National Guard personnel are state employees

 

National Guard personnel are state employees

Formal opinion of the Attorney General

The Attorney General has issued an opinion that National Guard personnel in training status are state employees for the purposes of §17 of the Public Officers Law. §17 provides for the State to defend its employees who are defendants in litigation resulting from the performance of their official duties.

An employee may not be terminated for a constitutionally impermissible reason, in violation of a statutory proscription or in bad faith

An employee may not be terminated for a constitutionally impermissible reason, in violation of a statutory proscription or in bad faith

Appeal of Aminah Lucio, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,090

After addressing the issue of the timeliness of this appeal, which the Commissioner found to be timely, the Commissioner addressed the merits of Aminah Lucio's appeal.

Lucio contended that her U-rating should be annulled because "her due process rights were violated and she was never provided with a copy of the paperwork upon which her employer, the New York City Department of Education [DOE], relied for its determination in advance of the hearing and [it] failed to follow certain rules and regulations contained in Section IV of the Appeal Process in the Rating Manual."*

Lucio also argued that DOE's decision to rate her unsatisfactory and discontinue her probationary services "was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, made in bad faith and discriminatory ... [and she was] discontinued due to retaliation and racial discrimination."

The Commissioner explained that standard of proof required to overturn a teacher rating is very high and in the absence of a showing of malice, prejudice, bad faith or gross error, the Commissioner will not substitute his or her judgment for that of the appointing authority and that in such situations the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which her or she seeks relief.

In this instance the Commissioner found that Lucio had demonstrated that DOE's determination to give her an unsatisfactory rating "was made in gross error." DOE, said the Commissioner  failed to provide Lucio with any supporting documentation regarding her rating before the hearing, thus preventing Lucio from having any way of knowing what documentation was used as the basis for the performance rating here being challenged.

The Commissioner also noted that the hearing officer found that "there were several other flaws in [DOE's] appeal procedures, commenting that  In Matter of Blaize v. Klein, 68 AD3d 759, the Appellate Division ruled that "a teacher’s failure to receive, before the hearing, the complete set of documents on which the rating was based deprived the teacher of a substantial right, thus rendering the rating made in violation of a lawful procedure and subject to reversal."  

Based on the deficiencies in the review process which undermined the integrity and fairness of the process and the lack of hearing testimony to substantiate DOE's rationale for Lucio's termination, the Commissioner found that its decision to terminate Lucio was made in bad faith. 

Although a board of education has the unfettered right to terminate a probationary teacher’s employment for any reason, such a decision will not be sustained where the petitioner establishes that he or she was terminated "or a constitutionally impermissible reason, in violation of a statutory proscription or in bad faith, and granted Lucio's appeal.

The Commissioner directed DOE to reinstate Lucio to the position "to which she is entitled in accordance with this decision, and provide her with back pay and benefits and seniority credit from August 20, 2010, less any compensation she may have earned in the interim." 

* Click here to Read a FREE excerpt from The Discipline Book concerning the due process rights of public employees in New York State.

N.B. Lucio served in a position in the Unclassified Service of the Civil Service. Providing for the payment of "back pay and benefits" is different in situations involving the reinstatement of an individual in the Classified Service of the Civil Service terminated from his or her position. In 1985 §77 of the Civil Service Law was amended eliminating the deduction for “compensation derived from other employment” upon reinstatement by court order. The same is true with respect to such a reinstatement directed by a civil service commission pursuant to §76 of the Civil Service Law.

The Commissioner's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume56/d17090

Town may discontinue health insurance coverage under certain circumstances

Town may discontinue health insurance coverage under certain circumstances

Source: Informal Opinions of the State Comptroller, Op St Comp 80-105

The State Comptroller has issued an opinion indicating that a town may terminate the health insurance coverage of a retired town employee when the retiree becomes qualified for Medicare coverage benefits.

It appears that the views of the Comptroller would be limited to local governments which are not participating in the New State Employees’ Health Insurance Program as §167-a of the Civil Service Law controls with respect NYSHIP participating employers ins such situations.

Fair Labor Standards Act not applicable to personnel employed by an "educational establishment"

Fair Labor Standards Act not applicable to personnel employed by an "educational establishment"

Fernandez v Zoni Language Center, USCA, 2nd Circuit, Docket #16-1689-cv

Zhara Fernandez and certain others [Plaintiffs] were employed as English teachers by the Zoni Language Center. Acting on their own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs alleged that Zoni was in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law because it failed to pay them the statutory minimum wage for hours worked out of the classroom and the statutory overtime required when Plaintiffs' classroom and out-of-classroom work exceeded 40 hours per week. 

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, holding that Zoni was exempt from the FLSA's mandatory minimum wage and overtime requirements as they were not applicable to teachers working as bona fide professionals. Zoni, said the court, was an "educational establishment" within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. 541.204(b).

Professional employees employed at elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher education, or other educational institutions are deemed employees excluded from claiming compensation consistent with the mandatory provisions of the FLSA. In addition, for purposes of this exclusion, no distinction is drawn between public and private schools, or between those operated for profit and those that are not for profit.

The professional exclusion applies to employees who have as a primary duty, teaching, tutoring, instructing, or lecturing in the activity of "imparting knowledge and [who] do so in an educational establishment." Accordingly, employers of such personnel are not mandated to pay such employees minimum wages, overtime or similar compensation related rates otherwise required by Federal or New York State law with respect to its non-professional personnel.

An employee on leave from work due to a reasonable fear of domestic violence is not "unavailable" or unwilling to work for the purposes of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits

An employee on leave from work due to a reasonable fear of domestic violence is not "unavailable" or unwilling to work for the purposes of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits

Matter of Derfert (Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 04016, Appellate Division, Third Department

To be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, claimant must be "ready, willing and able to work." Further, whether a claimant is available for work ordinarily presents a question of fact for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board [Board] to determine and its decision will be sustained provided it is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The uncontroverted evidence in this appeal from the Board's denial of claimant's application for unemployment insurance benefits for the period May 2, 2015 through June 7, 2015, was that claimant did not report to work, with the employer's approval, because a former boyfriend was physically and verbally abusing her. Such abuse included calling claimant on a daily basis and leaving threatening and disparaging voicemail messages and regularly sat in a car outside or near her home waiting for her to emerge.*

Although the Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not available for employment, the Appellate Division said that it disagreed with the Board ruling that claimant's leave of absence "necessitated by the actions of a perpetrator of domestic abuse rendered her legally unavailable for work."

The court, citing Labor Law §593(1)(b)(i), explained that the Legislature had provided that an employee may not be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for separating from employment "due to any compelling family reason," which includes "domestic violence . . . which causes the individual reasonably to believe that such individual's continued employment would jeopardize his or her safety or the safety of any member of his or her immediate family."

The genesis of §593(1)(b)(i) was a ruling by a New Jersey appeals court that a woman who was forced to quit her job due to domestic violence was not entitled to collect unemployment benefits. The Appellate Division said that §593(1)(b)(i) indicated "the legislative intent remained to ensure that 'individuals who are voluntarily separated from employment due to compelling family reasons are eligible for [unemployment insurance] benefits.'"

The Board had, in this instance, rejected the claimant's application for benefits notwithstanding the claimant's uncontroverted testimony that she was the victim of domestic violence, stalking and harassment, as well as her testimony that she was willing and able to work during the period in issue but was prevented from leaving her home to get to work due to her justifiable fear of further violence by her former boyfriend.  

The Appellate Division disagreed with the Board's holding that an employee who takes a leave from work due to a reasonable fear of domestic violence, a "compelling family reason" under Labor Law §593(1)(b), is "unavailable" for or unwilling to work and is, therefore, ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits under Labor Law §591(2). The court said such a ruling "contradicts the intent underlying the protection afforded to domestic violence victims from disqualification for unemployment insurance benefits."

Accordingly, the court ruled the Board should not have found claimant to be ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits due to unavailability. It then reversed the Board's determination and remanded that matter to the Board "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision."

* The decision notes that such abuse commenced after a "stay-away order of protection" expired and claimant had been unsuccessful in obtaining a new order.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_04016.htm

____________________________

Challenging Adverse Personnel Decisions - A 765 page electronic book [e-book] focusing on penalties imposed on public employees of New York State and its political subdivisions found guilty of misconduct or incompetence by hearing officers and arbitrators and the judicial review of such penalties. More information is available on the Internet at http://nypplarchives.blogspot.com.

____________________________