Confusing permanent appointment with attaining tenure in the position

In Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME AFL-CIO v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 174 AD3d 1206 [CSEA] and, similarly, in Ayers v City of Mount Vernon, Appellate Division, Second Department, 2019 NY Slip Op 07230 [Ayers], it appears that there some misunderstanding or misapplication of the words of art "permanent appointment" and "tenure" in determining the employment  status of a public employee while he or she is serving a probationary period.

In CSEA, the court states: "Respondent determined that, at the time of the termination, Sansky had 25 days remaining in his probationary period and that, because he had not yet been permanently appointed to the position of Cadet Leader 1, he was not entitled to a pretermination hearing under Civil Service Law §75 or the applicable collective bargaining agreement" [emphasis supplied].

In Ayers, the "Notice of Appointment" reported in the decision indicated that the plaintiff, Andrea L. Ayers, would serve a six-month probationary period, after which she would be appointed to her position permanently [emphasis supplied].

However, in both situations as described in these decisions the "appointment status" of the individual was that of a "permanent employee" but the individual had not attained a "tenured" appointment status in the position. This is significant with respect to the appointee's right to "notice and hearing" as a condition precedent to termination for cause and for other purposes set out in law.

As a general rule, an individual appointed to a position on a permanent basis attains such status on the effective date of such "appointment" but [1] does not attain tenure in the position until he or she satisfactorily completes his or her maximum period of probation or [2] attains tenure by estoppel, acquisition, default, or otherwise by operation of law or [3] attains tenure as the result of the appointing authority's lawfully truncating the individual's maximum period of probation. In addition, tenure may be acquired in consideration of certain military service performed during a probationary period or by other lawful process.

York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, sets out the basic rule concerning the dismissal of probationary employees as follows: “After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad faith.”

This limitation on summarily dismissing a probationary employee during the minimum probationary period is to provide the individual a minimum period of time to demonstrate his or her ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position. In contrast, should the appointing authority elect to terminate a probationary employee before he or she has completed the required minimum period of probation, the individual is entitled to administrative due process, i.e., "notice and hearing," otherwise to be accorded a "tenured employee."

Further, the distinction between a date of "permanent appointment" in contrast to the date on which an appointee "attains tenure" is illustrated in other provisions of the Civil Service Law such as §80.1 [layoff] where, in pertinent part, it provides that ... incumbents holding the same or similar positions shall be made in the inverse order of original appointment on a permanent basis in the classified service in the service of the governmental jurisdiction in which such abolition or reduction of positions occurs.

The CSEA decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_05744.htm

The Ayers decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_07230.htm

Excessive PCBs in the Hudson River: Attributable to Incompleteness of Dredging, or to Seven Years of Dredging? - Source: Environmental Claims Journal

Below is the abstract of an article by Dr. Robert Michaels [corresponding author, bam@ramtrac.com] and Uriel M. Oko recently published in the Environmental Claims Journal.   The full text of the article can be downloaded from ResearchGate.net at no charge, via the following URL:  

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316464957_Excessive_PCBs_in_the_Hudson_River_Attributable_to_Incompleteness_of_Dredging_or_to_Seven_Years_of_Dredging

Abstract¹

GE recently completed a seven-year US EPA-mandated clamshell dredging project to remediate PCB contamination of the Hudson River. Post-project PCB levels in water and fish, however, are higher than anticipated, suggesting to some the need to extend the project to remove more PCB-bearing sediments. Our investigation of the effectiveness of the dredging project revealed that a previously unconsidered physical process must mobilize sediments as a result of dredge bucket closure. We also used computerized dredging data (‘bucket files’) to estimate the fraction of dredged sediments returned to the river instead of being deposited into waiting barges. We conclude that excessive post-project PCBs in the Hudson River predominantly are attributable to sediment mobilization by clamshell dredges. We predict that proposed extension of the dredging project would prolong mobilization processes, allowing PCBs to spread widely and enter ecosystems that include people, endangered fish such as sturgeon, and endangered birds such as bald eagles.

==================================

1 Michaels, Robert A; and Uriel M. Oko.  Excessive PCBs in the Hudson River:  attributable to incompleteness of dredging, or to seven years of dredging?  Environmental Claims Journal, 29(2):115-40, 2017; online:  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10406026.2017.1307007, 25 April 2017.

Applying the terms of an agreement settling a disciplinary action

During the course of Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing Plaintiff, represented by counsel, entered into a settlement agreement with the appointing authority [Employer] acting "on its own behalf and on behalf of its present and former ... employees." The settlement agreement provided that the Employer would discontinue the disciplinary proceeding and remove a letter of disciplinary charges from the Plaintiff's personnel file while Plaintiff agreed to retire from his employment with the Employer and to release the Employer and its employees "from all claims or causes of action he may have or claim to have . . . including any and all claims in any way arising out of, or related to, his employment with the Employer, or his separation from that employment."

Subsequently Plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages for defamation, alleging that the individuals [Defendants] named in his complaint, also employees of the Employer, had falsely accused him of actions that led to the disciplinary charges that were preferred by the Employer against him.

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint, submitting a copy of the settlement agreement that had been executed by the Plaintiff in connection with the discontinuance of the disciplinary proceeding that had been brought against him.

Notwithstanding Plaintiff's argument to the contrary, Supreme Court granted the Defendant's motion "for failure to state a cause of action" and Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division explained that [1] the terms of the release contained in the settlement agreement clearly and unambiguously encompass Plaintiff's action and [2] Plaintiff failed to allege any unlawful or wrongful threat by the Employer that could serve as the basis of a claim of duress, which was the only ground the plaintiff alleged to void the release. Thus, opined the Appellate Division, "the release executed by the [Plaintiff] should be enforced according to its terms."

The Appellate Division noted the following elements with respect to a release that will be enforced by a court:

1. "A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law;"

2.  "A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him [or her] on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of . . . [a] release";

3 "Where . . . the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a jural act 'binding on the parties';"

4.  "Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release"; and

5. "Although a defendant has the initial burden of establishing that it has been released from any claims, a signed release shifts the burden ... to the plaintiff to show that there has been fraud, duress or some other fact which will be sufficient to void the release."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_06588.htm

New York State's double jeopardy legal loophole closed

On October 16, 2019, New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo  announced that he had signed legislation (S.4572/A.6653) to close New York's double jeopardy legal loophole that protects individuals who are pardoned by a President from being prosecuted at the state level for the same offense. 

This key reform, which was an Attorney General's program bill, gives New York prosecutors discretion to pursue prosecution of criminal acts where they have jurisdiction.

School Board's abolishment of a position challenged by residents of the school district

The Board of Education [Board], on the recommendation of the School Superintendent, voted to abolish the position of assistant principal at the school district's Junior-Senior High School. The Board then created an "interim position" of District Administrator for K-12 Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Support Services.*

Certain residents of the school district [Petitioner] asked the Commissioner of Education to annul the Board's resolutions, contending that the Board's actions were arbitrary and capricious because the Board did not, among other things:  (1) discuss the resolutions at a public meeting; (2) provide a rational basis for their decision; (3) collaborate with district professionals; or (4) consider actual curricular needs, adverse consequences or relevant data.

The Commissioner ruled the Petitioners' appeal must be dismissed for lack of standing, explaining that an individual may not maintain an appeal pursuant to Education Law §310 unless aggrieved in the sense that he or she has suffered personal damage or injury to his or her civil, personal or property rights and only individuals who are directly affected by the action being appealed have standing to bring an appeal.

Here, said the Commissioner, Petitioners "merely assert that they are residents" of the school district and "[s]tatus as a resident of the district or as a parent of a student does not, in and of itself, confer capacity to seek review of the actions of a board of education with respect to its employees."

Noting that Petitioners also alleged that the Board had violated the State's Open Meetings Law, the Commissioner pointed out that the Open Meetings Law, Public Officers Law §107, vests exclusive jurisdiction over complaints alleging violations of the said law in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and alleged violations thereof may not be adjudicated in an appeal to the Commissioner as the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to address the Open Meetings Law allegations.

* Certain residents [Petitioners] in the district had initiated a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 challenging the Board's abolition of the assistant principal position and then creating the position "interim position." Supreme Court dismissed Petitioners’ claims on the grounds that the Commissioner of Education had primary jurisdiction over such claims and Petitioners turned to the Commissioner for relief.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume59/d17762