Unlawful discrimination complaint dismissed as merely setting out legal conclusions concerning acts alleged to constitute unlawful discrimination

Absent setting out sufficient allegations of unlawful discriminatory acts in the CPLR Article 78 complaint, a petitioner's claim of unlawful discrimination will not survive the defendant's motion to dismiss  

The petitioner [Plaintiff] in this action contended that such acts as her supervisor's adjusting her time card to reflect a late arrival at work, telling Plaintiff that as a probationary employee she could be terminated at any moment and giving the Plaintiff a negative performance review were due to her disability.

Supreme Court granted the defendants-respondents' [Defendants] motion to dismiss Plaintiff Article 78 complaint alleging her employer's hostile work environment as not viable within the meaning of the New York City Human Rights Laws. Supreme Court held that Plaintiff's examples "were not sufficient allegations of discriminatory acts."

Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's decision. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling.

Citing Ji Sun Jennifer Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 120 AD3d 18, the Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cause of action for hostile work environment under New York City's City Human Rights Law* because it does not allege that Defendants' actions occurred under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of discrimination.

Further, said the court, Plaintiff's complaint did not allege facts that would establish that she was treated less well than similarly situated probationary employees because of her disability. Rather, said the court, Plaintiff's complaint merely "asserts the legal conclusions that the  [Defendants'] actions ... were due to her disability."

In the words of the Appellate Division, "Absent sufficient allegations of discriminatory acts, plaintiff's claim against [the individually named] defendant cannot be sustained pursuant to the City Human Rights Law and was properly dismissed by the Supreme Court."

* See Administrative Code of City of New York §8-107.

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_06976.htm

 

The Workers' Compensation Board's determination whether a claimant violated §114-a of the Workers' Compensation Law will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence

The Workers' Compensation Board [Board] rejected the employer's [Employer] claim the there were procedural errors in its employee's [Claimant] claims for benefits and said that the Board would exercise its discretion to grant review of the application filed by the Claimant in consideration of "Claimant's substantial completion of question number 13 on the application for workers' compensation benefits form." The Board then reversed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] holding that that Claimant had violated §114-a Workers' Compensation Law,  finding there was insufficient evidence to support the WCLJ's determination. The employer appealed the Board's decision.

The Appellate Division said that Employer principally argued that Claimant's response to question number 13 was not complete and that the Board therefore lacked the authority and discretion to review Claimant's application for benefits, citing 12 NYCRR 300.13(b).

The court rejected the Employer's argument, holding that the Board has the "authority to adopt reasonable rules consistent with and supplemental to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law," and the Chair of the Board may "make reasonable regulations consistent with the provisions of the statutory framework." 

Noting that Employer was correct that 12 NYCRR 300.13 [b] [1] of the Board's regulations require an applicant seeking Board review "to fill out the RB-89 form completely and in the proper format," the Appellate Division said that the Board's regulations "do not mandate denial of an incomplete application for Board review." Rather, the court explained that the regulations provide that such an "application for review maybe denied" [sic]  by the Board, in its discretion, where the application "does not comply with prescribed formatting, completion and service submission requirements."

Considering Claimant's response to question number 13 on her application for Board review, which listed numerous documents in support of her administrative appeal, the Appellate Division held that the Board:

[1] acted within its discretion in granting review of Claimant's application: and

[2] acted within its discretion to excuse any alleged defects relating to the timeliness and proper service of Claimant's application for Board review.

Addressing the merits of Claimant's application for benefits, the Appellate Division pointed out that §114-a(1) of the Workers' Compensation Law provides that a claimant who, for the purpose of obtaining workers' compensation benefits, or to influence any determination related to payment thereof:

1. Knowingly makes a false statement or representation as to a material fact ... shall be disqualified from receiving any compensation directly attributable to such false statement or representation;"

2. For purposes of Workers' Compensation Law §114-a (1), a fact is material "so long as it is significant or essential to the issue or matter at hand;" and

3. An omission of material information "may constitute a knowing false statement or misrepresentation".

However, the Board, declared the Appellate Division, is the sole arbiter of witness credibility and its determination as to whether a claimant violated §114-a Workers' Compensation Law "will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence."

After considering the evidence in the record the Appellate Division opined that the Board's finding that Claimant did not make a misrepresentation of a material fact to obtain workers' compensation benefits "is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed."

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_06832.htm

 

Former Potter Town clerk arrested for the alleged theft of nearly $24,000 of Town monies

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Yates County District Attorney Todd Casella, and Yates County Sheriff Ronald Spike announced the arrest of former clerk of the Town of Potter Julie Brown for allegedly stealing nearly $24,000 in cash payments to the town.

Brown allegedly stole cash payments made to the town for property taxes and fees for marriage licenses, dog licenses, hunting permits, and building permits. She was employed by the town from January 1, 2018 until May 21, 2019, when she resigned.

Brown was charged with corrupting the government in the second degree (a Class C felony); grand larceny in the third degree / public servant (a Class C Felony); two counts of tampering with public records in the first degree (a Class D felony); scheme to defraud in the first degree (a Class E felony); and official misconduct (A Class A misdemeanor).

Arraigned in Yates County Court, Brown was released on her own recognizance. The arrest was a result of a joint investigation between the State Comptroller’s Office, the Yates County District Attorney’s Office and the Yates County Sheriff's Office.

Since taking office in 2007, Comptroller DiNapoli has been committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. 

Allegations of fraud involving public funds may be reported by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by filing a report online at investigations@osc.ny.gov, or by mailing a report to the Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

Hospital ransomware alert posted by Malwarebytes

While countries and states head back into lockdown due to rising rates of COVID-19, another kind of infection is bringing hospitals to their knees. In the last few months we’ve seen an increase in ransomware attacks on healthcare providers. Learn how these attacks affect hospitals. 

 

Keep reading 

A challenge to releasing summaries of disciplinary records of New York City police officers to the public dismissed as moot following the effective date of the repeal of Civil Rights Law §50-a

Following an announcement that redacted summaries of New York City police officers' disciplinary records would be released to the public, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc. [PBA] filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order permanently enjoining the City of New York City from publicly releasing such summaries.

Supreme Court granted the PBA's petition on the ground that "the public disclosure of the information therein would violate Civil Rights Law §50-a."

New York City appealed the Supreme Court's ruling whereupon the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lower court's decision "on the law" and dismissed the PBA's petition as moot.

Citing Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi, 68 NY2d 583, the Appellate Division explained that as Civil Rights Law §50-a had been repealed effective June 12, 2020, "the sole basis for the permanent injunction no longer exists." Accordingly, said the court, PBA's petition was rendered moot as the result of the repeal of Civil Rights Law §50-a.

The court noted that the parties had briefed this appeal prior to the repeal of §50-a and opined that it must consider the issue of mootness nostra sponte** "because it is related to [the court's] subject matter jurisdiction."  

As no alternative grounds for relief were raised in the Article 78 petition filed by the PBA nor addressed or reserved by Supreme Court, the Appellate held that the PBA's petition was moot and dismissed its appeal.

* See §1 of Chapter 96 of the Laws of 2020.

** Nostra sponte describes an action by a panel of judges taken on the panel's own initiative and not pursuant to a request by a party in the litigation. In contrast, the term sua sponte is used to describe an action by a single presiding jurist without prompting or suggestion from a party in the litigation then pending adjudication.

The decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_06866.htm