Blocking computer threats with innovative technologies

Blocking computer threats with innovative technologies

Source: The CEO's Guide to Data Security - An AT&T publication

The recently published fifth report in this series of AT&T's Cybersecurity Insights addresses Data Security and chapters focus on the following topics:

1. Blueprint for cybersecurity innovation;

2. Data;

3. Applications;

4. Connected devices;

5. Network; and

6. Data center and cloud

The publication is posted on the Internet at: https://www.business.att.com/cybersecurity/docs/vol5-datasecurity.pdf

The first four reports in AT&T's Cybersecurity Insights series are:

What Every CEO Needs to Know About Cybersecurity

The CEO's Guide to Securing the Internet of Things

The CEO's Guide to Cyberbreach Response

and

The CEO's Guide to Navigating the Threat Landscape

These four earlier reports are available on the Internet by clicking here

Disciplinary hearing postponed “without prejudice” pending successful completion of a probationary period with another agency

Disciplinary hearing postponed “without prejudice” pending successful completion of a  probationary period with another agency 
Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full text of the decision

The Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) brought disciplinary charges against one of its employees. Prior to the first scheduled conference at New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH], the employee took leave from ACS and accepted a new position with another agency. The employee sought to adjourn the conference, but ACS moved to go forward with case.

OATH Administrative Law Judge John W. Burns removed the disciplinary matter from OATH’s calendar without prejudice because employee is on leave from ACS pending successful completion of probationary period of employment with her new agency. Should the employee return to ACS on or before the end of her probationary period at the other agency, ACS shall have the right to re-file the charges and move forward with the disciplinary proceeding at that time.

Admin. for Children’s Services v. M.S., OATH Index No. 2054/16, mem. dec. (Jan. 11, 2017).

________________________

The Discipline Book - A 458 page guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

________________________

 

An administrative disciplinary hearing, in whole or in part, may be closed to the public under certain, and limited, circumstances

An administrative disciplinary hearing,  in whole or in part, may be closed to the public under certain, and limited, circumstances 

2017 NY Slip Op 01473, Appellate Division, First Department

Although an administrative disciplinary hearing typically is open to the public, there are limited exceptions to this general rule as is demonstrated by this decision by the Appellate Division, First Department.

A New York City police officer was alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor. In the course of the disciplinary hearing that followed, the Deputy Commissioner, as an  exercise of discretion, closed the hearing to the public during the minor's testifying concerning the police officer's alleged sexual misconduct.

The Appellate Division sustained the Deputy Commissioner's action in closing the hearing to the public while the minor testified "[g]iven the sensitive nature of the case and the victim's desire not to testify in front of her mother."

Noting that the Deputy Commissioner's findings of misconduct, sexual and otherwise, were supported "a preponderance of the credible evidence — namely, the forensic computer records, text messages, controlled calls, and [the police officer's] own statements upon his arrest — supported the minor victim's version of the events" the court, citing Tighe v Kelly, 305 AD2d 274, leave to appeal denied 100 NY2d 513, said that the penalty imposed on the police officer, termination, "does not shock the judicial conscience," given the findings that he had engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_01473.htm

_______________________ 

The Discipline Book - A 458 page guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

_______________________ 

An administrative disciplinary hearing, in whole or in part, may be closed to the public under certain, and limited, circumstances

An administrative disciplinary hearing,  in whole or in part, may be closed to the public under certain, and limited, circumstances 

Although an administrative disciplinary hearing typically is open to the public, there are limited exceptions to this general rule as is demonstrated by this decision by the Appellate Division.

The provisions of a contract between the parties held to control the number of days of accumulated vacation leave credits to be paid the employee upon his or her separation from service

The provisions of a contract between the parties held to control the number of days of accumulated vacation leave credits to be paid the employee upon his or her separation from service  

Wilson v Poughkeepsie City School Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 01404, Appellate Division, Second Department

Former Poughkeepsie School Superintendent Laval Wilson sued the Poughkeepsie City School District [Poughkeepsie] for breach of contract when it refused to pay him for certain accumulated vacation leave credits that Wilson alleged was due him when left the employ of the school district.

Paragraph 8(b) of Wilson's employment contract with Poughkeepsie permitted him to accumulate "up to a total of fifteen (15)" days of vacation leave. However, another provision in the contract provided that Wilson could "carry over ... 5 vacation days per year."

Although Poughkeepsie paid Wilson for his 15 accumulated vacation days when he left its employ, Wilson contended that he was also entitled to be paid for an additional 22 days of accumulated vacation credit attributed to his "carry over" of certain vacation days while employed by Poughkeepsie and thus he was due payment for a total of 37 accumulated vacation days at the rate of $920 per day. Accordingly, Wilson claimed that Poughkeepsie still owed him $20,240 ($920 x 22 days).

Poughkeepsie, on the other hand, argued that the contract provided that Wilson was entitled to a specified number of paid vacation days each year, which accrued on a monthly basis, and upon leaving employment with the school district after three years of employment, he would be paid for his accumulated vacation days not to exceed a total of fifteen days of vacation credit accruals.

The Appellate Division agreed with Poughkeepsie's interpretation of the contract between the parties, explaining that in its view:

1. Paragraph 8(b) of the contract between the parties set a 15 day limit on the amount of vacation credit Wilson could accumulate.

2. Although another clause in the contract specified that Wilson could "carry over"  a maximum number of vacation days - five days - per year, the 15-day limit in paragraph 8(b) did not include any reference to a particular time frame and thus barred Wilson from accumulating more than 15 paid vacation days during the entire course of his employment..

The Appellate Division said that a contract is to be construed in accordance with the parties' intent, which is "generally discerned from the four corners of the document itself." Here, said the court, the contract barred Wilson from accumulating more than 15 paid vacation days during the entire course of his employment and held that Wilson’s claim that he was entitled to be paid for a total of 37 vacation days when he left his position with Poughkeepsie “is utterly refuted by the unambiguous terms of the contract.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_01404.htm