Resolving conflicts between the New York State Human Rights Law and the National Labor Relations Act

Resolving conflicts between the New York State Human Rights Law and the National Labor Relations Act

Figueroa v Foster, USCA, Second Circuit, Docket Nos. 16-1856-cv(L), 16-1864-cv(XAP)

The issue before the Court in this action concerned whether the duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] preempted the New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL] with respect to claims of unlawful discrimination filed by a union member against a labor organization when the labor organization was acting in its capacity as a collective bargaining representative in contrast to its acting as an employer.

If, said the court, the NLRA’s duty of fair representation preempts the NYSHRL, then Title VII as administered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will serve as the primary force protecting union members from "invidious discrimination by their labor organizations."

If, on the other hand, opined the Circuit Court, the NLRA’s duty of fair representation does not preempt the NYSHRL, then the NYSHRL as administered by the New York State Division of Human Rights will provide union members with additional protections against invidious discrimination by their labor organizations.

Holding that hold that the NLRA’s duty of fair representation did not preempt* the NYSHRL either on the basis of field preemption, i.e, the federal government has fully occupied the fieldit has chosen to regulate, or as a general matter on the basis of conflict preemption, i.e., is it impossible for a party to comply with both state law and federal law, the Circuit Court reversed the declaratory judgment of the district court.

The decision cautions that this opinion "addresses only the Local’s claim that the duty of fair representation preempts the NYSHRL in its entirety when applied to unions acting in their capacity as collective bargaining agents."

In the words of the Circuit Court: "We do not purport to address every potential conflict between the NYSHRL and federal law" in this ruling.

* Under the doctrine of preemption based on Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States, the so-called Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when such laws are in conflict.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/27722fb4-6571-480b-ab91-18b80fd52a6b/8/doc/16-1856_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/27722fb4-6571-480b-ab91-18b80fd52a6b/8/hilite/

Redacting the name of a party in an administrative disciplinary action from the decision

Redacting the name of a party in an administrative disciplinary action from the decision

OATH Index No. 724/17

A New York City correction officer was served administrative disciplinary charges alleging the officer used unauthorized force when disbursing a chemical agent for more than a two-second burst within six feet of an inmate who had ceased offering resistance. The officer was also charged with filing an incomplete and inaccurate use of force report.

The officer moved to have his name redacted from the decision pursuant to §50-a of the New York State Civil Rights Law*on the grounds that a correction officer’s personnel records cannot be disclosed without an officer’s consent or a court order.

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] Administrative Law Judge Astrid B. Gloade denied the motion, explaining that OATH has

consistently held that its decisions are not subject to the confidentiality provisions of Section 50-a of the Civil Rights Law because it is an independent tribunal that is not under the New York City Department of Correction's control."  

* Civil Rights Law §50-a, in pertinent part, provides that  “personnel records . . . under the control of . . . a department of correction of  individuals employed as correction officers” cannot be disclosed without an officer’s consent or a court order.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/17_cases/17-724.pdf

Determining if a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is arbitrable

Determining if a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is arbitrable 

Board of Educ. of the Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist. v Newburgh Teachers' Assn., 2017 NY Slip Op 05817, Appellate Division, Second Department

In a CPLR Article 75 action addressing a demand by the Newburgh Teachers' Association [Association], the Association appealed a Supreme Court order granting the Newburgh city School District's Board of Education's [Board] petition to permanently stay arbitration of the matter demanded by the Association and denied the Association's cross motion to compel arbitration.

Citing Matter of County of Chautauqua v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, County of Chautauqua Unit 6300, Chautauqua County Local 807, 8 NY3d 513, the Appellate Division explained that in determining "whether a dispute between a public sector employer and employee is arbitrable, a court must first determine whether 'there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance.'"

If, said the Appellate Division, there is no " statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition" prohibition against arbitration, the court must examine the parties' collective bargaining agreement to determine "whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute.

The Association had "demanded arbitration" to compel the Board to implement certain measures regarding the discipline and suspension of students.

The Appellate Division succinctly ruled that as various provisions of New York's Education Law "grants discretion to boards of education to implement disciplinary rules and regulations in schools," the Association's demand was nonarbitrable "on public policy grounds." Accordingly the question of whether the parties had agreed to arbitrate such a dispute was never reached by the court.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_05817.htm

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending July 29, 2017

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending July 29, 2017

Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full report

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and examinations have been issued:

DiNapoli Releases Analysis of State Financial Plan, Warns of Federal Risks
 New York state is facing signs of increasing fiscal challenges, including lower revenue targets and possible federal budget and tax changes, according to a reporton the state's Enacted Budget Financial Plan issued by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

 
Audit Finds More Than $16 Million in Medicaid Cost Savings

New York state's Medicaid system could have saved up to $13.6 million it spent on patients with severe kidney disease whose expenses could have been covered by the federal Medicare program, according to an auditby State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. Auditors also found another $3 million in cost savings. About $1.8 million of the overpayments were recovered before the close of the audit as a result of actions taken by DiNapoli's auditors.

 
Audit Recommends Better Protections for Child Performers

The state Department of Labor is falling short in enforcing New York’s laws to protect child performers, according to an auditby New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. State auditors found shortfalls with how work permits were given to children and employers, inadequate monitoring of work conditions, and insufficient enforcement of requirements to set aside some of the children’s earnings in a trust.

 
DiNapoli and Orange County DA Hoovler Announce Guilty Plea in Newburgh Embezzlement Case

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Orange County District Attorney David M. Hoovler announced that John Aber, 49, of Staten Island, pleaded guilty before Orange County Court Judge Robert H. Freehill to grand larceny in the fourth degree for having stolen money while he was the comptroller of the city of Newburgh. At the time he pleaded guilty, Aber admitted that between August 2013 and December 2016 he used his position as city comptroller to steal money collected from boat-launch fees in the city of Newburgh.

 
State Tax Collections Lagging Last Year by $1.2 Billion

State tax collections totaled $18.6 billion in the first quarter of the new fiscal year, $1.2 billion less than the same period last year and $315.7 million below projections, according to the state cash reportissued by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

Applying the appropriate causation standard in adjudicating alleged unlawful retaliation claims for exercising FMLA rights

Applying the appropriate causation standard in adjudicating alleged unlawful retaliation claims for exercising FMLA rights

Woods v. START Treatment & Recovery Ctrs., USCA, 2nd Circuit, 16-1318-cv

Cassandra Woods lost a jury trial on her claim that she was fired for exercising her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act [FMLA]. One of the two principal questions* addressed by the court in her appeal was "what is the appropriate causation standard for FMLA retaliation claims?"

The federal district court had instructed the jury that it must apply the “but for” causation standard with respect to Woods’ retaliation claims. The Second Circuit held that FMLA retaliation claims of the sort Woods brought in this case require applying a “motivating factor” causation standard. 

Under the motivating factor test, an employee could prove retaliation by showing that his or her decision to report or notify the employer of possible discrimination was a motivating factor in the employer's decision to terminate the employee or take some other adverse employment action.

In contrast, under the "but-for causation" standard, the employee would have to prove that he or she would have retained his or her position or would have avoided some other adverse employment action in the absence of the employer's retaliatory intent.

The district court's decision was then vacated and remanded to the lower court for further action.

* The second principal issue addressed by the Circuit Court of Appeals: "Was Woods unduly prejudiced by the admission of adverse inferences based on her invocation of the Fifth Amendment at her deposition?"

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/75dbeb99-a261-443d-8109-fd5e2161ad2e/2/doc/16-1318_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/75dbeb99-a261-443d-8109-fd5e2161ad2e/2/hilite/