Eligibility of a school district employee for unemployment insurance benefits for the period between two successive academic years

With respect to eligibility of employees of a school district for unemployment insurance benefits between "two successive academic years, the Appellate Division, citing Labor Law §590(1), said "[a] professional employed by an educational institution is precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for the period between two successive academic years when he or she has received a reasonable assurance of continued employment." Further, said the court, "A reasonable assurance has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period."

A school bus driver [Claimant] had worked for the employer [School District] for over 30 years. Starting March 16, 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Claimant was not required to work but continued to receive her regular salary for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year, ending on June 19, 2020. On June 3, 2020, Claimant received a letter from the School District informing her that it wished to retain her in the same position during the 2020-2021 school year, which she signed and returned to the School District. 

Despite this letter, prior to the end of the 2019-2020 school year, Claimant filed claims for unemployment insurance benefits. From June 21, 2020 until August 23, 2020, Claimant received unemployment insurance benefits, as well as federal pandemic unemployment compensation and lost wage assistance pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act of 2020 [the CARES Act]. 

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board [Board], among other things, sustained the initial determination finding that Claimant was not totally unemployed during the week ending June 21, 2020 and that she was ineligible for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance [PUA] benefits.* Claimant appealed the Board's determination.

The Appellate Division noted that, considering the letter assuring Claimant of the continued applicability of the collective bargaining agreement as well as the testimony concerning Claimant's seniority and the continued need for busing, there was substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that the School District provided Claimant with a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Addressing Claimant's eligibility for PUA benefits for the period between academic terms outside of her contract, the Appellate Division opined "substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Claimant was ineligible for such benefits."

* Citing Matter of Barnett [Broome County Community Coll.—Commissioner of Labor], 182 AD3d 763, the Appellate Division observed that factual issues are for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board to determine and, as such, its decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

The claimant for workers' compensation benefits has the burden of showing the claimed occupational disease or injury resulted from a distinctive feature of employment

Claimant [Plaintiff] had been employed by the New York City Transit Authority [NYCTA] for 33 years. She served as a railroad clerk until 1995 and thereafter as  a station agent. Plaintiff filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for the occupational disease of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome that Plaintiff attributed to her performing repetitive job duties during her 33-year employment by NYCTA.

NYCTA controverted the claim and ultimately a Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] disallowed the claim, finding, among other things, that Plaintiff had not established that her medical condition was causally related to her employment duties. The Workers' Compensation Board [Board] affirmed the WCLJ's decision, finding that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a sufficient causal link between her alleged occupational disease and a distinctive feature of her employment. Plaintiff appealed the Board's decision.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, explaining:

1. An occupational disease is "a disease resulting from the nature of [the] employment and contracted therein" (Workers' Compensation Law §2[15]), and "does not derive from a specific condition peculiar to an employee's place of work, nor from an environmental condition specific to the place of work"; and

2. "To establish an occupational disease, the claimant must demonstrate a recognizable link between his or her condition and a distinctive feature of his or her employment . . . , [and] the Board's decision as to whether to classify a certain medical condition as an occupational disease is a factual determination that will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence ... notwithstanding other evidence in the record that could support a contrary conclusion".

Here, said the court, a review of the record supports the Board's determination that Plaintiff did not present sufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and a distinctive feature of her employment.

Citing Matter of Yolinsky v Village of Scarsdale, 202 AD3d at 1265, the Appellate Division opined "... it is within the province of the Board to evaluate the medical evidence before it." Considering "the less-than-compelling medical evidence tendered by Plaintiff," the court found that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Plaintiff failed to establish that she had sustained an occupational disease.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

School district audits released by the New York State Comptroller during the week ending March 4, 2023

On March 3, 2023, following audits were issued by State Comptroller DiNapoli:

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the full text of the audit report. 

School District Audits

Gorham-Middlesex Central School District – Online Banking Access (Ontario County) District officials did not ensure online banking access was limited to board-authorized users because no one reviewed online banking users’ access and permissions. District officials also did not monitor online banking transactions. As a result, the risk that the district may become the victim of a cybercrime and experience financial losses is heightened. Of the district’s 10 online banking users, six were not authorized to conduct online banking and were inappropriately provided with access. Five of the six users not authorized to conduct online banking and two others inappropriately had administrative permissions to bank accounts.

Discovery Charter School – Network and Financial Software Access Controls (Monroe County) School officials did not ensure that network and financial software access controls were adequate. As a result, data and personal, private and sensitive information are at greater risk for unauthorized access, misuse or loss. In addition to finding sensitive information technology (IT) control weaknesses, which was communicated confidentially to officials, auditors found that officials did not: adopt adequate network and financial software policies; establish an IT contingency plan; or provide IT security awareness training. Auditors found 18% of the school’s enabled nonstudent user accounts were not needed, which created additional entry points for someone to inappropriately access the network. Two of the three financial software user accounts unnecessarily had full access and three individuals unnecessarily shared access to a user account with administrative permissions.

East Meadow Union Free School District – Overtime (Nassau County) District officials did not properly approve, monitor and control overtime worked by the facilities and operations department employees. The department’s overtime costs were 97% of the district’s total overtime costs during the audit period. Auditors reviewed $381,878 (29%) of those costs and found that the department employees were paid $194,514 for overtime that was not approved until up to 20 days after the work was performed. Department workers were also paid $31,486 for 605 hours of overtime worked without any supervisory approval. District officials exceeded the department’s overtime budget from 2018-19 through 2021-22 by $1,107,396.

Greene Central School District – Unused Leave Payments and Leave Accruals (Chenango County) Officials did not ensure that leave accruals were accurate or payments for unused leave and separation payments were authorized and calculated correctly. District officials made errors in 76% of district employees’ accrued leave calculations. The district incorrectly calculated 61% of the unused vacation leave, sick leave and retirement incentive payments made during the audit period. Of the 38 payments totaling approximately $270,000 that auditors reviewed, 23 had errors totaling $8,530, including $4,900 in payments for unused vacation leave which were not authorized by the employees’ collective bargaining agreements.

Rye Neck Union Free School District – Health Insurance Cost Savings (Westchester County) District officials could achieve cost-savings by offering a buyout in lieu of health insurance coverage. Total savings could range between approximately $130,000 and $190,000 annually if the district offered family plan coverage buyouts of $4,500 or $6,000 and individual plan coverage buyouts of $2,000 or $2,500.

---

Track state and local government spending at Open Book New York. Under State Comptroller DiNapoli’s open data initiative, search millions of state and local government financial records, track state contracts, and find commonly requested data.

A long career as an administrator and the absence of any prior disciplinary action found insufficient to mitigate the disciplinary penalty imposed, dismissal

Petitioner was the administrator of the County's Adult Care Center [ACC], a nursing home. Following a disciplinary hearing, a Hearing Officer found Petitioner guilty of eight of the numerous charges filed against him pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law and recommended that he be dismissed from service. The ACC's appointing authority sustained the Hearing Officer's findings with respect to seven of the charges and terminated Petitioner's employment. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the determination.

Central to evaluating the penalty imposed, dismissal, the Appellate Division noted "Petitioner either suggested to or directed a subordinate to share her login credentials for a database maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] with another employee to enable that employee to fulfill ACC's COVID-19 reporting requirements while the subordinate was on vacation. The ACC contended that such behavior constituted misconduct in violation of ACC's rules and ethics policy,* and, also, displayed incompetence insofar as Petitioner failed to recognize that his behavior could have resulted in ACC incurring penalties.

Petitioner had been invited to register with CDC's partner portal to begin the process of obtaining access to the database which, if approved, would grant him privileges to input data into the database. Petitioner never logged on to the partner portal and was relying on another employee to do the COVID-19 reports when required. 

The Appellate Division's decision notes that when an employee "refused to share her login information - fearing that doing so would violate [ACC's] rules and amount to a crime - [Petitioner]" became angry and purportedly stated, "I don't know why everything is such a big deal here". When told it was unlawful to ask the employee to share login information permitting "... reporting under someone else's credentials...", Petitioner allegedly replied, "why is everyone so uptight here."

The Appellate Division found that "substantial evidence exists" to support the Hearing Officer's determinations with respect to charges Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10 and 16, and said it was "unpersuaded by [Petitioner's] contention that the penalty of termination shocks the conscience and should be annulled."

Conceding that Petitioner had no prior disciplinary record and a long career as a health care administrator, the Appellate Division explained "when considering [Petitioner's]  position as the administrator of a nursing home during the COVID-19 pandemic, which required the highest degree of integrity, diligence and competence in light of the vulnerability of ACC's clients and staff," it could not conclude that the penalty of termination was "so disproportionate to the charged offenses as to shock one's sense of fairness". 

Citing Matter of Scuderi-Hunter v County of Delaware, 202 AD3d at 1317, quoting Matter of Young v Village of Gouverneur, 145 AD3d 1285, the court declined to disturb the penalty imposed, Petitioner's dismissal from his position.

* The record contains a copy of ACC's written code of conduct and a certification by Petitioner acknowledging its receipt. The code of conduct provided, in relevant part, that "[t]he County is committed to complying with the laws and regulations that govern the Federal and State programs that it administers .... [Employees] must abide by the policies and procedures and the standards set by the County." ACC's ethics policy provided: "It is the policy of the County to observe all laws and regulations applicable to its business and to conduct business with the highest degree of integrity. To accomplish this, all [employees] must obey the laws and regulations that govern their work and always act in the best interest of the ... County."

Click HERE to access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.

Making public records available for public inspection and copying

In this CPLR Article 78, the Suffern Education Association sought to compel "complete disclosure" of certain "redacted documents" supplied to it by the Suffern Central School District pursuant to the Association's Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] request. The  School District had responded to the Association's FOIL request, in part, by including copies of several emails that had been "heavily redacted".

Supreme Court, after its in camera review of the redacted emails, directed the School District to provide the Association with unredacted documents. Supreme Court also awarded the Association its attorneys' fees and other costs associated with its Article 78 action. School District appealed the Supreme Court's rulings.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions, explaining:

1. "FOIL requires that public agencies 'make available for public inspection and copying all records' except where they fall within one of the statute's enumerated exemptions." Courts "typically construe exemptions narrowly, and an agency has the burden of demonstrating that an exemption applies 'by articulating a particularized and specific justification for denying access'"; and

2. Public Officers Law §87(2)(g)(i) provides that an agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that "are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not," among other things, "statistical or factual tabulations or data."**

The Appellate Division, after its in camera inspection of the email communications at issue, concluded that the Supreme Court had properly determined that the redacted information constitutes factual data that is not exempt from disclosure and that the School District did not meet its burden to show that the redacted portions of the emails at issue were, in fact, exempt from disclosure.

Further, opined the Appellate Division, "Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in awarding the [Association] attorneys' fees and other costs," noting that the Legislature had provided for the assessment of an attorney's fee and other litigation costs in FOIL proceedings "[in] order to create a clear deterrent to unreasonable delays and denials of access and thereby encourage every unit of government to make a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of FOIL."

Sustaining the Supreme Courts award of attorney's fee and other litigation costs, the Appellate Division observed that "it is undisputed that the [School District], in effect, denied the [Association] access to nonexempt documents, as no [such] documents were provided [to the Association] by the [School District's] self-imposed response date."

* Public Officers Law Article 6.

** The Appellate Division described factual data "as objective information, rather than 'opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making.'"

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.