Courts apply longstanding basic rules of statutory interpretation to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature

In July 1976 legislation that fundamentally reformed the state pension systems was enacted and signed into law. Included were changes providing that "any public employee hired on or after July 1, 1976 would be enrolled in the newly-created Tier 3 [a system]  characterized as one 'designed to provid[e] uniform benefits for all public employees and eliminat[e] the costly special treatment of selected groups ... inherent in the previous program.'"

An exception to this pension reform allowed all police officers and firefighters who subsequently entered or reentered a public retirement system to continue as Tier 2 members pursuant to "regular two-year extender bills" until 2009 and, as relevant here, all NYPD officers appointed between July 1, 2009 and March 31, 2012 were placed in Tier 3 of the New York City Police Pension Fund (PPF) while all officers appointed on or after April 1, 2012 were placed in revised but functionally similar Tier 3 plans of the same pension fund.

The focus in this appeal was City of New York's policy to the effect that certain Tier 3 officers were not eligible for certain benefits available to officers in Tier 2 of the PPF retirement plan, including the "credit for service" mechanism* that allows police officers to obtain credit for certain periods of absence without pay for childcare leave, while other PPF retirement plan member absent without pay for childcare leave permitted under NYPD regulations would be eligible for a limited amount of credit for that leave if certain filing and reimbursement requirements were met.

Plaintiffs in this action, among other things, sought a decision declaring that "all police officers hired by the NYPD, including those hired on or after July 1, 2009, are eligible for the benefits afforded by the second subdivision (h) of §13-218," notwithstanding the absence of any extender bill after 2009, and all members of the PPF - regardless of hire date - may purchase pension credit for time spent on unpaid childcare leave."

The City, in contrast, asserted that the relevant provisions of the RSSL "conflict with the Administrative Code and that the pension rights of Tier 3 police officers are exclusively governed by article 14 of the Retirement and Social Security Law [RSSL]." Specifically, the City argued that RSSL §513(h) [1] "addresses the issue of service credit for [childcare] leave," [2] overrides any like provision of Administrative Code §13-218, and [3] "limits the eligibility for such credit to New York City correction officers hired before April 1, 2012."

Supreme Court reasoned that Administrative Code §13-218 (h), on its face, renders any member of the PPF eligible for the childcare leave service credit benefit, and that the RSSL does not conflict with or preempt that part of the Administrative Code**. 

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's ruling, denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting the City's cross motion for accelerated relief. The Appellate Division reasoned that "because the RSSL expressly makes the childcare leave service credit benefit in question available to correction officers, but does not expressly confer the same benefit upon police officers, the legislature meant to nullify the part of the Administrative Code allowing the buyback to police members of the retirement system."

Referencing the longstanding, basic rules of statutory interpretation, the Court of Appeals said that in such matters a court's "primary consideration is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the [l]egislature", citing Samiento v World Yacht Inc., 10 NY3d 70. The rule of statutory interpretation relevant here, said the court, is that the literal language of a statute controls "unless the plain intent and purpose of [the] statute would otherwise be defeated."

Noting that Administrative Code §13-218(h) "Credit for service" provides, in relevant part, that: "any member who is absent without pay for child care le[a]ve of absence pursuant to regulations of the New York city police department shall be eligible for credit for such period of child care leave provided such member files a claim for such service credit with the pension fund by December [31, 2001], or within [90] days following termination of the child care leave, whichever is later, and contributes to the pension fund an amount which such member would have contributed during the period of such child care leave, together with interest thereon", the Court of Appeals opined that "none of the pertinent parts of the statute are ambiguous and 'Any member' can mean only what it says."

In the words of the court, "The reference to 'any member' is unbounded and unfixed to employees of a particular Tier, and the absence of an exception applicable to Tier 3 employees cannot reasonably be attributed to carelessness or mistake."

Rejecting the principal contentions advance by the City in support of its position, the Court of Appeals, Judge Rivera dissenting in an opinion in which Chief Judge DiFiore concurred, held that the Appellate Division order should be reversed and, applying "longstanding, basic rules of statutory interpretation," that the relevant part of "Administrative Code §13-218 renders officers of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) who are members of the Tier 3 retirement system eligible for credit for certain periods of unpaid childcare leave, and that the grant of such benefits for those officers is consistent with the Retirement and Social Security Law."

* See Administrative Code §13-218 [h].

** See 56 Misc 3d at 442-443. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_05841.htm

 

An individual may be subjected to disciplinary action for alleged off-duty misconduct having a clear nexus to his status as an employee

During an investigation by the New York City Department of Education's [DOE] Office of Special Investigations [OSI] into a complaint that confidential student information had been posted on the Internet, the plaintiff [Petitioner], a DOE employee, acknowledged that he was involved in posting the information at issue on the website of United Federation of Teachers (UFT) Solidarity, "a political caucus within the UFT."

Contending that OSI has no jurisdiction to investigate his alleged misconduct because he undertook this activity as a private citizen and education activist, not in his capacity as a DOE employee, Petitioner filed a CPLR Article 78 action asking the court to annul DOE's determination that he had violated Chancellor's Regulation A-820 and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act* [FERPA].

The Appellate Division said that Petitioner's argument that OSI has no jurisdiction in this matter "is unavailing," opining that Petitioner's misconduct has a clear nexus to his status as a DOE employee. Citing Board of Educ. City of N.Y. v Hershkowitz, 308 AD2d 334, leave to appeal dismissed 2 NY3d 759, the Appellate Division explained that OSI is charged with investigating misconduct within the City of New York school district, which is not limited to misconduct committed by a DOE employee acting within the scope of his employment.

The court noted that OSI had rationally determined that by posting the confidential student information at issue, which included transcripts, attendance records, and grade-change records, Petitioner had violated the FERPA and Chancellor's Regulation A-820, which conforms to federal regulations promulgated pursuant to FERPA.**

* See 20 USC § 1232g[b][2]. 

** See 34 CFR part 99.

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_05703.htm

 

Sewer overflow problems

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli notes that at least 20 percent of the publicly-owned sewer systems in New York state were not reporting overflow events or registered with the electronic notification system (NY-Alert) that tracks those events, potentially putting the public at risk, according to an audit of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation DEC] released on October 19, 2020.

Two laws related to wastewater discharges protect New York’s natural resources and the health of its residents: the 2013 Sewage Pollution Right to Know Act, which requires public reporting of sewage discharges; and the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program, which controls permitted discharges into public waterways.

The Right to Know Act requires publicly owned water treatment works and publicly owned sewer facilities to report untreated and partially treated sewage discharges to DEC and the local health department within two hours of discovery and to notify the public and nearby municipalities within four hours of discovery. Exposure to untreated sewage can cause serious illnesses such as dysentery, hepatitis, cholera and cryptosporidiosis, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Auditors found that documentation supporting when overflows occurred varied by facility but included automated emails, phone calls, and text messages from the facilities’ monitoring systems or time-stamped screenshots of the monitoring system dashboard, and logbook entries. Some facilities were unable to provide time-stamped documentation. Due to these limitations, auditors could not verify the timeliness of 37 percent of the events. Of the other events, 18 percent were not reported within two hours and 10 percent were not reported within four hours, as required.

DEC officials generally agreed with the recommendations and indicated actions they would take to implement them. Their full comments are included in the report posted on the Internet at https://www.osc.state.ny.us/files/state-agencies/audits/pdf/sga-2021-19s54.pdf?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.

School District audits released during the week ending October, 16, 2020

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following school district audits have been issued during the week ending October 16, 2020

Broadalbin-Perth Central School District – Cash Management (Fulton County, Saratoga County and Montgomery County) - District officials did not develop and manage a comprehensive investment program. As a result, officials did not maximize interest earnings for the district. In addition, officials did not formally solicit interest rate quotes or prepare cash flow forecasts to estimate the amount of funds available for investment. Officials earned interest totaling $40,652 during the audit period. However, auditors determined they could have earned another $159,100 had officials used other available investment options.

Mahopac Central School District – Non-instructional Payroll (Putnam County) - The transportation department’s payroll was not adequately approved, supported and documented. In addition, a staff person received overtime pay that was not properly supported by documentation.

Minerva Central School District – Financial Condition Management (Essex County and Warren County) - District officials overestimated appropriations by a total of more than $2.1 million from 2016-17 through 2018-19 and annually appropriated fund balance that was not used to finance operations. Unrestricted fund balance ranged between 18.5 and 31.1 percent of ensuing years’ appropriations, exceeding the 4 percent statutory limit. In addition, district officials did not develop a comprehensive multiyear financial plan.

New York Mills Union Free School District – Procurement (Oneida County) - District officials did not always seek competition for purchases that are not subject to competitive bidding. Officials also did not comply with the district’s procurement policy. Auditors determined the purchasing agent did not effectively perform her procurement duties. In addition, officials did not always seek competition for professional services. No competition was sought for the services procured from five professional service providers totaling $89,421. No written or verbal quotes were obtained for the purchase of goods and services from 13 vendors who were paid $73,032.

 

###

10 RBG Takeaways from 2 Lawyers

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing has spurred great memories from across all demographics. She paved the way for women’s equality—from the right to sign a mortgage without a man to the right to have a bank account without a male co-signer, and even the right to have a job without being discriminated against based on gender.   

 

What did the accomplishments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg mean to generations of women in the workforce?  Here, Erica Baird and Karen Wagner, two successful lawyers now retired—and the cofounders of Lustre.net, an online community whose mission is to redefine retirement for modern career women by confronting outdated concepts and defying stereotypes—talk lawyer-to-lawyer as they reflect on 10 RBG Takeaways that can inspire every woman [Ed. Note: " and man"] … young and old: 

 

1. Find a job you love. RBG was rejected, again and again, including by New York law firms. But just think—if she had been employed in a law firm, she likely never would have ascended to the Supreme Court. And that was her dream job.

 

2. Be strategic. Figure out where you want to go, and then, before you start, figure out how best to get there. RBG did that with her litigation strategy. Showing how men were hurt by sex discrimination was a more effective strategy than having only women plaintiffs. 

 

3. Be human. Separate your advocacy from your relationships. And do have relationships. RBG's best friend was her fellow justice Antonin Scalia. She disagreed with him, fiercely, about pretty much every legal point. But they loved each other, and bonded over music, and over dinners prepared by RBG's husband. It was not a transactional relationship; it was a human relationship.

 

4. Work hard. You must earn your victories. RBG started working hard when she was a new lawyer, and she never stopped. Look at the honor guard at the Supreme Court for her memorial, composed of people who worked as her clerks, responding to 2 a.m. faxes and constant demands for more precise analysis, as long as she lived. They undoubtedly loved her for her humanity, but they also surely loved her because she made them better lawyers.

 

5. Be precise. Words matter. The practice of law is a combination of analysis and communication. Communication is more effective when it is spare and clear. RBG's writing was crisp and muscular. Any reader got her point.

 

6. Presence matters. Justice Ginsburg always looked professional and elegant in her Armani suits and her long black robes. She was all brilliant lawyer and all powerful woman. And, like Barbara Bush with her faux pearls, RBG sent signals with her decorative collars.

 

7. Find a good partner. Her “Marty” was legendary—an attorney in his own right, not threatened by a strong woman.

 

8. Advocate with humor. As she did when becoming a little deaf, or remarking that the Supreme Court will have a sufficient number of women only when there are nine.

 

9. Find something outside of your job to love. She found opera, and lost herself in music.

 

10. Work out. RBG, the documentary, showed RBG working out very strenuously. Like everything else she did, she went all out. If you do the same your lives will be richer for it.

 

About Lustre.net
Lustre.net is an online forum founded by Erica Baird and Karen Wagner, two New York City retired attorneys. Together, Baird and Wagner are on a mission to redefine retirement for modern career women by confronting outdated concepts, defying stereotypes and raising our collective voices to ensure that retirement for all of us is shaped by women, for women. Baird and Wagner want women to “tap into our experiences and passions, forge new identities and find new purpose—and pass on what we know to the next generation.” 

 

Posted by NYPPL with the permission of Mouth Digital PR [Justin.loeber@mouthdigitalpr.com].