Applying compensation limitations retroactively

Applying compensation limitations retroactively

People v Edward J. Murphy, 235 A.D.2d 554

In 1993 certain limitations on the amount of compensation that a BOCES Superintendent could receive were enacted into law [Chapter 295, Laws of 1993].

In the Murphy case the Appellate Division concluded that the limitations set out in Chapter 295 did not apply retroactively.

The case arose when the State attempted to recover a portion of what the Appellate Division described as an "overly generous BOCES compensation package (which included extensive sick and vacation leave time and the right to liquidate this leave at full-pay)" granted to its then BOCES Superintendent Edward J. Murphy,

The Court said that "while improvident, BOCES' offer to Murphy, and his acceptance of the overly generous BOCES compensation package ... did not violate any articulated public policy."

Further, the Court ruled that although the law now places a limitation on the amount of compensation that a BOCES superintendent may receive, "at the time Murphy began working at BOCES and continuing throughout his tenure as the BOCES district superintendent, the law provided for no such restrictions. Accordingly, the Court decided, Murphy's employment agreements with BOCES were neither illegal nor unauthorized.

The ruling suggests that all or part of a "compensation package" in place prior to the effective date of the enactment or the amendment of a law limiting the compensation of a public officer or a public employee then in service may survive judicial challenge even if the compensation package is in excess of that authorized by the law as enacted or amended.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1997789235ad2d5541272

An appointing authority may formulate and implement procedures to be used to promote its employees

An appointing authority may formulate and implement procedures to be used to promote its employees

Sinopidis v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 2019 NY Slip Op 00830, Appellate Division, First Department

A candidate for promotion from Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Sergeant to Lieutenant  [Petitioner] received a failing grade he received based on his performance at a Qualifications Review Meeting [QRM]. Supreme Court denied his petition seeking a court order directing the Port Authority to effect his  promotion to Lieutenant and to award him back pay and benefits, or, in the alternative, to order the Port Authority "to reconvene [Petitioner's]  interview on a pass-fail basis".  

Petitioner appealed the Supreme Court's ruling. The Appellate Division, however, affirmed the lower court decision, explaining that Petitioner:

1. failed to demonstrate that the Port Authority lacked the discretion to formulate and implement the promotional procedures it had used;

2. failed to show that on its face the procedures were unlawful or arbitrary; and

3. did not demonstrate that the failing grade he received based on his performance at a QRM was arbitrary and capricious.

In the words of the Appellate Division the Port Authority had "broad discretion to select individuals for civil service appointment and promotion."

The Appellate Division said that it would not interfere with Port Authority's  exercise of that discretion "unless there is evidence of arbitrary or unlawful conduct by the appointing officer" and insofar as Petitioner's claim that he was "essentially informed" by his superior officers that he had performed well on the QRM is concerned, this representation "does not raise an issue as to the propriety of the failing grade [Petitioner] actually received."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_00830.htm

Statute of limitations for initiating administrative disciplinary action extended where the act or omission charged may constitute a crime

Statute of limitations for initiating administrative disciplinary action extended where the act or omission charged may constitute a crime

Folborg v Bratton, 227 A.D.2d 108

§75.4 of the Civil Service Law provides that disciplinary proceeding must be initiated "within 18 months of the alleged incompetency or misconduct ... provided, however, that such limitations shall not apply  where the  incompetency  or  misconduct  complained  of  and  described in the charges would,  if  proved  in  a  court  of  appropriate  jurisdiction, constitute a crime."

This exception became after a New York City police officer [Police Officer] was dismissed from his position after being found guilty of misconduct based on events that occurred more than 18 months before §75 disciplinary charges had been filed against him.

Essentially, Police Officer was alleged to have engaged in a scheme to defraud by "falsely representing that he would provide ... diamonds from Africa for manufacture and resale in this country...."

The Appellate Division said that because the allegations would, if proved in court, constitute the crime of larceny by false promise, the disciplinary actions was not time-barred under §75.4.

Making another point, the Court said that the fact that the District Attorney decided not to prosecute the police officer "was not tantamount to an assessment that [Police Officer] had not committed a crime." Accordingly, taking administrative disciplinary action against  Police Officer was not improper.

Assume an employee has been tried and acquitted of criminal charges. Courts have allowed the prosecution of administrative disciplinary action against an employee notwithstanding his or her acquittal of criminal charges involving the same acts or omissions.

Why would a court allow the disciplinary hearing to proceed in such a situation? Because the burden of proof is substantially different. An individual may be acquitted in the criminal action because his or her guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but he or she may be found guilty under the less stringent substantial evidence standard usually applied in administrative disciplinary proceedings.

Where, however, an individual has been found guilty of criminal charges by a court, the courts have ruled that such a determination precludes a hearing body finding the individual "not guilty" in an administrative disciplinary action involving the same allegations.

In Kelly v Levin, 81 AD2d 1005, the court ruled that acquitting an employee in an administrative disciplinary action based on the same charges underlying the individual's  criminal conviction was a reversible error because the standard of proof in the criminal action was greater. The court said that an Education Law  §3020-a disciplinary hearing panel could not find an individual not guilty of a crime after he or she had been convicted of criminal charges involving the same allegations.

The Police Officer decision is posted on the Internet at:
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1996335227ad2d1081302

_________

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State. To order your copy of The Discipline Book, please go to: http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/

_________

A school district employee's good faith in reporting allegations of child abuse in an educational setting triggers Education Law §1128(4) immunity from liability

A school district employee's good faith in reporting allegations of child abuse in an educational setting triggers Education Law §1128(4) immunity from liability
Bratge v Simons, 167 AD3d 1458

Among the issues raised by Plaintiffs in this appeal was the claim that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint with respect to Plaintiffs' allegations that a school district and certain of its officers  and employees has subjected them to malicious prosecution. The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court properly dismissed this claim.

To obtain recovery for malicious prosecution, said the court, a plaintiff must establish [1] that a criminal proceeding was commenced; [2] that it was terminated in favor of the accused; [3] that it lacked probable cause; and [4] that the proceeding was brought out of actual malice."

In this instance, said the Appellate Division, it is undisputed that there was "a judicial determination of probable cause" in the underlying criminal action which "can be overcome only upon a showing of fraud, perjury or the withholding of evidence" and the Plaintiffs' complaint failed to allege such misconduct.

The Appellate Division also noted that the documentary evidence established that School District merely "furnished information to law enforcement authorities." The law enforcement authority then exercised its own judgment in determining whether criminal charges should be filed. Citing Quigley v City of Auburn, 267 AD2d 978, the court observed that "It is well settled that such actions by a civilian complainant . . . do not render the complainant liable for . . . malicious prosecution."

In addition, the Appellate Division commented that Education Law §1128(4) provides that School District employees named as defendants in such an action with immunity from liability with respect to their good faith compliance with the mandatory reporting requirements of  Education Law §1126.

§1126 sets out the duties of employees specifically enumerated in this section upon receipt of an allegation of child abuse in an educational setting. The Appellate Division said that the documentary evidence submitted by defendants in this action established that they acted reasonably and in good faith in transmitting a report of alleged child abuse in an educational setting consistent with the requirements of §1126.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_08778.htm

Violations of specific safety requirements

 

State ex rel. Angelo Benedetti, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

 

Docket: 20070619

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Business Law, Government & Administrative Law, Injury Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Industrial Commission of Ohio found that Angela Benedetti, Inc. (ABI) violated two newly added specific safety requirements that resulted in an injury to an ABI employee. ABI filed a complaint in mandamus in the court of appeals, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in permitting the injured employee to amend his specific safety requirement violations application and in finding violations of the specific safety requirements. The court of appeals upheld the Commission's order and denied the writ. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing with the reasoning provided by the court of appeals but not given in this opinion.

 

http://j.st/SQE