Plaintiff's efforts to vacate a determination of a hearing officer made pursuant to Education Law §3020-a rejected

A former teacher [Plaintiff], terminated by the New York City Department of Education [DOE] after "notice and hearing" pursuant Education Law §3020-a, initiated an action pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR challenging the decision and recommendation of an arbitrator that resulted in Plaintiff's termination as an employee of DOE. Supreme Court, however, granted DOE's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition, which ruling was affirmed by the Appellate Division, with costs.

Petitioner, then a tenured teacher employed by DOE, was terminated after being found guilty of charges of misconduct and neglect of duty.  The Education Law §3020-a hearing officer issued a written determination sustaining most of the specifications alleged by the DOE and recommended the Plaintiff be terminated from employment, which findings and recommendation were adopted by DOE.

Citing Matter of Waldren v Town of Islip, 6 NY3d 735, and other court decisions, the Appellate Division explained that a court may set aside an administrative penalty only if "it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness". Opining that "reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for . . . refashioning the penalty". The Appellate Division also noted that "A penalty should not be set aside where it is not irrational and does not shock the conscience."

As the question of whether the penalty "is so disproportionate to the misconduct as to shock the conscience requires a case by case factual analysis", the Appellate Division concluded that "in light of all of the circumstances of this case", the penalty of termination in the instant matter was "not irrational and does not shock the conscience".

As to Petitioner's contentions that the hearing officer's determination must be vacated because the arbitration did not conform to the procedures set forth in Education Law §3020-a or in the collective bargaining agreement, the Appellate Division ruled that such argument were "waived, as these issues were not raised at the arbitration hearing."

Accordingly, the Appellate Division found that "Supreme Court properly granted DOE's motion" to dismiss Plaintiff's CPLR Article 75 appeal.

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

On August 12, 2025 Governor Kathy Hochul announced she had appointed Freida D. Foster as Chair of the New York State Workers' Compensation Board and has appointed Renee Delgado, Esq. to serve as Vice Chair of Workers’ Compensation Board

Governor Kathy Hochul appointed Freida D. Foster as Chair of the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). Ms. Foster has been a Board member since 2009 and Vice Chair since 2016. Former Chair Clarissa M. Rodriguez, Esq. stepped down from her role as Chair in July and will continue to serve as Board Member. Board Member Renee Delgado, Esq. has been appointed Vice Chair. Governor Hochul appointed Ms. Delgado as Board Member in 2022.

“New Yorkers deserve trusted, well-experienced individuals serving them and putting their best interests forward,” Governor Hochul said. “I look forward to working with Chair Foster and Vice Chair Delgado in their new capacities as the Board continues their work in protecting the rights of employees and employers and ensuring our workers get the benefits they need.”

WCB Board Chair Freida D. Foster
Governor Hochul’s appointee for the position of Chair of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board is Ms. Foster. In the 16 years she has served on the WCB, Ms. Foster has reviewed tens of thousands of workers’ compensation appeals and helped the agency’s efforts to modernize its systems and processes. She also had an important role in implementing NYS Paid Family Leave and assisting the Chair with overall day-to-day oversight and management of the agency and the Full Board.

New York State Workers’ Compensation Board Chair Freida D. Foster said, “I am deeply grateful for the support from Governor Hochul and her executive team, as well as the incredible leadership team at the Board. I am honored to serve under this historic administration and look forward to building on the many important achievements made under the leadership of Chair Rodriguez.”

Ms. Foster has decades of professional experience in the areas of education, government/civic service, and public relations. Prior to joining the Workers' Compensation Board, Ms. Foster was a Public Relations Manager at Burson-Marsteller, where she was the Manager for largest account in the firm, Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and organized the city-wide education campaign for NYC’s voting system transition from manual to electronic machines.

Ms. Foster has held membership on several boards, all with a focus on community and/or civic service as well as student leadership. She currently serves as Chair of the Harlem Community Development Corporation Board of Directors and for the CUNY School of Public Health Advisory Board. Additionally, she sits on the Community Advisory Board for Channel Thirteen/WLIW. She previously served as a Trustee for the City University of New York (2006-16), helping oversee campus management.

A lifelong Harlem resident, Ms. Foster holds an MS in Corporate Communications from the University of Wisconsin and a BA in Communications from Hofstra University.

WCB Vice Chair Renee Delgado
Governor Hochul’s appointee for the position of Vice Chair is Board Member Renee Delgado, who has been serving on the WCB since 2022 and has devoted much of her career to advocating for workers' rights. An experienced attorney, Vice Chair Delgado worked for 14 years at the New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO (PEF) before joining the Board, holding various titles including Associate Counsel, Director of Contract Administration, and General Counsel. Renee has also worked as a Special Assistant in the Counsel's Office at the New York State Department of Labor, as Assistant Director of Legal Services at the SUNY Colleges of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, as Assistant District Attorney in Queens County and Albany County, and as a legislative aide in the New York State Assembly.

New York State Workers’ Compensation Board Vice Chair Renee Delgado said, “I am honored to be appointed Vice Chair of the NYS Workers’ Compensation Board and thank Governor Hochul for the opportunity to serve our great state. I look forward to working with Chair Foster to deliver a fair and efficient system that protects the rights of injured workers and employers.”

Ms. Delgado holds a juris doctorate from the CUNY School of Law at Queens College, a master's degree in criminal justice from John Jay College in Manhattan, and a bachelor's degree from SUNY Albany.

An award of attorneys' fees must be authorized by agreement between the parties, by statute, or by court rule

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Education [DOE] which denied the Petitioner's request for a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, DOE appealed an order of the Supreme Court which:

1. Granted the Plaintiff's petition;

2. Directed that the Petitioner be reinstated to her full employment status; and

3. Awarded the Petitioner $90,555.63 in back pay; and

4. Awarded the Petitioner $31,095 in attorneys' fees.

In response to the COVID-19 epidemic the  New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene issued a mandate requiring all DOE employees to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. Such mandate was subsequently amended to provide that [nothing] in this [mandate] shall be construed to prohibit any reasonable accommodations otherwise required by law."

Pursuant to an arbitration award between DOE and the Petitioner's union Petitioner was placed on leave without pay while remaining eligible for health benefits and "given the option to comply with the vaccine mandate, retire, resign, or remain on unpaid leave with health benefits until September 6, 2022". Petitioner elected to extend her leave without pay through September 6, 2022 and signed a release and waiver to that effect which provided, in part, "I understand that if I have not returned by September 6, 2022, I shall be deemed to have voluntarily resigned and knowingly waive my rights to challenge such resignation."

On August 19, 2022, Petitioner submitted a request for a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate which DOE denied Petitioner's  request, finding that her application failed to meet the criteria for a religious-based accommodation. The denial did not mention the waiver.

Petitioner remained on leave without pay and retained her health benefits through September 6, 2022 but as she did not return to work by September 6, 2022, DOE deemed that, pursuant to the terms of the waiver and the arbitration award, she had voluntarily resigned as of September 6, 2022.

Subsequently Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, challenging DOE's denial of her request for a religious exemption and seeking reinstatement to her position as a teacher and an award of back pay and attorneys' fees. Supreme Court the petition be granted and that the Petitioner be reinstated to her full employment status. In addition Supreme Court found:

a. Petitioner was entitled to a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate; and

b. Awarded Petitioner the principal of sum of $90,555.63 in back pay;  and 

c. The sum of $31,095 in attorneys' fees. 

DOE appealed from both the Supreme Court's order and the judgment.

The Appellate Division held that DOE's appeal from the order must be dismissed "as no appeal lies as of right from an intermediate order entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 [citing CPLR 5701[b][1])] and any possibility of taking a direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the proceeding."

Although DOE contended that the waiver expressly precludes the Petitioner's claims in this proceeding and, therefore, the proceeding should have been dismissed, the Appellate Division opined that "The waiver at issue is a contract, and its  construction is governed by contract law [and] A court's fundamental objective in interpreting a contract is to determine the parties' intent from the language employed and to fulfill their reasonable expectations".

However, as acknowledged by DOE, the Appellate Division observed Petitioner's "contractual promise not to challenge her resignation was not a waiver of her right to seek an accommodation", and thus it follows that Petitioner did waive her right to seek a religious exemption. 

The Appellate Division explained "The clear terms of the waiver, as premised on the arbitration award, permitted the [Petitioner] to comply with the vaccine mandate and return to work by September 6, 2022. One way to comply with the vaccine mandate was for the [Petitioner] to get vaccinated. Another was to successfully obtain a religious exemption and reasonable accommodation" and the amendment to the vaccine mandate earlier noted did not bar individual from seeking reasonable accommodations. 

Noting that had Petitioner had successfully obtained an exemption and concomitant accommodation during the applicable time period, she would have been in compliance with the vaccine mandate and been able to return to work. In the words of the Appellate Division, "contrary to DOE's position, the waiver did not preclude this proceeding to challenge DOE's denial of the [Petitioner's] request for a religious exemption".

In its appeal DOE did not challenge the Supreme Court's determination that DOE's denial of the petitioner's request for a religious exemption was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, as per Supreme Court's determination, prior to September 6, 2022, the Petitioner was entitled to a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate, and DOE does not contest that determination on this appeal. Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination in this regard.

However, the Appellate Division further held that because an award of attorneys' fees was  not authorized by an agreement between the parties, by statute, or by court rule, "the Supreme Court improperly awarded attorneys' fees to the [Petitioner]."

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

Lack of evidence in the record that the employer was aware of the employee's disability when denying a request for reasonable accommodation bars a court's summary judgment dismissing the employee's complaint

In an action to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL], Plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court order granting the Employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision "on the law, with costs", and denied the Employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff, a custodial worker, requested reassignment to a custodial position in one of the Employer's senior citizens centers as a reasonable accommodation of his disability. In response to the Plaintiff's request, Employer told Plaintiff "it was currently unable to provide the requested accommodation, as [granting] the request would require the [Plaintiff] to be permanently excused from performing the essential functions of his position".

Citing Executive Law §296[a], the Appellate Division observed that the NYSHRL prohibits discrimination in employment based on, among other prohibitions, disability. In particular, the Appellate Division noted that if a reasonable accommodation would permit the employee to perform the essential functions of the employee's position and the employee has a disability' within the meaning of the statute, "the employer cannot disadvantage the employee based on that disability".

As a reasonable accommodations includes "reassignment to an available position", an employer normally cannot obtain summary judgment on an employment discrimination claim based on disability pursuant to NYSHRL "unless the record demonstrates that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the employer duly considered the requested accommodation," and the employer cannot present such a record "if the employer has not engaged in interactions with the employee revealing at least some deliberation upon the viability of the employee's request".

In this instance the Employer failed to establish, prima facie, that it engaged in a good-faith interactive process that assessed the needs of the Plaintiff and the reasonableness of his requested accommodation. 

In the words of the court, "There is no evidence in the record that the [Employer] was aware of the [Plaintiff's] condition when [it] made [the] determination or that the [Employer] considered the accommodation that the [Plaintiff] was requesting to be reassigned to the position of a custodian at one of the [Employer's] senior  citizens centers". 

In particular, the Appellate Division noted the record showed:

1. The Employer testified that he had no memory of meeting with the Plaintiff to discuss his request for an accommodation;

2. The Employer testified that he did not know that the Plaintiff's request for an accommodation concerned psoriatic arthritis;

3. The Employer did not know the limitations typically associated with that condition; 

4. The Employer did not know the limitations that the condition allegedly caused the Plaintiff to suffer; and

5. The Employer testified that he did not speak with the Plaintiff's physician and did not recall reviewing any of the information that the physician provided to the Employer concerning the Plaintiff.

According, the Appellate Division held that the Employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint should have been denied by Supreme Court without regard to the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's opposition papers.

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

Selected items from various blogs posted during the week ending August 8, 2025

 

Think Universal Child Care Can't Be Done? Keep an Eye on What NYC Is Doing The city’s movement toward free care for kids up to age 2 could be a gamechanger with national implications. And it’s a sign of the growing political strength of working parents. READ MORE How Artificial Intelligence Transforms the Constituent Experience in Government This paper explores how AI is transforming constituent services in state and local government by streamlining operations, improving accessibility, and enhancing public trust. Through real-world examples, it offers practical guidance for implementing scalable, people-centered AI solutions that deliver measurable impact. DOWNLOAD  A Government Playbook to Prepare for the Next Wave of AI Innovation Many state and local governments are advancing their AI maturity, progressing from basic, prompt-based AI to more sophisticated generative AI and early agentic AI implementations. But as governments accelerate AI adoption, they still face several governance challenges. Download this guide to find out how your agency can move forward and capitalize on the next wave of AI innovation. DOWNLOAD Rethinking Digital Access: How Public Sector Agencies Are Solving Digital Identity at Scale  Learn how public agencies are making digital services easier to access, more secure, and more inclusive through smarter identity management. This guide explores the real-world impact of modern Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) solutions, including reduced abandonment rates, stronger compliance, and better service access for all users—regardless of device, location, or digital literacy. DOWNLOAD  A Government Playbook to Prepare for the Next Wave of AI Innovation Many state and local governments are advancing their AI maturity, progressing from basic, prompt-based AI to more  sophisticated generative AI and early agentic AI implementations. But as governments accelerate AI adoption, they still face several governance challenges. Download this guide to find out how your agency can move forward and capitalize on the next wave of AI innovative. DOWNLOAD Exposing Organized Fraud Patterns in Government Programs  The message is clear: Fraudsters are attacking government programs with relentless speed, using stolen and fake identities, across state borders and within agencies, often driven by complex crime networks that are difficult to entirely track down and stop. READ MORE Get your AI benchmark and take action! Discover your agency’s AI readiness in just 5 questions — identify roadblocks and know where you stand. Reveal My AI Score!