A plaintiff typically must initiate a Civil Service Law §75-b "whistle blower" cause of action within one year of the alleged act or omission

Civil Service Law §75-b, the so-called whistle-blowing statute, provides that "[a] public employer shall not dismiss or take other disciplinary or other adverse personnel action against a public employee ... because the employee discloses to governmental body information:

(i) regarding a violation of a law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety; or

(ii) which the employee reasonably believes to be true and reasonably believes constitutes [a violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation]".

Further, in order to maintain a Civil Service Law §75-b cause of action, a plaintiff must commence the action "within one year after it accrues."

On April 8, 2013, a public employee [Plaintiff] commenced legal action against his public employer [Respondent] alleging that Respondent had terminated his employment in violation of Labor Law §740 in retaliation for his complaints of certain improprieties alleged to have occurred in his department in November 2009. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint to allege a violation of Civil Service Law75-b.

The Respondent moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Supreme Court granted the Respondent's motion and Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division order affirmed the Supreme Court's action, with costs, explaining:

1. Employee commenced this action on April 8, 2013, and, therefore, only the retaliatory acts that were alleged to have occurred on or after April 8, 2012, may be considered as timely.

Accordingly, said the court, the allegedly retaliatory acts which took place in 2009 and 2010 "were insufficient to establish a viable claim of a continuing violation" and, further, the continuing violation doctrine did not toll the running of the statute of limitations.

2. Civil Service Law §75-b(4) provides that nothing in the statute prohibits any "personnel action which otherwise would have been taken regardless of any disclosure of information."

Here, opined the Appellate Division, the Respondent "established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that it terminated Employee for budgetary reasons and Employee "failed to raise a triable issue of fact."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision. 

 

Leave for Quarantine

The New York State Department of Civil Service has published Advisory Memorandum 2021-04, Attendance Rule 21.11 – Leave for Quarantine. 

The text of Advisory Memorandum 2021-04 is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/AdvMemo21-04.cfm.

If you wish to print Advisory Memorandum 2021-04, a version in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/am21-04.pdf.

To view previous Attendance and Leave bulletins issued by the Department of Civil Service, visit https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/index.cfm.

N.B. Except as otherwise specified in a particular rule or regulation, the Rules and Regulations of the New York State Department Of Civil Service apply to incumbents of positions in the classified service of the State as the employer, a public authority, a public benefit corporation and an other entity for which the New York State Civil Service Law is administered by the New York State Department of Civil Service. 

Determining if apportionment is to be applied in determining a claimant's workers' compensation award

The Appellate Division, noting that "[as] a general rule, apportionment is not applicable as a matter of law where the preexisting condition was not the result of a compensable injury and the claimant was able to effectively perform his or her job duties at the time of the work-related accident despite the preexisting condition," indicated that a limited exception to this general rule exists.

In the words of the court, "apportionment may be applicable in a schedule loss of use [SLU] case "if the medical evidence establishes that the claimant's prior injury - had it been compensable - would have resulted in an SLU finding."

In the absence of a medical opinion that the claimant's injury would have resulted in an SLU award if it had been compensable, the Appellate Division declined to disturb the Workers' Compensation Board's determination "that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that apportionment was appropriate" under the relevant circumstances with respect to the instant applicant's claim.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision. 

 

Live Government Technology webinars scheduled for the week of June 1, 2021

A Radically Simple Approach to Disaster Recovery -

Wednesday, June 2 | 1:00pm Eastern

As the value of data is increasing, governments have to be prepared for the worst. Does your organization have a simple yet scalable plan to recover from disasters? In the event of a crisis, how will you restore your data quickly? What happens if you can’t? Too often, state and local governments’ DR plans focus on recovering specific technological systems and associated storage locations. In the modern digital era, however, that approach is outdated and dangerous. Instead, organizations should focus their DR plans on safeguarding and recovering the valuable data – no matter where it lives.
Register to attend here.

Rapid Recovery: How Governments Can Futureproof Data Protection in the Era of Ransomware

Thursday, June 3 | 1:00pm Eastern

The ransomware threat is rising and state and local governments, education institutions and federal agencies continue to be a prime target. While prevention is key, an attack is more and more inevitable in an increasingly digital environment. Instead of spending an endless amount of time and money recovering from ransomware, it’s critical for the public sector to invest in enhanced data protection to ensure rapid restore is possible.
Register to attend here.

How Digital Credentials Fuel Economic Recovery and Better Constituent Service 

Thursday, June 3 | 2:00pm Eastern

The state of New York recently launched Excelsior Pass – a free, voluntary way for residents to share their COVID-19 vaccination or negative COVID-19 test status in accordance with state guidelines. The Excelsior Pass is a privacy-driven solution that will help the New York economy to reopen safely while keeping resident’s personally identifiable information safe. The Excelsior Pass is only one example of how digital credentials can transform constituent engagement, streamline government operations and build a culture of trust. Digital credentials – powered by blockchain technology – can be used for driver’s licenses, professional certifications, hunting and fishing licenses, high school and college transcripts, and more.
Register to attend here.

To view upcoming and on-demand webinars, visit webinars.govtech.com.

For assistance with registration, contact:
Jeremy Smith, jsmith@erepublic.com (916) 932-1402 direct

 

A school board wishing to enter into an executive session in the course of a school board meeting must comply with the relevant requirements set out in New York State's Open Meetings Law

The genesis of Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,989, was a ruling by Supreme Court that the school board’s discussion of a certain matter in executive session violated New York State's Open Meetings Law. 

Supreme Court issued a decision declaring that the school board had “violated the Open Meetings Law on June 9, 2020,” finding that there was "no material dispute" that the school board violated §§105 and 106 of the Public Officers by failing to state prior to entering Executive Session the matter that it intended to discuss and thereafter, in fact, discussed that matter.

With respect to Petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner of Education that resulted in Decision No. 17,989, Petitioner contended that he did not engage in “official misconduct” as charged by the school board in view of the Supreme Court’s determination that the challenged Executive Session as conducted by the school board violated the Open Meetings Law.

Decision No. 17,989 is instructive in that in adjudicating Petitioner's appeal, Commissioner of Education Betty A. Rosa addressed the following issues:

1. Efforts by a school board to remove a member of the board for "official misconduct";

2. Requirements to be satisfied by a school board in order to lawfully meet in Executive Session;

3. Allegations that a school board member disclosed "confidential information acquired by him [or her] in the course of his [or her] official duties or [using] such information to further his [or her] personal interests”; and

4. The authority of the Commissioner of Education to "define the meaning of the word 'confidential' within the public school system."

Ultimately the Commissioner found that the school board's removing Petitioner from the board for alleged "official misconduct was arbitrary and capricious" and sustained his appeal challenging such removal.

Click HERE to access Decision of the Commissioner #17,989.