Out of title work assignment

Out of title work assignment

Murphy v Herik, NYS Supreme Court [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports]

Out-of-title work usually refers to an employer assigning an individual to perform the work typically part of the duties of the incumbent of a higher-level position. Section 61.2 of the Civil Service Law provides that:

Prohibition  against out-of-title  work. No person shall be appointed, promoted or employed under any title not appropriate to the duties to be performed and, except upon assignment by proper authority during the continuance of a temporary emergency situation, no person shall be assigned to perform the duties of any position unless he has been duly appointed, promoted, transferred or reinstated to such position in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and the rules prescribed thereunder. No credit shall be granted in a promotion examination for out-of-title work.

Many collective bargaining agreements require that if the employer assigns an individual to perform "out-of-title" work for more than a designated period of time, he or she is to be compensated at the appropriate pay level of the higher position.

Detailing is used to describe a form of assigning an individual to perform "out-of-title" frequently encountered in law enforcement organizations. Its most common manifestation: assigning a police patrol officer to perform the duties of a detective or investigator. Officers detailed to perform the duties of a detective or an investigator typically are not permanently appointed to the position. Section 58.4.c(ii) of the Civil Service Law was enacted to address this practice and provides that:

In any jurisdiction, other than a city with a population of one million or more, which does not administer examinations for designation to detective or investigator, any person who has received permanent appointment to the position of police officer or deputy sheriff and is temporarily assigned to perform the duties of detective or investigator shall, whenever such assignment to the duties of a detective or investigator exceeds eighteen months, be permanently designated as a detective or investigator and receive the compensation ordinarily paid to persons in such designation [emphasis supplied].

By its terms, Section 58.4.c(11) does not cover New York City police officers. However, Section 14-103(b)(2) of the City's Administrative Code tracks Section 58.4.c[ii] and provides that a "permanent police officer who temporarily perform the functions of what is otherwise considered to be detective work for periods of 18 months or more are to be appointed as detectives and be compensated as such."

Michael Murphy, a New York City police officer, was assigned to the Harbor Unit, Vessel Theft Team, in January, 1997. His duties included the investigation of stolen marine equipment; returning stolen property to its rightful owner and maintaining a working relationship with insurance companies for the purpose of identifying insurance fraud. After he had been performing these duties for over three years, Murphy's commanding officer, John Cassidy, recommended that Murphy be appointed to third-grade detective. Cassidy's justification for his recommendation: Murphy's primary responsibilities were those of a detective.

The Department rejected Cassidy's recommendation and Murphy filed a grievance challenging its decision. The Department denied Murphy's grievance and he commenced an Article 78 proceeding in March of 2001 seeking a court order directing his appointment as a detective.

The Department asked the court to dismiss Murphy's petition. It contended that its rejecting Murphy's appointment as a detective was justified because the Harbor Unit was specifically excluded from the career-path for detective by a lawful Department policy. Accordingly, the Department argued, Murphy can not be deemed to have been performing detective work as part of the Harbor Unit and therefore he was not eligible for appointment as a detective pursuant to Section 14-103(b)(2) of the Code.

The Department also argued that Murphy was aware of the fact that the Harbor Unit was not on the career path for detective when he accepted the assignment.

Murphy, on the other hand, contended that he was eligible for appointment as a detective pursuant to the Code, citing Ryff v Safir, 264 AD2d 349, as authority for this claim. In Ryff, the Appellate Division ruled that the fact that the Harbor Unit was not included in the Department's career-path for detective did not exempt it from the provisions of Administrative Code Section 14-103(b)(2).

Supreme Court Justice Madden rejected the Department's argument that appointment as a detective does not depend on the actual work performed but rather on whether or not the position is on the career path for detective. Justice Madden said that the legislative intent in both Section 58.4 of the Civil Service Law and Section 14-103(b)(2) of the City's Administrative Code "was to prevent the department, for budgetary reasons, from using non-detective track officers in detective track positions, while denying the officers the benefit of those positions."

In effect, the court decided that the Department's justification for its action placed form over substance. As Murphy's duties were substantially similar to that of detective, Justice Madden ruled that Murphy was entitled to appointment as a detective pursuant to Section 14-103(b)(2). Justice Madden pointed out that there was no dispute concerning Murphy's performing criminal investigative duties, noting that Murphy was awarded "Investigator of the Year" from the International Association of Marine Investigators.

Deciding that Department's ruling that Murphy was precluded from being appointed as detective simply because his position was not included in its designated "career path" for detectives was arbitrary and capricious, Justice Madden granted Murphy's petition and, in addition, ruled that Murphy was entitled to compensation as a detective beginning 18 months subsequent to his original appointment to the Harbor Unit.

The lesson of the Murphy decision is that employees may not required to perform out-of-title duties except in cases involving a temporary emergency. If they are assigned, or permitted, to perform out-of-title duties when there is no temporary emergency, the employer may be held liable to pay any resulting salary differential.

One of the administrative procedures available to an individual who believes that he or she is being to required to perform higher level "out-of-title" work is to request that his or her position be reclassified to the higher level title -- i.e., a position allocated to a higher salary grade.

This is usually accomplished by filing a request for reclassification of the position with the responsible civil service commission or department.

The employer, also, may initiate a request for reclassification of a position. In some cases, the employer and the employee may file a "joint" application to have the position reclassified. Concerning a related point, classification and reclassification of a position focuses on the duties of a position while allocation or reallocation of a position is concerned with placing the position in the proper pay grade or setting its appropriate salary rate.

However, approval of an "out-of-title" reclassification application does not mean the individual has the right to be continued in the reclassified title. If a position in the competitive class is reclassified, the individual will have to qualify for permanent appointment to the new title by examination, despite the fact that he or she had been "performing the duties of the higher level position" and was instrumental in having it reclassified. The same applies with respect to qualifying for appointment to a higher-level position in the noncompetitive class following reclassification of the lower level position.

In some instances this could result in the individual's being "reclassified out of his or her job." Some modest protections, however, may be available to the individual whose position has been reclassified to avoid this result, at least temporarily. For example, insofar as "employees of the State" are concerned, the State Civil Service Commission's Rules, [4 NYCRR 4.1(d) provide that:

A promotion eligible list shall not be certified for filling a permanent vacancy created by upward reclassification of a permanently encumbered position where promotion from such list would require the layoff of a permanent employee or the reassignment of a permanent employee to a different geographical location; but this provision shall not apply if the incumbent whose position was reclassified has, following such reclassification, twice failed to qualify for promotion to the reclassified position].

4 NYCRR 4.1(e) provides similar protections with respect to the certification and use of an open competitive eligible list.

Many municipal civil service commissions have adopted similar rules.

N.B. The Rules of the State Civil Service Commission specifically provide that "[e]xcept as otherwise specified in any particular rule, these rules shall apply to positions and employments in the classified service of the State and public authorities, public benefit corporations and other agencies for which the Civil Service Law is administered by the State Department of Civil Service."

In another New York City Police Department [NYPD] "service as a detective" case, Finelli v Bratton, App. Div., First Department, the issue was whether it was arbitrary and capricious for NYPD to determine that service by former Transit Authority [TAPD] police officer Nicholas G. Finelli did not qualify as "detective track" service.

According to the decision, such credit was properly denied since it was not established that Finelli performed investigative duties comparable to those performed in units given a detective track status after the TAPD's merger with the NYPD. In addition, the court said that detective track credit was properly refused for periods during which police officers were suspended from duty or on restricted, limited or modified duty.

PERB determinations

PERB determinations

Ruling by the Public Employment Relations Board

Community of interest: Individual, although paid at a supervisory pay level and substituted for the supervisor when the supervisor was absent, was determined to share  a community of interest with unit employees and thus could not be excluded from the negotiating unit without evidence that the individual performed supervisory duties such as assigning work and overtime to employees, evaluating employees, approving leave requests, disciplining workers, or other supervisory duties. Local 282 and Regional Transit Service, Inc., 35 PERB 3022

Duty of fair representation: Unit member's dissatisfaction with his or her representation by the union in a grievance that resulted in a negotiated settlement rather than proceeding to arbitration, did not, without more, establish a prima facie case that the union breached its duty of fair representation as a member's "disagreement with the tactics utilized or his or her dissatisfaction with the quality and extent of representation" does not constitute a breach of the union's duty of fair  representation. Bruns and Council 82, 35 PERB 2023

Lack of jurisdiction: PERB declined to assume jurisdiction to consider an individual's improper practice charge alleging the employer violated Sections 209-a.1(a) and 209-a.1(c) of the Civil Service Law because the individual was not a public employee within the meaning of the Taylor Law, observing that the individual was not on a state payroll and had neither paid union dues nor paid an agency fee to the collective bargaining unit's representative. Nagy and SUNY at Buffalo, 35 PERB 3025.

Similarly, in Arce and NYC Board of Education, 35 PERB 4576, a PERB Administrative Law Judge determined that SEIU Local 74 did not violate its duty of fair representation by failing to process a grievance filed by an individual independently hired by, and who worked directly for, a public school custodian because the individual was not a public employee as defined by the Taylor Law and thus he was not in the negotiating unit.

Negotiating a new practice: PERB rejected the union's argument that its burden of proof that the employer failed to negotiate an alleged change in a personnel practice is satisfied if it shows that the personnel practice is, itself, a mandatory subject of collective negotiations, ruling that the charging party must demonstrate 8-the existence of an "old practice" by showing that it was unequivocal, had been in existence for a significant period of time and that unit employees could reasonably expect the practice to continue. PBA-NYS Troopers and Division of State Police, 35 PERB 3024

Personal interests not protected by Taylor Law: An employee making complaints unrelated to any specific provision in the collective bargaining agreement and that essentially concern matters of private, personal interest, has not established any basis for prosecuting a claim that he or she was subjected to adverse personnel action because of his or her engaging in a protected activity within the meaning of the Taylor Law. Westhampton Beach Police PBA and Village of Westhampton Beach, 35 PERB 3026

Union animus: PERB rejected its Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the Town of North Hempstead was guilty of union animus based on a finding that "but for" the union's president using "union business" release time, he would not have been involuntarily transferred to another unit because the Town's explanation for the transfer -- the need to reorganize a department -- was "largely unrebutted by the Union" and thus there was no basis to hold that the transfer was the result of improper motivation on the part of the Town. CSEA Local 1000 and Town of North Hempstead, 35 PERB 3027.

School administrators did not violate a student’s Constitutional right to “free speech” when it disciplined her for harassing a fellow student via after-school posting on the Internet

School administrators did not violate a student’s Constitutional right to “free speech” when it disciplined her for harassing a fellow student via after-school posting on the Internet

Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Docket #10-1098

A student sued West Virginia’s Berkeley County School District contending that it had violated her Constitutional right to free speech when it suspended her for creating a MySpace page ridiculing a fellow student. A federal District Court judge granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment, which ruling was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In this 42 USC 1983 action the court found that the student’s after-school “conduct was sufficiently connected to the school environment so as to implicate the [district’s] recognized authority to discipline speech which materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and collides with the rights of others.”

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1575495.html

Retiree's "double dipping" for retirement benefits prohibited

Retiree's "double dipping" for retirement benefits prohibited

Williams v McCall, 283 AD2d 808

John Williams, Jr. initially joined the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System [ERS] in 1962 while employed by Creedmoor State Hospital. In 1969, he became a member of the New York City Police Department and became a member of the New York City Police Pension Fund [Fund]. In 1997 Williams began working full time for both the Police Department and Creedmoor simultaneously. This continued until he retired from the Police Department in 1990.

In 1990 Williams began to receive retirement benefits from the Fund while continuing to work full time at Creedmoor. He retired from Creedmoor in 1995 and began receiving benefits from ERS as well.*

Ultimately, ERS ruled that for purposes of calculating William's ERS retirement benefits, his employment at Creedmoor after July 3, 1990 could not be counted as service credit because he was receiving pension benefits from the Fund at that time. Williams appealed this ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Retirement System's decision. The court said that it is well settled that “[a]s a general rule, an individual who is retired from service with the State, a municipal corporation or a political subdivision of the State may not engage in the practice known as 'double dipping', where [such the individual] simultaneously receives pension benefits and compensation for post-retirement public employment or service,” citing Incorporated Village of Nissequogue v New York State Civil Service Commission, 220 AD2d 53.

The Appellate Division ruled that because Williams began receiving pension benefits from the Fund in 1990 and continued to receive them during his employment at Creedmoor, the Comptroller had a rational basis for denying him service credit for this time period in calculating his ERS retirement benefits. The decision also points out that even if Williams “was specifically authorized to continue his post-retirement public service (which he was not on this record),” Retirement and Social Security Law Section 213(b) specifically prohibits the grant of service credit for such post-retirement employment.

The Appellate Division said that the fact that Williams worked for Creedmoor before and during his employment with the Police Department “does not compel a contrary conclusion.”

* Williams answered “no” in response to the question: are you a member of “any other Public Retirement System in the State” when he filed his application for ERS benefits in 1995.

Selecting an individual for promotion because of a romantic relationship does not constitute discrimination of the basis of gender

Selecting an individual for promotion because of a romantic relationship does not constitute discrimination of the basis of gender

Fella v Rockland County, 297 AD2d 813

Rockland County Director of Hospitals Peter J. Fella was charged with sexual harassment. Found guilty, the County Executive imposed the penalty of suspension without pay for thirty days. Fella sued in an effort to have County Executive's action annulled.

The harassment charge had been filed by Jovita Catalan, a county employee. Her complaint alleged that Fella appointed Anne Gonzales, with whom he had a “romantic relationship,” to the position of Assistant Director of Nursing.

Catalan filed her complaint pursuant to the Rockland County Equal Employment Opportunity Policy [RCEEOP] alleging she was subjected to “discrimination, harassment or retaliation” on January 4, 2000, the day that the Fella told her that she would not be appointed to the Assistant Director position. Catalan contended that Gonzales was less qualified than she was and that Gonzales was appointed because she was Fella's girlfriend.

After an investigation, the Rockland County Director of Employee Rights and Equity Compliance concluded that Fella's promotion of an employee with whom he had a personal relationship created a hostile work environment.

Supreme Court Judge Nelson ruled that Fella’s conduct in promoting his paramour may have constituted poor judgment, and may subject him to discipline on other grounds, but did not constitute sexual discrimination prohibited by the RCEEOP. As the County failed to establish that this single instance of alleged favoritism based on a sexual relationship was punishable under the RCEEOP, Supreme Court annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the County for further proceedings.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, observing that the relevant provisions of the RCEEOP:

Prohibits discrimination in hiring and promotion on the basis of gender or sex or sexual orientation;

Encourages advancement for qualified individuals regardless of gender or sex or sexual orientation; and

Provides that employment decisions shall be made on the basis of merit, fitness, and equality of opportunity and without discrimination on the basis of gender or sex or sexual orientation.

The RCEEOP also states that sexual harassment is a form of employment discrimination based on gender.*

The Appellate Division said “that an isolated act of preferential treatment of another employee due to a romantic, consensual relationship” does not constitute sexual discrimination under either federal or State Law. In the words of the court, Preferential treatment, favoritism, and cronyism, while unjust and unfair, do not constitute sexual discrimination.

 

Noting that there was no evidence that Fella discriminated against employees on the basis of gender or that he made unwelcome sexual advances or demands on employees, the finding that Fella created a hostile work environment in violation of the RCEEOP was ruled arbitrary, capricious, and without a rational basis. The Appellate Division concluded that compliant was properly annulled by the Supreme Court Judge.

In another “favoritism case,” DeCintio v Westchester County Medical Center, 821 F2d 111, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 965, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, decided that the selection of a woman romantically involved with her supervisor for promotion did not constitute unlawful gender discrimination within the meaning of Title VII insofar as her male co-workers were concerned.

In DeCintio, male employees sued, complaining that their supervisor had tailored the job requirements for the position in such a way as only his woman friend could qualify. This, they argued, was discrimination on the basis of sex within the meaning of Title VII.

The Circuit Court decided that as any female employee interested in the job would have been in the same position as the male employees, there was no sex discrimination involved. It was the “special relationship” between the supervisor and his woman friend rather than sex discrimination that had resulted in the preferential treatment to which the male employees had objected. While unfair, said the Court, the supervisor's actions did not constitute a violation of Title VII.

* The RCEEOP defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexual demands or conduct of a sexual nature which "has the purpose or affect of unreasonably interfering with an [affected] person's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment."

Undertaking background investigations may be critical in defending “negligent hiring” claim

Undertaking background investigations may be critical in defending “negligent hiring” claim

Murray v SUNY Research Foundation, 283 AD2d 995

The Murray case illustrates some of the factors that courts consider in resolving cases involving allegations that the employer was guilty of “negligence” in selecting a particular individual for employment based on an allegation that the employer should have conducted a more intensive investigation of the individual's background than was actually made.

Teresa Murray sued the SUNY Research Foundation [Foundation] and the Rochester City School District [District] after she learned that her son was sexually assaulted over a period of months by an employee of the Foundation.

The Research Foundation had employed the individual to coordinate the Educational Talent Search program in the District's school that Murray's son attended. The alleged sexual abuse took place during regular school hours. Murray's son, however, was not enrolled in the Educational Talent Search program coordinated by the Research Foundation’s employee.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, sustained a Supreme Court justice's granting the Foundation's motion for summary judgment. It said that the Foundation satisfied its initial burden by establishing, as a matter of law, that it was not negligent in hiring or retaining the individual, and that Murray failed to raise any issue of fact.

According to the ruling, the Foundation introduced evidence demonstrating that it interviewed the employee extensively and obtained written references prior to its hiring him. Finding that the procedures followed by the Foundation revealed nothing that would lead a reasonably prudent person to suspect that he had “dangerous propensities” to sexually abuse children, the court concluded that the Foundation had “no duty to investigate further” before hiring” the employee. The Appellate Division based its conclusion on the fact that there was no evidence in the record to show that a routine background check would have revealed that the employee had a propensity to harm children.

Another defendant, the Rochester City School District, also asked the trial court to dismiss Murray's complaint against it. Its motion was denied. Sustaining the lower court's ruling, the Appellate Division said the Supreme Court justice properly denied the motion of the District seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

The court explained that the District has “the duty to exercise the same degree of care and supervision over the pupils under its control as a reasonably prudent parent would exercise under the same circumstances.” The standard for determining whether this duty was breached: “would a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the identical situation and armed with the same information invariably have provided greater supervision.”

The court rejected the District's claim that it could not be held liable without actual or constructive notice of the employee's behavior. According to the ruling, “the criminal intervention of third parties may, however, be a 'reasonably foreseeable' consequence of circumstances created by the defendant.”

The operative factor here: Murray's son was permitted to meet alone with the coordinator of a program in which he was not enrolled, in a room with a closed door, in violation of school policy.

Employee terminated after ignoring an order to report for a “fit-for-duty” examination

Employee terminated after ignoring an order to report for a “fit-for-duty” examination

DiLauria v Town of Harrison, 285 AD2d 464

Town of Harrison police officer Steven DiLauria was terminated from his position after being found guilty of insubordination following a disciplinary hearing. The Appellate Division sustained his dismissal, finding that the department's determination that DiLauria had disobeyed two lawful orders given to him by Town of Harrison Chief of Police David Hall was supported by substantial evidence

The decision states that Chief Hall had directed DiLauria to report to Lieutenant Michael Kamensky for duty effective December 3, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. Although DiLauria “appeared outside of Lieutenant Kamensky's office on December 3 after 9:00 a.m., he did not report to Kamensky for duty as instructed.”

Kamensky and DiLauria then met with Chief Hall. During the meeting DiLauria if he could have the day off. Chief Hall denied the request and told Lieutenant Kamensky that DiLauria was assigned to him for duty. He then issued an order directing the DiLauria to report for a fit-for-duty examination at 2:00 p.m. that afternoon.

The decision reports that DiLauria responded to these directives by throwing the order on Chief Hall's desk and then “stormed out of the meeting.” Lieutenant Kamensky did not see the DiLauria again on December 3, 1999, nor did DiLauria appear for the fit-for-duty examination as directed.

Based on this record, the Appellate Division said that the penalty of dismissal “is not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,” noting that DiLauria had previously been suspended for disobeying an order and “police departments are quasi-military organizations requiring strict discipline.

Jurisdiction to resolve an impasse in collective bargaining under the Taylor Law

Jurisdiction to resolve an impasse in collective bargaining under the Taylor Law

Police Benevolent Association v City of New York, 285 A.D.2d 52

In a unanimous ruling, the Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the New York State Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] has exclusive jurisdiction insofar as resolving Taylor Law impasse situations are concerned.

The New York City Police Benevolent Association [PBA] had objected to the New York City Office of Collective Bargaining [OCB] assuming jurisdiction to resolve an impasse in collective bargaining, contending that the Taylor Law, as amended by Chapter 641 of the Laws of 1998 gave the State's PERB exclusive jurisdiction in such cases.

The Taylor Law permits a political subdivision of the State to set up a “mini-PERB” to oversee Taylor Law matters and the City's OCB was established for this purpose. Chapter 641, however, gave PERB exclusive “impasse jurisdiction” with respect to all fire and police departments across the State. The City's attempt to have the courts declare Chapter 641 inconsistent with “home rule” has thus far proved unsuccessful.

The court's rationale: “Chapter 641 does not violate the home rule provision of the State Constitution” since it creates a law of general applicability serving a “substantial state concern” rather than constituting a “special law.” Section 212.3 provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the resolution of disputes in the course of collective negotiations as provided by section two hundred nine of this article shall apply to any organized fire department, police force, or police department of any government subject to either subdivision one or two of this section.

Section 212.3, however, permits a recognized or certified employee organization representing law enforcement personnel or firefighters to “opt out” by electing “to continue dispute resolution procedures which existed on the day prior to the effective date of this subdivision” by notifying the appropriate mini-PERB* of this decision in writing.” The PBA did not elect to “opt out.”

The Appellate Division explained that in 1974 the Legislature amended Section 209 of the Civil Service Law to provide for binding impasse arbitration by PERB, but since OCB's procedures already provided for binding arbitration when an impasse was reached between the City and any of its public employee organizations, the City was specifically exempted from this requirement.

Although in 1996 the Legislature attempted to transfer jurisdiction to resolve impasses between the City and the PBA to PERB [Chapter 13, Law of 1996], the courts held that its action violated the “home rule” provision set out in the State Constitution. The Legislature's response to this ruling was to enact Chapter 641.

Observing that “[a]ll parties acknowledge that if Chapter 641 is constitutional, PERB has exclusive jurisdiction over impasse and negotiation issues and [OCB] has jurisdiction only over improper practice disputes under Civil Service Law Section 205(5)(d) and Section 209-a...,” the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's hold that Chapter 641 was constitutional.

* At one time there were 35 mini-PERBs; only four remain: New York City's Office of Collective Bargaining, and mini-PERBs for the Town of Hempstead; Suffolk County and Westchester County.

.

Including the names of all “necessary parties” in an action is critical

Including the names of all “necessary parties” in an action is critical

Matter of Wheeler, CEd Decision 14,581

This ruling by the Commissioner of Education demonstrates the importance of naming all of the necessary parties in a proceeding before the Commissioner.

An elementary school principal announced that she was going to retire. Adirondack Central School Superintendent Marjorie Kelly transferred the principal then serving at another elementary school, Forestport, to fill the resulting vacancy. Kelly next appointed Ann Bush, a speech teacher, as principal at Forestport. Bush was simultaneously assigned to be the speech teacher, part-time, at Forestport.

Richard Wheeler, President of the Adirondack Central School Administrators' Association, objected to Bush's appointment as a principal with part-time teaching responsibilities rather than as a full-time principal. Wheeler's argument: the district created a new position of “Teaching Principal” at Forestport when it appointed Bush, thereby violating Section 100.2(a) of the Commissioner's regulations [8 NYCRR 100.2(a)].*

The Commissioner said he had to dismiss the appeal because Wheeler failed “to join a necessary party” -- Ann Bush. The Commissioner pointed out that a party whose rights would be adversely affected if the appeal was sustained must be clearly named as a respondent in the caption of the petition and “served with a copy of the notice of petition and petition, to inform the person that he or she should respond to the petition and enter a defense.”

Significantly, the Commissioner rejected the Association's contention that Bush was a party to the appeal because she was a member of the Association.

Were Wheeler to prevail in his appeal, said the Commissioner, Bush's employment as principal at Forestport would “clearly be affected.” Thus Bush is a necessary party to the proceeding and the failure to name her constituted a fatal procedural error.

* 4 NYCRR 100.2 “requires a board of education to employ and assign a full-time principal to each school under its supervision” unless the Commissioner approves a “variance.” 

Involuntary testing for drugs

Involuntary testing for drugs

DiCicco v Wyandanch Volunteer Fire Dept., 284 A.D.2d 459

The Appellate Division, 2nd Department, upheld the Wyandanch Volunteer Fire Department's [WVF] terminating Thomas DiCicco from membership in the Department because he refused to submit to a drug test within 24 hours of his being notified to undergo such a test pursuant to the WVF's random drug-testing policy.

Applying the Pell doctrine [Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222], the court said the penalty of dismissal is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness.

The Appellate Division also noted that DiCicco was told that he could reapply for membership in WVF in the future.

Concerning an individual's standing to challenge an appointment to a position in the public service in instances where the individual "is not personally aggrieved"

Concerning an individual's standing to challenge an appointment to a position in the public service in instances where the individual "is not personally aggrieved"

Matter of Seidel v Prendergast, 2011 NY Slip Op 06132, Appellate Division, Second Department

Michael Seidel and others [Seidel] joined in filing a petition pursuant of Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules challenging the action of the Town Board of the Town of Orangetown appointing Kevin Nulty to the position of the town's Chief of Police. Supreme Court of Orangetown, Rockland County, dismissed the petition on the grounds that Seidel “lacked standing” to pursue the action. Seidel appealed.

Essentially Seidel contended that Nulty’s appointment was unlawful because no competitive examination had been held for appointment to the position of Chief of Police.

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s dismissal of Seidel’s petition, explaining that “In general, persons seeking to challenge governmental actions must demonstrate that they are personally aggrieved by those actions in a manner ‘different in kind and degree from the community generally,'"

In this instance Seidel and his co-petitioners made no attempt to demonstrate they was aggrieved by Nulty’s appointment. Rather, said the Appellate Divisiont, they claim that they "have standing to challenge unlawful and unconstitutional civil service appointments regardless of whether they are personally aggrieved."

The Appellate Division rejected this theory, holding that while the doctrine of common-law taxpayer standing would excuse such lack of personal aggrievement, that doctrine requires the petitioner to establish that "the failure to accord such standing would be in effect to erect an impenetrable barrier to any judicial scrutiny of legislative action."

As Seidel failed to demonstrate that there was an "impenetrable barrier" to judicial scrutiny of the administrative determination resulting in the appointment of Nulty as the Town's Chief of Police, the Appellate Division concluded that the “Supreme Court properly granted the motions to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petitioners lacked standing.”

Out-of-title work

Out-of-title work

Haubert v GOER, 284 A.D.2d 879

In the Haubert case the Appellate Division, Third Department considered the issue of whether or not the assignment of certain additional duties to an individual, or specific changes in an employee's existing duties, constitutes “out-of-title” work. As the decision demonstrates, it all depends on the nature of the changes and the nature of the positions involved.

Section 61.2 of the Civil Service Law prohibits “out-of-title work.” In addition, no credit is given for out-of-title work in order to qualify for a promotion examination.

Ruth A. Haubert appealed the Governor's Office of Employee Relations' [GOER] denial of her out-of-title work grievance. The grievance arose after the State Department of Health changed its procedures with respect to surveying long-term health care facilities to ensure their compliance with State and federal laws and rules.

Initially the surveys were conducted by teams under the supervision of a Consultant Nurse, grade 24. In late 1996 Health revised its procedure and required various employees in grade 19, 20 or 22 specialized clinician positions to serve as the “team facilitator” on a rotating basis in addition to the designated “facilitator” remaining responsible for his or her primary tasks as a team member.

Claiming that the new role of team facilitator required them to perform out-of-title work, Haubert and other employees filed an “out-of-title” work grievance. The grievance was rejected at all steps and an appeal was filed in Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of Haubert's petition.

The Appellate Division said that not all additional duties assigned to an incumbent constitute out-of-title work. The question is whether the new duties are appropriate to the employee's titles and, or, are they similar in nature to, or a reasonable outgrowth of, the duties listed in the employee's job specifications.

In this instance, the court decided that based upon “the team concept of the survey work, which required coordination and cooperation among all team members, and the high level of expertise required of petitioners in order to qualify for their titles,” GOER rationally concluded that the obligation of a team facilitator to monitor the team's progress to ensure that the team accomplished its mission in a timely fashion “is appropriate to petitioners' titles and, or, constitutes a logical extension of their duties.” 

Determining seniority in a civil division of the State

Determining seniority in a civil division of the State

Turner v Ulster County, 284 A.D.2d 703

Seniority is the key to layoff rights in the public service. Typically seniority is based on the individual's uninterrupted service with the governmental entity in which the layoff takes place measured from the original date of the individual's permanent appointment in the civil service of that entity, regardless of the jurisdictional classification of the position or positions held by the individual.

Police Captain George B. Turner was laid off when the Town of Ulster abolished his position. Turner contended that he had displacement rights based on his seniority in the classified service and thus he could “bump” Donald H. Short, a lieutenant in the Town Police Department. The County personnel officer, Thomas J. Costello, ruled that Turner did not have displacement rights over Short as Short had more permanent service in the relevant civil division -- the Town of Ulster.

According to the decision, Turner was originally appointed as a Deputy Sheriff by the Ulster County Sheriff's Department on January 16, 1978 and was continuously employed there until November 9, 1990. On that date Turner was appointed to a position in the Town Police Department from a civil service open competitive eligible list. Turner was ultimately promoted to the position of police captain.

Short, on the other hand, had continuously served with the Town Police Department since January 1, 1983, and the Ulster County personnel director determined that he had been appointed as a permanent employee prior to Turner's appointment by the Town.

Ulster County Civil Service Rules and Regulations defines “permanent service,” a key element in determining seniority for the purposes of layoff, as “start[ing] on the date of the incumbent's original appointment on a permanent basis in the classified service.” The rules also provide that “[t]he permanent service of any employee who was transferred from another civil division shall start on the date of his/her original permanent appointment in the classified service in the other civil division [emphasis supplied].”

The Appellate Division said that: It is clear that for purposes of seniority, length of time in service is measured from the date of original appointment on a permanent basis in the classified service of the layoff unit where the abolishment occurs. Since petitioner was appointed to the position of lieutenant in the Town Police Department on November 9, 1990 from an open competitive eligible list, this date of appointment marks the commencement of his service in the classified service in the layoff [sic] unit. There is no merit to petitioner's contention that his original appointment in the classified service occurred in 1978 with his appointment to the Ulster County Sheriff's Department since he did not transfer from the Sheriff's Department to the Town Police Department.

The crux of the matter is the meaning of the term “civil division.” Section 2.8 of the Civil Service Law defines “service of a civil division” to “include all offices and positions in the civil division of any subdivision of the state and the term 'civil division' shall include within its meaning a city.”

The Appellate Division agreed with the personnel officer's determination that the Ulster County and the Town of Ulster are different and separate “civil divisions.” As the Court of Appeals said in Chittenden v Wurster, 152 NY 345, the civil divisions of the State are its counties and its towns and its villages. 

Eligibility for reinstatement from a preferred list to a “different” position

Eligibility for reinstatement from a preferred list to a “different” position

Davis v Mills, 285 A.D.2d 703, affirmed 98 N.Y.2d 120

As a general rule, a preferred list must be used to fill a vacancy for the same title, or a position found to be similar to, the position that gave rise to the creation of the preferred list in the first instance. Clearly the preferred list must be certified to fill vacancies having the same title. The determination of a “similar position” for the purposes of such certification is sometimes a less easy task.

School psychologist Maxine Davis was laid off by the Westport Central School District when the district abolished a school psychologist position. She claimed that she was entitled to be reinstated from the preferred list when the district decided to fill a newly created position of elementary counselor.

Davis argued that “because the majority of the duties that she performed as school psychologist consisted of the counseling and other related duties of the newly created elementary counselor position, the two positions are similar within the meaning of Education Law Section 2510.” Thus, she concluded, if the district wished to fill the newly created elementary counselor position, it was required to use the preferred list created as a result of her being laid off.

The Commissioner of Education disagreed and dismissed Davis' appeal after determining that the two positions were in different special subject tenure areas and required different certifications. The Appellate Division, Third Department, sustained the Commissioner's decision.

The court noted that although the abolished “school psychologist position apparently encompassed the duties of the newly created elementary counselor position, the record establishes that the school psychologist position included additional duties beyond those of the elementary counselor position” and which require “skills that were not necessary for the performance of the more limited duties of the elementary counselor position.”

In addition, said the court, the fact that some of the counseling-related duties of the school psychologist position became the duties of the elementary counselor position does not necessarily make the two positions similar.

=========================

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click On http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/ for additional information about this electronic reference manual.

 =========================

Removing a member of a school board

Removing a member of a school board

Matter of Lilker, CEd 14,588

Claiming that there were discrepancies between the published board minutes and audio recordings he made of the same board meeting, Stewart S. Lilker asked the Commissioner of Education to remove members of the Freeport Union Free School District Board of Education and the District Clerk from their respective positions.

As a starting point, the Commissioner noted that Lilker's appeal alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law [Public Officers Law Section 107]. Explaining that the State Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such complaints, the Commissioner said any alleged OML violations could not be adjudicated via an appeal pursuant to the Regulations of the Commissioner, 8 NYCRR 275.

However, said the Commissioner, even if he had jurisdiction, he would dismiss Lilker's appeal on the merits because Lilker “failed to establish facts sufficient to warrant the removal of respondents pursuant to the Education Law Section 306.”

A member of the board of education may be removed from office pursuant to Section 306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the board member has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty within the meaning of the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule or regulation of the Board of Regents or the Commissioner of Education.

Lilker, said the Commissioner, failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that he had “a clear legal right to the relief requested” as well as his burden of demonstrating that board members and the district clerk engaged in willful or intentional misconduct warranting removal from office.

The Commissioner said that the alleged inaccuracies and discrepancies between the published minutes and Lilker's audio recordings are of an administrative nature and do not demonstrate any intentional misrepresentation or attempt to falsify board records.

Authority of the arbitrator to fashion a remedy affecting a party found to have violated the terms of the collective bargaining agreement

Authority of the arbitrator to fashion a remedy affecting a party found to have violated the terms of the collective bargaining agreement
Matter of Merrick Union Free School Dist. v Merrick Faculty Assn., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 06128, Appellate Division, Second Department

In this CPLR Article 75 action the Merrick Faculty Association, Inc. appealed an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County that granted the school district’s petition seeking to vacate the arbitrator’s award and denied the Association’s cross motion to confirm the award. 

The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order addressing the arbitrator’s award with respect to (1) providing health insurance to individuals in the negotiating unit whose spouses are afforded New York State Health Insurance Program [NYSHIP] coverage where those spouses are employed by a participating agency other than the Merrick Union Free School District, and (2) directed the parties to negotiate a remedy for affected bargaining unit members for the relevant period.

The collective bargaining agreement provided that the district “would provide employees with single or family health insurance coverage under NYSHIP except that the district would not provide NYSHIP dual family coverage to spouses of School District employees who were afforded NYSHIP coverage through the School District or another public employer. 

The New York State Department of Civil Service, which administers NYSHIP, subsequently issued a Policy Memo 133 indicating that participating employers could not enter into collective bargaining agreements that denied dependent health insurance coverage to an otherwise eligible employee based on the fact that the employee's spouse was eligible for NYSHIP coverage through a different employer. 

The Association filed a grievance based on the Memo seeking to obviate the provision in the collective bargaining agreement limiting dual family coverage and “that all employees affected by the Memo be offered the option to obtain NYSHIP dual family coverage or a buyout.”

The grievance was ultimately submitted to arbitration and the arbitrator sustained the grievance, invalidating the health insurance provisions in the CBA to the extent that they denied NYSHIP dual family coverage to employees whose spouses were afforded NYSHIP coverage through public employers other than the School District. 

The Appellate Division said that “An arbitration award may be vacated on one of three grounds: 1. that it violates a strong public policy; 2. is irrational; or 3. clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power.”

Noting that in determining whether an arbitration award should be vacated on the ground that the arbitrator clearly exceeded a specifically enumerated limitation of his or her authority, the court said "[i]t is not for the courts to interpret the substantive conditions of the contract or to determine the merits of the dispute." Rather, an award may be set aside upon this ground only where the arbitrator exceeded the express limitations of his or her powers, as set forth in the agreement itself.

In this instance the court found that the CBA provided that "[i]n the event any provision or provisions hereof are held to be unlawful, the remaining provisions of this [CBA] shall remain in effect and the parties thereto shall meet forth with [for] the purposes of modifying the same to conform with the law and/or negotiating provisions in lieu thereof." 

The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court erred in vacating the award on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in invalidating Article XI (D) of the CBA to the extent it violated Article II (B), explaining that “ Even if the arbitrator misconstrued or misapplied substantive rules of law, his determination did not exceed his authority and is not subject to judicial review.” 

As to the remedy directed by the arbitrator -- "grant health insurance or appropriate buyout compensation to bargaining unit members whose spouses are afforded coverage under the Empire Plan from a participating agency other than the Merrick Union Free School District" and directed the parties to negotiate, for the period from February 1, 2008, to April 30, 2009, a retroactive remedy to affected bargaining unit members”, the court concluded that this remedy was consistent with the broad power given to the arbitrator by the issues the parties agreed to submit to arbitration: (1) "[d]id the District violate Article II, Section B; Article XI, Section D and Article XXIII of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it denied [NYSHIP] Health Insurance to bargaining unit members whose spouses are afforded [NYSHIP] coverage" and (2) "[I]f so, what shall be the remedy." 

However, said the court, while the parties' stipulation purported to grant the arbitrator unfettered authority to fashion a remedy, the arbitrator's remedial powers are specifically limited by Article XXIII of the CBA, which provides, "[i]n the event any provision or provisions hereof are held to be unlawful, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect and the parties thereto shall meet [forthwith for] the purposes of modifying the same to conform with the law and/or negotiating provisions in lieu thereof." 

The bottom line: the Appellate Division ruled that “The award was proper to the extent it directed the parties to negotiate a retroactive remedy for the period February 1, 2008, to April 1, 2009, as such relief is within the terms of Article XXIII of the CBA.” 

However, in contrast, the court said that the prospective relief in the arbitration award, which directed the district, as of May 1, 2009, to provide dual NYSHIP coverage or appropriate buyout compensation to bargaining unit members whose spouses are afforded NYSHIP coverage from a participating agency other than the School District, “exceeded the specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's powers set forth in Article XXIII of the CBA,” concluding that Supreme Court properly vacated that portion of the award. 

The Appellate Division remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for an order directing the arbitrator to fashion a prospective remedy consistent with the determination in the arbitration award that (a) the Department of Civil Service’s Policy Memorandum 133 has the force and effect of law and (b) is in accordance with Article XXIII of the CBA.

Decisions concerning Article 75 motions seeking a stay of arbitration

Decisions concerning Article 75 motions seeking a stay of arbitration

Schenectady v Schenectady PBA, 285 AD2d 725

NYC Transit Authority v Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1056, 284 AD2d 466 

The PBA Case

The Schenectady Police Department unilaterally placed police officer Cheryl Flory on medical leave, effective April 10, 2000 to July 3, 2000, pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act [FMLA].

Flory had been absent on unlimited paid sick leave for more than a year. Flory's union, the Schenectady PBA, grieved and demanded arbitration, contending that the department had violated the collective bargaining agreement. It alleged that the agreement provided “members with unlimited sick leave that guarantee that there will be no reduction in employee benefits or any unilateral changes in past practices.”

The department attempted to obtain a stay of arbitration on the ground that the grievance was not arbitrable because implementation of FMLA, a Federal statute, could not be considered a violation of the terms of the Agreement.*

A State Supreme Court justice denied the stay, finding that the grievance was arbitrable because it did not hinge on an interpretation of Federal law.

Instead, said the court, it simply raised the issue of whether the Agreement's provisions for employee leave time had been violated by department's unilateral imposition of one of the terms of the FMLA -- a mandatory minimum of a 12-week leave without pay -- on Flory's sick leave.

In considering the department's appeal of the denial of its petition for a stay of arbitration the Appellate Division said that, in general, grievances arising under public sector collective bargaining agreements are subject to arbitration where:

1. The Taylor Law authorizes arbitration of the dispute; and

2. The parties have agreed in their collective bargaining agreement to submit such disputes to arbitration.

The Appellate Division found that “[b]oth of these prerequisites for arbitrability are satisfied in the instant matter” since:

1. There is no dispute that the issue of employee leave time is a term or condition of employment; and

2. Although the parties did not agree to arbitrate matters pertaining to FMLA, the Agreement reflects that both parties did express their consent to arbitrate grievances regarding leave time, with “unresolved grievances * * * [to] be submitted to arbitration by either party”.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying the department's motion for a stay of arbitration.

FMLA entitles eligible employees to a total of 12 workweeks of leave without pay during any 12-month period for “qualifying” personal and family medical reasons. There is nothing in the FMLA barring an employer from deeming an employee to be on FMLA leave while simultaneously retaining the individual in sick leave at full pay status provided it advises the individual of this fact in writing. However, placing an individual on FMLA status does not automatically deprive the individual of other his or her rights under law, rule, or regulation or set out in a collective bargaining agreement.

The Local 1056 Case

The New York City Transit Authority [NYCTA] obtained a stay of arbitration from a State Supreme Court justice. Local 1056 appealed.

The case arose when the NYCTA received a notice from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles [DMV] that the license of one of its bus drivers, Marvin Moses, would be suspended effective August 3, 1999, because he had allowed his automobile insurance to lapse. DMV subsequently confirmed that Moses's license had been suspended as of August 3, 1999.

Learning that Moses had continued to drive a bus during his suspension, NYCTA, citing Vehicle and Traffic Law Article 19-A, the NYCTA suspended Moses's employment for 64 days, a period equal to that during which he drove with a suspended license.

Local 1056, contending that the suspension of Moses's license was made in error, in that Moses had automobile insurance in effect during the entire period of the suspension, and that Moses was unaware of the suspension because the DMV failed to notify him, grieved the suspension.

NYCTA obtained a stay of arbitration of the denial of Moses's grievance on the theory that “the grievance was not arbitrable because it was merely performing its statutory obligation to enforce the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and that the performance of such a statutory duty was not subject to arbitration pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement.”

The Appellate Division said that a court may stay arbitration on the ground that the particular claim sought to be arbitrated does not fall within the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement.

In making such a determination, the courts do not to engage in a penetrating analysis of the scope of the substantive provisions of a collective bargaining agreement but merely determine “whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the [collective bargaining agreement].”

Here, said the Appellate Division, the arbitration provision is broad and there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the collective bargaining agreement.

The collective bargaining agreement bars the arbitrator from rendering a determination or opinion “limiting or interfering in any way with the statutory powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Authority in operating, controlling, and directing the maintenance and operation of the transit facilities, or with the Authority's managerial responsibility to run the transit lines safely, efficiently, and economically”.

However, “[c]ontrary to the contention of the NYCTA, whether the resolution of the grievance by the arbitrator would violate that prohibition is not a matter for the courts.” Rather, such an inquiry requires the type of exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA that is for the arbitrator” to resolve.

Vacating the stay that the NYCTA had obtained from Supreme Court, the Appellate Division commented that fact that submitting the grievance to arbitration “may require the arbitrator to interpret or apply statutes such as Vehicle and Traffic Law Article 19-A does not compel a different result.”

* FMLA entitles eligible employees to a total of 12 workweeks of leave without pay during any 12-month period for “qualifying” personal and family medical reasons. There is nothing in the FMLA barring an employer from deeming an employee to be on FMLA leave while simultaneously retaining the individual in sick leave at full pay status provided it advises the individual of this fact in writing. However, placing an individual on FMLA status does not automatically deprive the individual of other his or her rights under law, rule, or regulation or set out in a collective bargaining agreement.

Unpaid student workers: are they volunteers or employees?

Unpaid student workers: are they volunteers or employees?

Onondaga-Cortland-Madison BOCES v McGowan, 285 AD2d 36

The Onondaga-Cortland-Madison County BOCES attempted to augment the workforce training programs available to public high school students by involving its construction technology students in the actual construction of an office building being built for the West Genesee Central School District.

Under the immediate supervision of their instructors, BOCES student workers erected exterior and interior walls, installed sheet rock and placed insulation. The commercial contractors, using skilled union workers, performed the majority of the construction work, including all plumbing, electrical, foundation, truss and roofing work.

Following a union officer's complaint, the State Labor Department held that the students could not be classified as volunteers in connection with the project and, therefore, they would be considered employees subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law Section 220.

The Department's conclusion: BOCES had failed to pay the participating students “prevailing wages and supplements.” The amount to be paid to the students was determined to be $44,012. BOCES appealed.

The Appellate Division said that the basic questions are whether the BOCES students should be considered employees of a contractor on the project. Its answer: the students should not be considered employees of the project's contractors for the following reasons:

1. Education Law Section 4606(6) provides that students participating in school-to-employment programs are not employees within the purview of the Labor Law.

2. There is a public policy to exempt unpaid student workers from classification as employees under circumstances where the primary purpose of the work is instructional training for future employment.

3. The BOCES students were not hired, were not paid or otherwise compensated for their work, did not work a regular workday, and performed no work without the direct and constant supervision of their instructors.

4. The students were assigned tasks in order to fulfill the requirements of their technology class and receive credit from their home school districts.

The Appellate Division then annulled the Labor Commissioner's determination.
 

New York State's Human Rights Law bars discrimination against heterosexual individuals

New York State's Human Rights Law bars discrimination against heterosexual individuals

Brennan v Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc, 284 AD2d 66

Martha Ellen Brennan claimed that “on the basis of her [heterosexual] sexual orientation, her former employer, the Metropolitan Opera Association (Met), her former supervisor at the Met, David Kneuss, and the Met's general manager, Joseph Volpe, refused to renew her contract and subjected her to a hostile work environment, in violation of New York City law.”

The essential elements of Brennan's multiple allegations: the Met refused to renew her employment contract and subjected her to a hostile work environment because of her age, her sex and her heterosexual orientation, thereby discriminating against her in violation of:

1. 42 USC 2000e-2[a][1], prohibiting discrimination “because of ... sex”;

2. 29 USC 623[a][1], prohibiting discrimination “because of ... age”;

3. New York's Executive Law Section 296[1][a], prohibiting discrimination “because of ... sex”; and

4. New York City's Administrative Code Section 8-107, prohibiting discrimination because of “actual or perceived ... sexual orientation”.

Following the dismissal of her federal age and sex discrimination claims by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, (Brennan v Metropolitan Opera Association, 192 F.3d 310), Brennan commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court action on her sexual orientation discrimination claims.

The Supreme Court justice, noting that this issue was one “of first impression,” ruled that Brennan “is protected, as a heterosexual female, under the New York City law against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.” The court explained: The fact that discrimination against heterosexuals is not as pervasive as that found against homosexuals does not change the clear wording of the municipal law nor does it lessen the impact of such prejudices on the individuals involved.

After making this finding, the Supreme Court justice granted the Mets' motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Brennan failed to show that her sexual orientation created a hostile work environment or was the reason for non-renewal of her contract. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's determination.

The Appellate Division said that for Brennan to prevail on her claim of a hostile work environment she must show that she was subjected to harassment based on her sexual orientation and that the harassment was so severe or pervasive as to “alter the conditions of [her] employment and create an abusive working environment,” citing Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson, 477 US 57, 67.

The Appellate Division pointed out that “first and foremost is the evidence” and Brennan “simply did not adduce sufficient evidence to sustain her claim that [the Met] created an environment hostile to heterosexuals.”

Brennan's case involved the lack of evidence sufficient to state a prima facie case of discrimination.

In contrast, “unrebutted evidence” of the complainant's prima facie case precludes administrative dismissal of unlawful discrimination charges. In Sauer v NYS Division of Human Rights Appellate Division, 285 AD2d 372, the Appellate Division annulled the New York State's Divisions of Human Rights dismissal of Vincent A. Sauer's age discrimination complaint and remanded it to the Division for an administrative hearing.

The Appellate Division said that Sauer's allegations that he was not hired because of his age and that younger Pan American Airways mechanics with less seniority, whom he specifically identified, were hired by Delta Airlines in his stead, are unrebutted by any evidence in the record.

According to the ruling, “Delta's unsigned and unsworn position statement, submitted in an attempt to settle [Sauer's] complaint,” in which Delta said that Sauer was not hired because he lacked sufficient seniority to be considered, was inadequate for that purpose.

New York City police sergeants not “management” for the purposes of the FLSA and thus entitled to payment for overtime

New York City police sergeants not “management” for the purposes of the FLSA and thus entitled to payment for overtime

Edward D. Mullins, et al v City Of New York, US Court Of Appeals, Second Circuit, Docket No. 09-3435-cv

The Fair Labor Standards Act, subject to certain exceptions, mandates overtime pay for employees who work more than 40 hours per week. Specifically, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) of the Act provides that no employer shall employ any of his employees who in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,* for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed."

Noting that the FLSA exempts workers who are “employed in a bona fide executive . . . capacity” from the Act’s overtime requirement, the Second Circuit supported the United States Secretary of Labor’s holding that New York City Police Department sergeants are not “management,” and thus the sergeants “do not qualify for the “bona fide executive” exemption from the overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.”

The sergeants had sued the City, alleging denial of overtime pay under the FLSA to which they were entitled for overtime they worked from April 19, 2001 to the present.

* Presumably the Circuit Court found that the New York City Police Department is an employer “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” 


 

Application for unemployment insurance after resignation rejected

Application for unemployment insurance after resignation rejected

Barry v Commissioner of Labor, 284 AD2d 701

Miriam R. Barry, a part-time teacher, applied for unemployment insurance benefits after resigning from her position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Barry was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The Appellate Division found that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision since Barry resigned from her part-time employment as a teacher to avoid possible scheduling conflicts with any potential new employment.

Although Barry was in the process of looking for a new job, she had no firm offer of new employment at the time she resigned. Since she resigned notwithstanding the fact that “continuing work was available,” the court said that it found “no reason to disturb the Board's decision.”

Challenging not being selected for a provisional appointment

Challenging not being selected for a provisional appointment

Cameron v Church, 309 AD2d 747

Is an individual entitled to a court order directing his or her provisional appointment or promotion to a position if there is proof that the reason for the applicant's nonselection was bias on the part of the individual making the employment decision? This was the issue in the Cameron case.

Terence R. Cameron challenged Westchester County's Commissioner of Transportation Marvin Church's appointment of Florence Petronio as a provisional “Program Specialist.” He obtained a court order from State Supreme Court Justice Nastasi directing Church to appoint him to the position.

Although the Appellate Division vacated Justice Nastasi's ordering Cameron's appointment to the position, it upheld the lower court's finding that Church's decision to reject Cameron's promotion request was arbitrary and capricious. The court said that the County failed to introduce any proof to controvert Cameron's evidence that he was denied the requested promotion “because of the personal animosity of Church towards his cousin.”

Although the Appellate Division held that Cameron was not entitled to an order directing that he be given the provisional promotion he wanted, it said that he was entitled to “consideration of his application on the merits, without improper factors” and remanded the matter to the lower court for further action. 

Disciplinary penalty vacated as too harsh

Disciplinary penalty vacated as too harsh

Lagala v NYC Police Dept., 286 AD2d 205; Leave to appeal denied, 97 NY2d 605

Courts have consistently ruled that an administrative disciplinary penalty imposed on an individual must be upheld “unless it shocks the judicial conscience and, therefore, constitutes an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.” A leading case setting out this principle: Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222. In Pell, the Court of Appeals said that a disciplinary penalty “shocks the judicial conscience when it is so graven in its impact that it is disproportionate to the offense.”

In the Lagala case the Appellate Division, First Department, applied the Pell standard and determined that the disciplinary penalty imposed on Lagala -- dismissal -- “shocks the judicial conscience.” The court directed that the matter be returned to the Commissioner for his reconsideration of the appropriate penalty to be imposed.

New York City police officer Anthony Lagala challenged his dismissal after he was found guilty of disciplinary charges alleging that he had (1) improperly issuing summonses for parking violations and (2) used a Department scooter without authorization.

The reasons given by the Appellate Division for vacating the disciplinary penalty imposed on Lagala and remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Police:

1. Lagala's sergeant testified that she never noticed deficiencies in the summonses he wrote, nor did she speak to him regarding the summonses he issued, although she spoke to 30 or 40 other officers about their deficiencies.

2. Lagala's performance evaluation for the period in question rated him between competent and highly competent.

3. The record showed that Lagala could not have taken the scooter without having obtained a supervisor's consent.

4. There is no evidence in the record that Lagala's misconduct involved dishonesty, venality or threat to public safety.

The court, referring to Pell, ruled that considering the relevant circumstances, the sanction of dismissal was so disproportionate to these “minor offenses” as to shock “one's sense of fairness.” 

DiNapoli’s Office Completes School Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced his office completed the following audits: the Central Islip Union Free School District; the Eden Central School District; and, the Fonda-Fultonville Central School District..

In addition, Comptroller DiNapoli posted his completed audits of the City of Binghamton; the Town of Elma; the Elmont Fire District; the Town of Farmersville; Orange County; the Town of Orange; the Village of Penn Yan; and, the Village of Sherman.

These audits have been posted on the Internet and may be accessed by clicking on the name of the school district or municipality.

And the winner is….

And the winner is….

Goggle statistics

Goggle Statistics reports that as of August 1, 2011 “Any administrative action in the nature of discipline taken against a tenured teacher must be taken pursuant to Education Law §3020-a exclusively” the most read item posted on NYPPL.

Originally posted on July 13, 2010, it is found at: http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/07/any-administrative-action-in-nature-of.html

Public policy voids arbitrator’s award

Public policy voids arbitrator’s award

City of New York v. Uniformed Firefighters Assn, 87 AD2d 255, [Revs'd on other grounds, 58 NY2d 957]

When New York City announced it would establish positions of (civilian) Fire Inspection Inspectors, the Firefighters Union objected.

An arbitrator ruled that assigning civilians to perform inspection and fire prevention duties previously performed by uniformed firefighters violated the Taylor Law contract between the City and the Firefighters Union and ordered the City not to make any further such assignments.

The City appealed the arbitrator’s award in favor of the Union to the Court (see Article 75, Civil Practice Law and Rules which sets forth limited grounds for challenging the award of an arbitrator). The Appellate Division ruled that “if an (arbitrator’s) award, such as the award in this case, contravenes the statutory mandate, it violates public policy and the court is required to set it aside....”

The decision noted that the City’s Administrative Code provided that the City determine the “methods, means and personnel by which government operations are to be conducted.” The opinion implies that where the arbitrator fashions an award which violates the mandate of a statute, the arbitrator has exceeded his authority and the award will not be enforced by the court. 

Temporary assignment not the same as appointment to a “position”

Temporary assignment not the same as appointment to a “position”

Miller, et al, v. Braun, Sheriff of Erie County, 89 A.D.2d 787

A number of Criminal Deputy Sheriffs with the Erie County Sheriff’s Department, a position in the competitive class, were “appointed” to the “position” of Special Deputy.

The Erie County Charter permitted the Sheriff to make “temporary assignments” as “Detective Deputy and Special Deputy.” The County eliminated the “Special Deputy” and established a competitive class position of Sergeant.

When former “Special Deputies” failed the test for Sergeant, they were returned to their regular Criminal Deputy positions. They then sued.

With respect to Miller’s claim that a “local law” was required to “reclassify” the position of “Special Deputy” to Sergeant, the Appellate Division ruled that the County had not created the position of “Special Deputy” but merely authorized the Sheriff to make a “temporary assignment” to that status.

The court then concluded “reclassification of the position of Special Deputy to make it competitive...does not effect an abolishment of or change in a position created by the Charter.”

It seems that there was some confusion between the creation of a “position” and the status of a person given a special title while in a position. Under traditional Civil Service classification concepts, the “position” of “Special Deputy”, if properly established, could have been “reclassified” to Sergeant.

In any event, the former “Special Deputies” would not appear to have a claim to permanent status in the Sergeant positions unless they were “permanently appointed” in accordance with law. (See CSEA v. Harrison, 48 NY2 66.)

Discipline to proceed despite pending criminal action involving the same event

Discipline to proceed despite pending criminal action involving the same event

Matter of Mountain, ___ AD2 ___, {1982]

From time to time an agency is faced with the question of what it should do when an employee has been given a notice of discipline and there are criminal charges involving the same event pending in the Court. In Matter of Mountain, the District Attorney, Schenectady County, attempted to get a court order to stop a disciplinary proceeding based on the same facts instituted against Mountain by the City of Schenectady.

The Appellate Division rejected the District Attorney’s argument that a premature disclosure of the testimony of witnesses would imperil the criminal proceeding against Mountain. The Court also noted that a criminal defendant did not have any right to stop a disciplinary proceeding pending the outcome of the criminal trial and the “prosecution has no greater right to protect its case.”

The courts appear to agree that the disciplinary action should not be influenced by the fact that the employee is also facing criminal action as a result of the same event.

Not every criticism is a reprimand

Not every criticism is a reprimand

Port Jefferson Union Free School District v. United Aids and Assistants, PERB decision U-5713

PERB rejected the Unions argument that every written criticism of an employee is a “reprimand” and therefore can only result from “disciplinary action.”

The case arose when, in response to an inquiry from the School Superintendent, the school principal made a number of recommendations including one that suggested “the Association ought not be brought in unless the immediate supervisor cannot or will not resolve the (grievance) problem.” This was viewed as a criticism of an employee.

The PERB decision is consistent with opinions issued by the Commissioner of Education and the Courts to the effect that letters in an employee’s personal file commenting on the employee’s conduct or performance the employer found unsatisfactory is not discipline.

No automatic appointment for substitute teachers

No automatic appointment for substitute teachers

Matter of Susan Daniels, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education #10918

When the incumbent for whom she was substituting died, the School Board, at the request of the Union to fill the position in accordance with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, granted the substitute teacher a “temporary appointment.”

The Contract provided that a temporary appointment was to be made when the employment as a substitute was to be for more than 40 consecutive days.

When the substitute was notified that she was not under consideration for permanent appointment, she sued claiming that she should be deemed to be a probationer in the vacant position “by operation of law.”

Accordingly, she argued, she could not be removed unless the provisions of Section 3020-a of the Education Law were met.

Following a series of administrative and Court proceedings, the question was returned for consideration by the Commissioner of Education.

After finding the appeal untimely. the Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the merits, indicating that although the Board has no authority to make other than probationary appointments to fill permanent vacancies, a teacher may waive the statutory entitlement.

The Commissioner then found that the bargaining agreement provision (with which the Board had complied at the request of the Union) constituted such a waiver and Daniels could not now challenge that action by the School Board.

Unit determinations and substitute teachers

Unit determinations and substitute teachers

In the Matter of North Syracuse Central School District, PERB Decision C-2367

The 1981 amendment to the Taylor Law providing for representation of per diem substitute teachers (Chapter 814, Law of 1981) has required PERB to consider a number of “unit” questions.

The Board ruled that per diem substitutes whose employer gives them reasonable assurance of continuing employment should not be placed in “fractionalized units” within a school district depending on the frequency or infrequency of their employment.

PERB indicated that the authors of amendment “saw no difficulty in multiple representation of (such) per diem substitute teachers who hold ... substitute teaching positions” with a number of school districts.

Finally, the decision indicates that “the status of per diem substitutes who did not receive a reasonable assurance of continuing employment was not changed by the 1981 amendment. (See Section 201.7(d) of the Civil Service Law.)

An alternative to a principal for each school

An alternative to a principal for each school

Matter of Mennella, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education #10851

Although the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education provide that each school in a District shall have a qualified principal assigned to it, waivers may be obtained (8 NYCRR 100.3).

An example of this is found in the Commissioner’s decision in Mennella.

One issue in this appeal to the Commissioner of Education was Mennella’s attempt to obtain an order to restore funds for an abolished position of principal. The District had decided to administer its two smallest elementary schools by assigning one principal and two assistant principals to them.

The Commissioner rejected the claim that the District could not do so, noting the he had earlier granted the District the required exemption. Both of the Assistant Principals held valid elementary principal certificates and were qualified to perform the duties assigned to them according to the determination.