Recent posts on the Internet concerning the use of Artificial Intelligence [A.I.] in a government setting

 Click on the text in color to access the item described.

The City of San Jose, California, has joined a growing number of cities addressing generative AI tools, doing so with a set of new guidelines for using the tech, which city officials consider a living document. 

What Does Generative AI Mean for the Justice System? (Part 1)

What Does Generative AI Mean for the Justice System? (Part 2)

AI in Action: Who’s Leading the Way in Generative AI 

 

N.B. As NYPPL's masthead notes "Artificial Intelligence [A.I.] is not used, in whole or in part, in the preparation of summaries of judicial and quasi-judicial decisions posted on the Internet by NYPPL."

 

Paid Parental Leave for PEF Employees of the State as the employer

The New York State Department of Civil Service has published the following Attendance and Leave Bulletin:

 Policy Bulletin 2023-03, Paid Parental Leave for PEF Employees

The text of Policy Bulletin 2023-03 is posted on the Internet at:
https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/PolBull23-03.cfm

For those wishing to print Policy Bulletin 2023-03, the Department offers a PDF version on the Internet at: https://www.cs.ny.gov/attendance_leave/PB2023-03.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

Exchanging sexually-explicit text messages with individuals while on duty held to constitute misconduct within the meaning of Civil Service Law §75

In accordance with Civil Service Law §75, the Appointing Authority [Respondent] notified an employee [Petitioner] that he was charged with two specifications of misconduct.

Specification 1 alleged that, during a period of time when Petitioner was on duty, "[Petitioner] failed to devote all of [his] time and attention to the performance of [his] duties in violation of [certain provisions set out in the Respondent's] Employees' Manual...."

Specification 2 alleged that during that same time period, "[Petitioner] failed to model appropriate conduct, ethics, and performance ... in violation of [certain provisions set out in the Respondent's] Employees' Manual ...."

Petitioner denied the allegations and a Civil Service Law §75(2) disciplinary hearing was conducted. At the conclusion of the hearing the Hearing Officer issued a determination finding Petitioner guilty of both Specifications and recommended that Petitioner be dismissed from service. Respondent adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed and dismissed Petitioner from service. 

Petitioner then commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court seeking a court order annulling the Respondent's determination on the grounds that [1] the record lacked substantial evidence to support the findings that he engaged in misconduct and [2] that the penalty of termination was disproportionate to the offenses alleged. Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Appellate Division.

Addressing the penalty imposed on Petitioner, the Appellate Division, noted that the Petitioner's record established that Petitioner consistently received "strong evaluations for his work performance" and that Petitioner had "expressed remorse and that he was not proud of his conduct." Citing Matter of Gulotta v New York State Thruway Auth., 174 AD3d 1205, the majority of the court, Lynch, J. dissenting, opined that the penalty of termination "is so disproportionate to the offense and shockingly unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law" under the circumstances.* 

The Appellate Division, "annulling so much [of the Respondent's decision] as imposed a penalty of termination," remitted the matter to the Respondent for the Respondent "to consider imposing a less severe penalty" on Petitioner.

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

* A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - a 442-page volume focusing on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an officer or employee in the public service in instances where the individual has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Click HERE for more information. 

 

Claimant for Workers' Compensation benefits has the burden of establishing a causal connection between his alleged psychological injury and his employment

A train conductor [Claimant] for a self-insured employer filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Claimant alleged that notwithstanding his high-risk of exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus and an unsafe work environment, he was not provided with adequate personal protective equipment by his employer. This, Claimant contended, resulted in anxiety and his preexisting psychiatric conditions were exacerbated. The employer controverted the claim.

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge [WCLJ] disallowed the claim, finding that the stress that Claimant was under was the same as other similarly situated workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision.* Claimant appealed the Board's ruling.

The Appellate Division sustained the Board's determination. Citing  Matter of Novak v St. Luke's Roosevelt Hosp., 148 AD3d 1509, the court, noting "[it] is well settled that a mental injury arising from work-related stress is compensable", pointed out that in order to receive benefits the claimant has the "burden of establishing, by competent medical evidence, that a causal connection exist[s] between [his or] her [psychological injury] and [his or] her employment".** However, opined the court, "[for] a mental injury premised on work-related stress to be compensable, a claimant must demonstrate that the stress that caused the claimed mental injury was greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced in the normal work environment".

The question of whether the stress experienced by a claimant is more than that normally encountered is a factual question for the Board to resolve, and its finding will not be disturbed by the court when supported by substantial evidence and courts "defer to the Board's credibility assessments".

Finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's factual finding that neither "Claimant's fear of contracting COVID-19," which the Board concluded was "a fear likely experienced by all [t]rain [c]onductors in March of 2020," nor his work environment and duties "resulted in stress greater than that experienced by similarly situated train operators during the pandemic," as "exposure to COVID-19 was a risk being experienced by all train conductors in March 2020 as part of their normal duties".

The Appellate Division also noted that Claimant's reliance on cases involving infectious diseases contracted at work was misplaced "as he did not contract COVID-19 at work."

* The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the WCLJ's finding to the extent that it was premised on a determination that claimant was an "essential worker," finding that it had no bearing on his claim for workers' compensation benefits. 

** See Matter of Issayou v Issayuou Inc., 174 AD3d 1277.

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

See, also, Matter of Djanuzakov v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. posted on the Internet at https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_03893.htm and In the Matter of the Claim of Tracey Brown, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent. Workers' Compensation, posted on the Internet at https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_03888.htm .

Inside Higher Education's free comprehensive resource addressing the Supreme Court's landmark affirmative action ruling available for "downloading"

On August 1, 2023, Inside Higher Ed announced it free booklet, "The Ruling Explained: The Future of Affirmative Action in Higher Education, which it  described  as "a comprehensive resource comprised of articles and essays covering and responding to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling against affirmative action."

Click the box below to obtain a copy of this booklet:

Download Today »

Inside Higher Ed  reports the articles contained in this booklet explore: The immediate impact of the decision on college admissions The ongoing debate on whether the decision extends to financial aid, potentially affecting a broader range of colleges The strategies being considered by colleges to attract diverse students without giving preferential treatment to minority applicants The possibility of colleges admitting more transfer students from community colleges as a direct result of the ruling The examination of whether colleges with legacy admissions programs, which predominantly benefit white applicants by favoring the children of alumni, will choose to eliminate such programs