The Restoration of Honor Act gives certain military veterans denied an honorable discharge from military service the right to apply for New York State veterans' benefits

On November 12, 2019, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed legislation enacting The Restoration of Honor Act,* giving LGBTQ veterans who were denied an honorable discharge because of their sexual orientation or gender identity the right to apply to have their New York State veterans' benefits restored. 

Under Don't Ask Don't Tell and similar policies hundreds of thousands of veterans** received less than honorable discharges. As a result of that those individuals are ineligible for veterans' benefits. Although discharge from federal military service decisions can only be formally changed by the federal government, The Restoration of Honor Act allows certain veterans to apply to claim their New York State benefits.

The Restoration of Honor Act also restores benefits eligibility for veterans who received less than honorable discharges as a result of military sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, or post-traumatic stress disorder.  

The Restoration of Honor Act amends relevant provisions of the Executive Law, the Civil Service Law, the County Law, the Economic Development Law, the Education Law, the Election Law, the General Construction Law, the General Municipal Law, the Military Law, the Correction Law, the Environmental Conservation Law, the General Business Law, the Highway Law, the Insurance Law, the Judiciary Law, the Private Housing Finance Law, the Public Health Law, the Public Housing Law, the Public Officers Law, the Real Property Tax Law, the Social Services Law, the Tax Law, the Town Law, the Vehicle And Traffic Law, and the Workers' Compensation Law.

New York is the first state in the nation to restore the benefits of veterans who received less than honorable discharges from military service either because of these traumas or because of their LGBTQ identity.

* Chapter 490 of the Law of 2019

** §350.3 of the Executive Law defines the term "veteran" as "a person, male or female, resident of this state, who has served in the active military or naval service of the United States during a war in which the United States engaged and who has been released from such service otherwise than by dishonorable discharge, or who has been furloughed to the reserve."

Supreme Court's granting Defendant's pre-answer, pre-discovery motion dismissing Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 action alleging unlawful discrimination reversed "on the law"

An educator [Plaintiff] filed a CPLR Article 78 petition alleging that he had suffered various act of unlawful discrimination as the result of actions taken against him by the school principal [Principal], a Caucasian woman, because of his Haitian origin and her belief that he is a voodoo priest,* including the Principal's falsely accusing him of misconduct that subjected him to an Office of Special Investigations investigation, during which Principal falsely accused Plaintiff of being a voodoo priest.

Plaintiff also asserted that Principal assigned him to an unsanitary basement office upon his return from a temporary administrative office assignment, contending this was done maliciously in disregard of his seniority even though there were other available offices and that, ultimately, Principal demoted Plaintiff to the position of temporary substitute, assigned on a weekly basis to different schools.

The defendant in the action, the New York City Department of Education [DOE] submitted a pre-answer, pre-discovery motion seeking a court order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint. Supreme Court granted DOE's motion and denied Plaintiff's cross motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. 

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling "on the law," denying DOE's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint and granting Plaintiff's cross motion to amend his complaint.

The Appellate Division explained:

1. Plaintiff's  complaint "states a causes of action for unlawful discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment in violation of the New York State and New York City Human Rights laws;" and

2. Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to give DOE "fair notice" of the nature of Plaintiff's claims and their grounds, which is all that is required "to survive at the pleading stage."

As to DOE's contention that Plaintiff's alleged certain acts by Principal occurred more than one year before he commenced this action and it is thus untimely, the Appellate Division, citing Education Law §3813[2-b], opined that the court could not state that, as a matter of law, "that these acts, if proven, were not part of a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the one-year period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint" and that, in any event, Plaintiff "is not precluded from using the prior acts as background evidence in support of a timely claim."

DOE, in support of its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, also contended that "there were legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions taken against Plaintiff." The Appellate Division, however, said that this argument advanced by DOE merely stated a potential rebuttal argument to a prima facie case of unlawful employment discrimination, "which is misplaced at this early procedural juncture." 

Under the circumstances, said the court, Plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend his complaint should have been granted by Supreme Court.

* Plaintiff alleged that he studied voodoo but does not practice voodoo.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_07990.htm

Fungal risk vectors in the context of climate change

Below an abstract of an article by Dr. Robert Michaels [bam@ramtrac.com] recently published in the Environmental Claims Journal addressing emerging health problems in the context of climate change.  

ABSTRACT

The trend toward increasing frequency and intensity of storms has exacerbated mold and other moisture-related health problems, and can be extrapolated to the future. Mold growth therefore exhibits increasing significance in the context of changing climate. The decades-old hypothesis of mold causation and/or exacerbation of asthma previously has been deemed unproven, though not rejected. The present investigation assesses the status of this hypothesis within the industrial, regulatory, scientific, medical, and legal communities. To assure accuracy, statements from these communities are quoted. Recent high-level reviews, such as by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine and the United Nations World Health Organization, have failed to consider literature that was available, and studies postdating NAS IOM and UN WHO reviews have confirmed and augmented available literature. As a result, all nine of the Hill criteria of causation in epidemiology now are satisfied. I conclude that, with exposure of sufficient intensity and duration, some molds can cause asthma and/or exacerbate preexisting asthma, and that the hypothesis indeed has been accorded broad acceptance in the communities considered.

The full text of the article can be downloaded from ResearchGate at no charge, via the following URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/10406026.2017.1345521

Prosecuting whistleblower lawsuits brought pursuant to the federal False Claims Act

A qui tam lawsuit, typically called a whistleblower lawsuit, is brought under the False Claims Act, [FCA], 31 U.S.C. §3729, et. seq. The FCA authorizes bringing an action against any person or entity who knowingly submitted a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government. The FCA also provides for rewarding whistleblowers successful in cases where the government recovers funds lost to fraud.

The United States government may bring the FCA action, or a private citizen, known as a “Relator,” may bring a qui tam action “for the person and for the United States Government,” and “in the name of the Government.”

In this action the Relator, proceeding pro se,* brought the qui tam action on behalf of the United States and California, Connecticut, Florida, and New York under color of the FCA.**

The federal district court dismissed the qui tam action because Relator, who was not an attorney, was not represented by counsel. Relator appealed the ruling to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Limiting its review to the dismissal of Realtor's action by the district court for failure to retain counsel, the Circuit Court opined:

1. "The right to appear pro se in civil litigation in federal court is guaranteed by 28 U.S.C. §1654, which provides that 'parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.'

2. "A person who is not an attorney and is not represented by an attorney 'may not appear on another person’s behalf in the other’s cause.'

3. "A non-attorney relator in an FCA qui tam action cannot proceed pro se because 'the United States remains the real party in interest in qui tam actions, the case, albeit controlled and litigated by the relator, is not the relator’s own case as required by 28 U.S.C. §1654, nor one in which he has an interest personal to him.'"

4. "The district court therefore did not err in dismissing this action after Relator failed to retain counsel, despite being granted ample opportunity to do so.

Although Relator argued on appeal that appointment of counsel by the district court was warranted, the Circuit Court of Appeals observed that Relator did not move for the appointment of counsel in the district court, and the district court was not required to sua sponte appoint counsel.

* A person who appears before the Court without an attorney to represent him is appearing pro se.

** The Circuit Court's decision notes that the Relator "did not move for appointment of counsel in the district court, and the court was not required to sua sponte appoint counsel."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d0620e70-22ac-4d62-a18b-4442337ba1ce/1/doc/17-3812_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d0620e70-22ac-4d62-a18b-4442337ba1ce/1/hilite/

Application for renewal of a certification rejected on the grounds that the applicant made material false statements and demonstrated poor moral character

New York City Department of Buildings denied the request submitted by an applicant [Petitioner] to renew his Site Safety Coordinator (SSC) certification on the ground that Petitioner made material false statements and demonstrated poor moral character in his original application for certification.

In his initial application, Petitioner was required to disclose whether any "licenses/certifications/registrations issued to [him]" had ever been revoked.

Petitioner failed to report that he had been authorized as an OSHA outreach trainer and that his authorization had been revoked because he failed to comply with OSHA requirements and falsified safety certificates.

The Appellate Division sustained the Department's determination explaining that although Petitioner's OSHA credentials "may not have been labeled a license, certification, or registration," his OSHA responsibilities were substantially similar to those of an SSC. Accordingly, said the court, the Department rationally concluded that Petitioner was required to disclose the revocation of those credentials.

The Appellate Division further opined that the Department rationally concluded that Petitioner exhibited poor moral character by failing to disclose OSHA's determination that he falsified agency documents.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_07524.htm