed and mailed to the local board of elections by the applicant or a third party assisting the applicant or (b) be completed by appearing at the local board of elections. Otherwise, said Ms. Sheingold, “the County would be creating a new system of registration rather than using the existing system outlined by the Legislature.”

Ms. Sheingold’s response to the Suffolk County Attorney is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinion/2016-1_pw_0.pdf

Although the Attorney General issues Formal Opinions only to officers and departments of State government, Informal Opinions are prepared  by the Attorney General’s Office of the Solicitor General in Charge of Opinions in response to inquiries from officers of a political subdivision of the State.

* Presumably the signature written on the envelope enclosing an absentee ballot submitted by the voter would be compared with electronic signature incorporated into the voter registration records.

Supreme Court’s imposing a “lesser disciplinary penalty” upon remand found to have usurped the authority of the arbitrator under the circumstances

Supreme Court’s imposing a “lesser disciplinary penalty” upon remand found to have usurped the authority of the arbitrator under the circumstances

Fernandez v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 03435, Appellate Division, First Department

In an earlier appeal involving the same parties, the Appellate Division vacated the arbitration award that sustained the New York City Transit Authority's (NYCTA) decision to terminate Carlos Fernandez’s employment.* The Appellate Division then remanded the matter to the Arbitrator for imposition of a lesser penalty.

On remand, however, Supreme Court granted Fernandez’s petition to the extent of restoring him, “upon his successful completion of a medical examination, to his position as a bus operator, with full benefits and accrued vacation running from the date of his reinstatement.”

NYCTA appealed and the Appellate Division “unanimously reversed” the Supreme Court’s action on the law and the facts. The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court’s imposing “a lesser penalty” usurped the Arbitrator's authority and the lower court should have remitting the matter to the Arbitrator for a rehearing and new determination as to the appropriate lesser penalty.

The Appellate Division explained that the matter should have been remitted to the original Arbitrator as “there has been no showing that the original Arbitrator is biased or otherwise incapable of carrying out his duties.”

* NYPPL’s summary of the earlier Appellate Division ruling is posted on the Internet at: http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2014/08/transcribing-hearing-in-disciplinary.html[In pertinent part, it reports that the penalty imposed by the arbitrator on the employee, termination, was vacated by the Appellate Division and the matter remanded to the arbitrator “for the imposition of a lesser penalty.” In that action the Appellate Division said that the termination of the employee, a NYCTA bus driver for 15 years, with an unblemished record of employment and who had consistently received positive performance evaluations, and had never been disciplined as the sanction “for a single, alleged transgression is grossly excessive and shocks our sense of fairness,” citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale and  Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222.]

The 2016 decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_03435.htm

 _____________________ 

 A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York State court and administrative decisions addressing an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/7401.html

 _____________________