A school board member who acts on the advice of counsel will not be found to have engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty

A school board member who acts on the advice of counsel will not be found to have engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty

Application for the removal of certain school officials, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,307

Monique McCray, Doris Dodson and Kelly Valentin [Petitioners] submitted an appeal to the Commissioner of Education seeking for the removal of certain  members of the Board of Education of the Central Islip Union Free School District, the removal of Dr. Craig Carr as Superintendent [collectively Respondents] involving was school constructions project substantially completed by May 2004.

At the result of Central Islip's failure to timely file final cost reports concerning the construction projects to the State Education Department [SED], SED, except for one project, discontinued the apportioned payments and sought to recoup the state aid apportionments in the amount $13,619,929 in "overpayments" over the course of three years by annual deductions from Central Islip's general State aid payments.

Central Islip then initiated an Article 78 in Supreme Court, contending that it was "entitled" to the overpayment claimed by SED. Supreme Court granted Central Islip's request for a temporary restraining order, which resulted in a payment from SED to Central Islip in the amount of approximately $7.5 million during the 2011-2012 school year. Governor Andrew Cuomo, however, had then signed Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2012 excusing "the actions and omissions of any school district which failed to file timely final cost reports for otherwise eligible school construction projects so long as the reports were filed by December 31, 2012.” If the school district filed by this deadline, Chapter 57 required SED to pay apportioned aid to the district in full except for a late filing penalty.[1][1] 

In March 2014, the Office of the New York State Comptroller [Comptroller] issued a report of examination entitled “Central Islip Union Free School District Financial Management” which covered the period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. The Comptroller concluded that district officials had “underestimated revenues and overestimated expenditures in the School Board-adopted budgets for fiscal years 2008-09 through 2012-13 ....”  The Comptroller also noted that, after Central Islip learned of the potential $13.6 million liability to SED in February 2010, “the entire amount needed was accumulated in unexpended surplus funds by the end of the 2010-11 fiscal year, due to the operating surplus incurred that year.”  Although district officials had “hoped that funds for this contingent liability could be placed in a reserve and excluded when calculating the statutory limit,” the Comptroller opined that “there is no statutory authority to establish a reserve for this liability.”

Petitioners in this appeal to the Commissioner contended that the Respondents willfully violated the Real Property Tax Law [RPTL] §1318 by retaining funds greater than four percent of the next fiscal year’s budget for the 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 fiscal years and that during this period although the community was experiencing economic decline and high home foreclosure rates, district officials increased the tax levy, generating operating surpluses in excess of $25 million from 2008-2009 through 2012-2013.

The Petitioners also argued that Respondents had "a responsibility ... to bring information to the community about matters that affect their legal obligation to pay taxes” and “were obligated to be truthful and ethical and not jeopardize the community’s trust.” 

McCray and Dodson were alleged to have “raised questions about the [d]istrict’s practices of deliberately creating excess funds by under estimating revenue and over estimating expenditures” at an April 8, 2013 board meeting, and Respondents “acknowledge[d]” that there were “no internal controls to measure whether budget expenditures are efficient and increases are warranted.”  Petitioners request that Respondents be removed from their respective offices.

The Commissioner first address what she characterized as a "preliminary matter," Respondents claim that she would be "unable to issue an impartial decision in this matter because ... the application concerns an ongoing dispute between SED and respondent board."

The Commissioner, noting that Education Law §306 provides for an application to the Commissioner of Education when a petitioner seeks the removal of a board member or school officer, said that although "recusal may be necessary in an adjudicatory proceeding before the Commissioner under certain circumstances," she found that no such circumstances existed in this case.  In particular, the Commissioner said that she did not find that the lawsuit, which has concluded, "compromises [her] impartiality or otherwise requires [her] recusal in this case.

After addressing a number of procedural issues, the Commissioner addressed the Petitioners' appeal and found that [a]lthough the application must be denied as untimely, it would also be denied on the merits."

The Commissioner explained that RPTL §1318(1) provides that at the conclusion of each fiscal year, a board of education must apply any unexpended surplus funds to reduce its tax levy for the upcoming school year.  Surplus funds are defined as “any operating funds in excess of four percent of the current school year budget, and shall not include funds properly retained under other sections of law.” The Commissioner then observed that it has been "repeatedly held that, at the end of each school year, all unexpended operating funds in excess of the statutorily permitted four percent of the amount of the budget for the upcoming school year must be applied to reduce the tax levy."

As to Petitioners' seeking the removal of a member of the board of education or a school officer, Education Law §306 so permits "when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the board member or school officer has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule or regulation of the Board of Regents or Commissioner of Education." Further, said the Commissioner, to be considered willful, "the board member or officer’s actions must have been intentional and with a wrongful purpose."

Observing that in an appeal to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief, the Commissioner decided that while Petitioners in this appeal have alleged and proved violations of the RPTL, which Respondents have in fact admitted, "the actions of which [P]etitioners complain do not rise to the level of a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law."

In the words of the Commissioner, "[P]etitioners have produced no evidence that any [R]espondent acted with a wrongful purpose" nor have Petitioners contested Respondents' contention that "that they took the actions which resulted in the accumulation of unexpended surplus funds during the disputed timeframe after receiving the advice of counsel."

Citing a number of Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, including Application of Goldin, 39 Ed Dept Rep 14, Decision No. 14,158, the Commissioner opined that "It is well-settled that a board member who acts on the advice of counsel will not be found to have engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty that would justify removal under Education Law §306" and denied the Petitioners' application.

Addressing one final administrative matter, the Commissioner granted the Respondents'  have request for Certificates of Good Faith pursuant to Education Law §3811(1) thereby authorizing the School Board to indemnify them for legal fees and expenses incurred in defending a proceeding arising out of the exercise of his or her powers or performance of duties as a board member or other title listed in §3811(1).  

As it is appropriate to issue such certification unless it is established on the record that the requesting respondent acted in bad faith, the Commissioner concluded that as there has been no finding that any respondent acted in bad faith, she so certified "solely for the purpose of Education Law §3811(1) that ... Philips, Devine, Softy and Carbajal are entitled to receive the requested certificate [and] to the extent such a certificate is necessary, that [R]respondent Carr, who was the superintendent at the time of the events giving rise to this application, is also entitled to receive the requested certificate."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume57/d17307

---

[1][1] Following passage of this legislation, Supreme Court dismissed the board’s lawsuit as moot on January 30, 2013, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division on October 30, 2014 (see Bd. of Educ. of Cent. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Steiner, 121 AD3d 1473).

Alcoholism as a defense in a disciplinary action

Alcoholism as a defense in a disciplinary action

OATH Index No. 0005/18

A New York City correction officer admitted that he brought alcohol onto his post, drank it through his tour of duty and falsely reported in the Department’s logbook that he conducted his required tours of the inmates. The correction officer, however, argued that he should not be fired because he was an alcoholic and that this condition caused his misconduct.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Susan J. Pogoda found that the correction officer did not show that his misconduct was caused by a disability and recommended termination of correction officer’s employment. Judge Pogoda's recommendation was adopted by the appointing authority and the correction officer was dismissed from his position.

As to alcoholism as a defense in a disciplinary action, in Murolo v Safir, Appellate Division, 246 A.D.2d 653, leave to appeal denied, 91 N.Y.2d 813, David Murolo challenged his disciplinary dismissal by contending his misconduct was caused by an alcohol abuse problem that he had since overcome. He claimed that his firing violated the Human Rights Law, citing In McEniry v Landi, 84 NY2d 554.

In McEniry the Court of Appeals had held that alcoholism qualifies as a disability within the meaning of the State’s Human Rights Law [see §292.21, Executive Law].

Although a Supreme Court justice accepted Murolo’s argument and remanded the case to the Commissioner for the imposition of a lesser penalty, the Appellate Division disagreed and reinstated the Commissioner’s original determination terminating Murolo from his position. The Appellate Division distinguishing the situation in McEniry from Murolo’s. 

The court explained that in Murolo the disciplinary hearing officer found that Murolo called in a false alarm and while his fellow firefighters were responding to the false alarm, Murolo took $223 of “communal money” from the station house. The hearing officer determined that Murolo's status as a recovering alcoholic did not shield him from discipline for misconduct and recommended his termination. The Commissioner adopted the hearing officer’s recommendation.

In contrast, in McEniry the issue was whether alcoholism prevented the individual from satisfactorily performing the duties of his or her position.

In McEniry the Court of Appeals held that if an individual establishes a prima facie case that his or her discharged was based on his or her alcoholism, the burden shifts to the employer to show either that (1) the employee was not disabled by alcoholism, (2) there was an alcoholism disability but no reasonable accommodation was possible or (3) there an alcoholism disability but termination was for other reasons than behavior stemming from alcoholism.

The OATH Index No. 0005/18 decision is posted on the Internet as:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/17_cases/17-2417.pdf

New York City police officer who filed fabricated complaints with the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board dismissed from the department

New York City police officer who filed fabricated complaints with the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board dismissed from the department

Artiles v Kelly, 2018 NY Slip Op 01435, Appellate Division, First Department

Wilkyn Artileswas terminated from his position as a New York City police officer after he was found guilty of impersonating four individuals to file false complaints with the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board [CCRB], and making a false report of police corruption to the police department's Internal Affairs Bureau [IAB].

The Appellate Division found that substantial evidence supported the administrative disciplinary determination dismissing Artiles, which included he following findings:

1. The fabricated complaints filed with the CCRB were sent from an IP address corresponding to Artils' home, at a time when he was off-duty;

2. The IAB's report indicated that the claims Artiles had filed were unsubstantiated as the alleged victim denied the allegations.

The hearing officer's determination was also in accord with due process, having been made after a seven-day hearing, at which [Artiles] was represented by counsel and had the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and at which 17 witnesses testified and 28 exhibits were introduced.

In the course of the disciplinary proceeding Artils complained that "one box of evidence was lost and could not be produced" and that a proposed witness, who had moved to another state, refused to testify despite being served with a subpoena. The Appellate Division, however, determined that the missing evidence related to a prior IAB investigation that was not the basis for the decision terminating Artils and "was relevant only insofar as it gave [Artils] a motive to make the false complaints." In addition, said the court, Artils' motive was corroborated by his own testimony, and by the testimony of several other police officers. The Appellate Division concluded that Artils' rights to due process had not been violated by the omission of this evidence.

Ruling that the penalty of dismissal is not disproportionate to Artils' "serious misconduct so as to shock the conscience," the court observed that "[i]n matters of police discipline, [courts] must accord great leeway to the Commissioner's determinations concerning appropriate punishment, because [the Commissioner] ... is accountable to the public for the integrity of the Department."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_01435.htm

Paid Leave available to public officers and employees undertaking screening for cancer

Paid Leave available to public officers and employees undertaking screening for cancer 

Statutory authority: New York State Civil Service Law §159-b

Effective March 18, 2018, §159-b of the New York State Civil Service Law, which provides public officers and employees of the State and its political subdivisions with excused leave to undertake a screening for cancer,* has been amended to read as follows:

§159-b of the New York State Civil Service Law, which provides public officers and employees of the State and its political subdivisions with excused leave to undertake a screening for cancer,* has been amended to read as follows:

"1. Every public officer,** employee of this state, employee of any county, employee of any community college, employee of any public authority, employee of any public benefit corporation, employee of any board of cooperative educational services (BOCES), employee of any vocational education and extension board, or a school district enumerated in section one of chapter five hundred sixty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred sixty-seven, employee of any municipality, employee of any school district or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state and local employees' retirement system or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state teachers' retirement system shall be entitled to absent himself or herself and shall be deemed to have a paid leave of absence from his or her duties or service as such public officer or employee of this state, employee of any county, employee of any community college, employee of any public authority, employee of any public benefit corporation, employee of any board of cooperative educational services (BOCES), employee of any vocational a school district enumerated in section one of chapter five hundred sixty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred sixty-seven, employee of any municipality, employee of any school district, or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state and local employees' retirement system or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state teachers' retirement system for a sufficient period of time, not to exceed four hours on an annual basis, to undertake a screening for cancer.

"2. The entire period of the leave of absence granted pursuant to this section shall be excused leave and shall not be charged against any other leave such public officer, employee of this state, employee of any county, employee of any community college, employee of any public authority, employee of any public benefit corporation, employee of any board of cooperative educational services (BOCES), employee of any vocational education and extension board, or a school district enumerated in section one of chapter five hundred sixty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred sixty-seven, employee of any municipality, employee of any school district or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state and local employees' retirement system or any employee of a participating employer in the New York state teachers' retirement system is otherwise entitled to."

* N.B. §159-c, Excused leave to undertake a screening for prostate cancer, is repealed effective March 18, 2018

** Although not every public employee is a public officer, every public officer is a public employee.

Union official removed from elected and appointed positions after being found guilty of "disloyalty to the organization" by a disciplinary hearing officer

Union official removed from elected and appointed positions after being found guilty of "disloyalty to the organization" by a disciplinary hearing officer

Abbitt v Carrube, 2018 NY Slip Op 01394, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court denied Serena Abbit'spetition to annul the Subway Surface Supervisors Association [SSSA] decision sustaining the recommendation of SSSA's trial committee that Abbitt be removed from her elected position as Section Vice President. The court then dismissed the proceeding and granted SSSA's motion to dismiss Abbitt's libel claims.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, explaining that SSSA's removal of Abbitt from her elected position was "consistent with its constitution and is rational and not arbitrary and capricious.

The court said that Abbitt persistent using her personal business cards, her personal email address, and her personal cell phone number notwithstanding directions to use those provided by SSSA, constituted a disregard of SSSA's direction and disloyalty to the organization.

The Appellate Division also noted the Abbitt [1] was provided with the requisite notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard; [2] fully participated in the hearing, at which she was represented by counsel; and [3] at which hearing the charges were clarified. Abbitt, said the court, failed to identify anything in SSSA's constitution that supports her contention that she is entitled to the same due process protections with respect to her appointed position.

As to Abbitt's claim of libel,  the Appellate Division held the such claim against SSSA was correctly dismissed "since absolute immunity from liability for libel attaches to [a] the trial committee's charges initiating the quasi-judicial proceedings against her and [b] to the hearing officer's decision.

As to Abbitt's libel claim against SSSA's president, Michael Carrube, this claim was correctly dismissed as the alleged libelous statement that Abbitt "violated the chain of command," was at least substantially true and Carrube's description of Abbitt's behavior as "unethical" and "detrimental to the members [of SSSA]" was an expression of pure opinion and "supported by a factual predicate."

The Appellate Division then ruled that libel claim against the New York City Transit Authority [NYCTA] Senior Vice President of Labor Relations Johnson based on statements in an email to Carrube about the nature of the relationship between NYCTA's Office of Labor Relations and SSSA and the need for "mutual cooperation" and "respect" between them in which the Senior Vice President use of words such as "inappropriate," "disrespect," and "intimidation" to characterize Abbitt's conduct was also an expression  opinion regarding her performance and its effect on SSSA's relationship with NYCTA, and, considering the context of the entire email, including its tone and purpose, is not actionable.

Finally, the Appellate Division held that the only factual statement in Senior Vice President's  email challenged by Abbitt was made to someone "with a common interest in the subject matter" and was therefore protected by a qualified privilege and Abbitt's allegation of malice on the Senior Vice President's part "is conclusory and therefore insufficient to overcome the privilege."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_01394.htm

Supreme Court correctly applied the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel to the hearing officer's determinations as to the reasons for the employee's termination

Supreme Court correctly applied the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel based on the hearing officer's determinations as to the reasons for the employee's termination

Johnson v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 01179, Appellate Division, Second Department

Linda C. Johnson  sought to recover damages for alleged unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of age and unlawful retaliation in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107. Supreme Court granted the New York City Department of Education's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss Johnson's complaint.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination.

The Department of Education of City of New York had filed disciplinary charges pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law against Johnson alleging "absenteeism, failure to prepare lesson plans, and verbal abuse and corporal punishment of students." Rejecting Johnson's defense that the main reason the charges were brought against her was "personality," in that the administration did not like her "for personal reasons," and that the administration failed to offer her remediation because it did not want "to deal with her," the New York State Department of Education's Hearing Officer sustained most of the specifications, and Johnson's employment was terminated by the New York City Department of Education. The Hearing Officer found that there was no evidence that certain members of the administration had treated Johnson unfairly, or that she was "targeted or discriminated against because of her personality or for any other reason."

The Appellate Division explained that the findings of a hearing officer after a hearing pursuant to Education Law §3020-a are entitled to collateral estoppel effect and, in this context, collateral estoppel applies if "[1] the issue sought to be precluded is identical to a material issue necessarily decided by the administrative agency in a prior proceeding; and [2] there was a full and fair opportunity to contest this issue in the administrative tribunal."

However, cautioned the Appellate Division, a termination of employment for cause does not necessarily preclude the possibility of termination being motivated by unlawful animus. Indeed, a court or a jury could find that the plaintiff's employment was terminated for discriminatory reasons, even if there were other, and legitimate, reasons for terminating the individual's employment.

Where such "mixed motives" are involved, a plaintiff need only demonstrate that discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the defendants' conduct. Accordingly, said the court, "even where the reason for termination is legitimate, the plaintiff may state a cause of action based upon allegations of disparate treatment or that the explanation for the termination of the plaintiff's employment was pretextual.

In Johnson's case the Appellate Division decided that the reasons advanced for the termination of the Johnson's employment were not pretextual, and that her termination was not motivated by age discrimination, explaining that "[t]he Hearing Officer further found that there was no evidence that [Johnson] 'was targeted or discriminated against because of her personality or for any other reason.'" Further, noted the Appellate Division, the reason why Johnson "was not offered more remediation efforts" was attributed to Johnson's "resistance to such efforts" by the Hearing Officer.

Thus, concluded the Appellate Division, the Hearing Officer's findings were entitled to collateral estoppel effect and Supreme Court correctly directed the dismissal of so much of Johnson's complaint as alleged unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of age.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_01179.htm

Applying the Doctrine of Res Judicata [claim preclusion] and, or, the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel [issue preclusion] in federal actions alleging unlawful discrimination

Applying the Doctrine of  Res Judicata [claim preclusion] and, or, the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel [issue preclusion] in federal actions alleging  unlawful discrimination

Mohamed Abdelal v Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, City Of New York, USCA, 2nd Circuit, Docket #17-1166-cv

Mohamed Abdelal, a naturalized United States citizen who was born in Egypt and is Muslim, who served as a police officer with the New York Police Department [NYPD] from 2006 until he was terminated in 2013 after having been found guilty of misconduct "after notice and hearing."

1. The hearing officer found Abdelal guilty of nine charges, dismissed two charges, and recommended the imposition of a penalty of a "one-year dismissal probation" and forfeiture of 45 vacation days.

2. The Police Commissioner adopted the factual findings of the hearing officer but rejected the hearing officer's proposed penalty and, instead, offered Abdelal a "negotiated penalty" that would require Abdelal to immediately file for vested retirement.

Abdelal rejected the penalty proposed by the Commissioner and was terminated from his position.

Abdelal subsequently filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that he had been unlawfully discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment because of his (1) Egyptian national origin, (2) Arab ancestry, and (3) Muslim religion. Abdelal appealed the district court dismissed Abdelal's  complaint, ruling that (1) Abdelal's disparate treatment claims based on his termination were ʺbarred by res judicataʺ; and (2) his hostile work environment claims were time-barred.

The Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower court's judgment, explaining:

1. To the extent the district court relied on the doctrine of res judicata [claim preclusion], which "bars an action if the plaintiff could have raised the claim in a prior proceeding," even a plaintiff failed to do so, the Circuit Court, citing Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, said the lower court's decision was in error because the doctrine of res judicata ʺgenerally does not operate to bar a §1983 suit following the resolution of an Article 78 proceeding, since the full measure of relief available in the former action is not available in the latter.ʺ

2. Abdelal's federal claims were not barred by collateral estoppel [issue preclusion] as the doctrine of issue preclusion only applies ʺ(1) the issue in question was actually and necessarily decided in a prior proceeding, and (2) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first proceeding.ʺ

The Circuit Court held that the Police Department failed to meet its burden of showing that the identical issues had been decided in the Article 78 proceeding, noting that the district court explicitly pointed out that that Abdelal had not raised his race and religion claims of discrimination in the Article 78 proceeding nor did the Appellate Division, First Department, mention of any discrimination claim in its decision dismissing the Article 78 petition.

The fact that the First Department concluded that the administrative record contained ʺsubstantial evidence to support the finding that [Abdelal] engaged in conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency and discipline of the NYPD,ʺ does not mean that the court considered and rejected Abdelal's claims that he was subjected to harassment and disproportionate punishment for discriminatory reasons.

Accordingly, Circuit Court conclude that the district court erred in holding that Abdelal's discrimination claims are precluded by the Article 78 proceeding.

Finally, disagreeing with the district court finding that Abdelal's hostile work environment claims were untimely, the Circuit Court noted that "[t]he express cause of action for damages created by §1983 constitutes the exclusive federal remedy for violation of the rights guaranteed in §1981 by state governmental units." Whether construed as a stand-alone §1981 claim or a §1983 claim that vindicates the rights guaranteed in §1981, the Circuit Court opined that Abdelal's claim "is timely either way."

The Circuit Court then remand the case to the district court "to consider, in the first instance, the merits of the claims, as to which [it expressed] no view."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/659e649b-9250-48d8-8ac5-e87a10f46b6e/7/doc/17-166_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/659e649b-9250-48d8-8ac5-e87a10f46b6e/7/hilite/

AELE case notes, publications, and seminars alert for March 2018

AELE case notes, publications, and seminars alert for March 2018

Posted March 1, 2018

1. Monthly Law Journal 
Article: U.S. Supreme Court Revisits the Basics of Probable Cause and Qualified Immunity.

View at http://www.aele.org/law/2018all03/2018-03MLJ101.pdf

2. Seminars:  
AELE's next seminar is on Use of Force in Las Vegas on April 30-May 3, 2018. For more information and to register click here:

http://www.aele.org/menu-lethal.html

Next is AELE's seminar on Discipline and Internal Investigations. Join us in Las Vegas on Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2018. For more information and to register click here: http://www.aele.org/menu-disc.html

 3. AELE periodicals 
Three  AELE periodical have been uploaded. The current issues, back issues since 2000, and case digests since 1975 are FREE. Everyone is welcome to read, print or download AELE publications without charge. The main menu is at: http://www.aele.org/law

4. Law Enforcement Liability Reporter
This issue has cases on assault and battery: physical, defenses: qualified immunity, domestic violence and child abuse, Federal Tort Claims Act, firearms related: intentional use, firearms relations: Second Amendment issues, First Amendment, and search and seizure: home and business.

View at http://www.aele.org/law/2018all03/LR2018MAR.html

5. Fire, Police & Corrections Personnel Reporter

This issue has cases on Family and Medical Leave Act, First Amendment related, pensions, privacy rights, political discrimination, retaliatory personnel action, retirement rights and benefits, sexual harssment, whistleblower protection, and U.S. Supreme Court employment decisions.

View at http://www.aele.org/law/2018all03/FP2018MAR.html

6. Jail and Prisoner Law Bulletin
This issue has cases on access to courts/legal info, DNA testing, false imprisonment, filing fees, immigration detainees, medical care, medical cost recovery, prison and jail conditions: general, prisoner assault: by officers, and religion.
View at http://www.aele.org/law/2018all03/JB2018MAR.html

7. The current issues, back issues since 2000, and case digests since 1975 are FREE. 
Everyone is welcome to read, print or download AELE publications without charge. The main menu is at: http://www.aele.org/law

8. Selected criminal law and procedure cases are at three other free websites.
https://www.fletc.gov/the-informer
http://www.kenwallentine.com/Xiphos.html
http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/

Supreme Court correctly applied the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel based on the hearing officer's determinations as to the reasons for the employee's termination

Supreme Court correctly applied the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel based on the hearing officer's determinations as to the reasons for the employee's termination

Johnson v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 01179, Appellate Division, Second Department

Linda C. Johnson  sought to recover damages for alleged unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of age and unlawful retaliation in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-107. Supreme Court granted the New York City Department of Education's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss Johnson's complaint.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination.

The Department of Education of City of New York had filed disciplinary charges pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law against Johnson alleging "absenteeism, failure to prepare lesson plans, and verbal abuse and corporal punishment of students." Rejecting Johnson's defense that the main reason the charges were brought against her was "personality," in that the administration did not like her "for personal reasons," and that the administration failed to offer her remediation because it did not want "to deal with her," the New York State Department of Education's Hearing Officer sustained most of the specifications, and Johnson's employment was terminated by the New York City Department of Education. The Hearing Officer found that there was no evidence that certain members of the administration had treated Johnson unfairly, or that she was "targeted or discriminated against because of her personality or for any other reason."

The Appellate Division explained that the findings of a hearing officer after a hearing pursuant to Education Law §3020-a are entitled to collateral estoppel effect and, in this context, collateral estoppel applies if "[1] the issue sought to be precluded is identical to a material issue necessarily decided by the administrative agency in a prior proceeding; and [2] there was a full and fair opportunity to contest this issue in the administrative tribunal."

However, cautioned the Appellate Division, a termination of employment for cause does not necessarily preclude the possibility of termination being motivated by unlawful animus. Indeed, a court or a jury could find that the plaintiff's employment was terminated for discriminatory reasons, even if there were other, and legitimate, reasons for terminating the individual's employment.

Where such "mixed motives" are involved, a plaintiff need only demonstrate that discrimination was one of the motivating factors for the defendants' conduct. Accordingly, said the court, "even where the reason for termination is legitimate, the plaintiff may state a cause of action based upon allegations of disparate treatment or that the explanation for the termination of the plaintiff's employment was pretextual.

In Johnson's case the Appellate Division decided that the reasons advanced for the termination of the Johnson's employment were not pretextual, and that her termination was not motivated by age discrimination, explaining that "[t]he Hearing Officer further found that there was no evidence that [Johnson] 'was targeted or discriminated against because of her personality or for any other reason.'" Further, noted the Appellate Division, the reason why Johnson "was not offered more remediation efforts" was attributed to Johnson's "resistance to such efforts" by the Hearing Officer.

Thus, concluded the Appellate Division, the Hearing Officer's findings were entitled to collateral estoppel effect and Supreme Court correctly directed the dismissal of so much of Johnson's complaint as alleged unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of age.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_01179.htm

Summarily terminating a federal officer holding a term appointment from his or her position

NYPPL earlier summarized the decision in PHH Corporation v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a decision in which the United States Circuit Court of Appeals,  District of Columbia Circuit  considered the issue of summarily removing a public officer holding a term appointment from his or her position.*

In PHH the Circuit Court concluded that a federal administrator appointed for a fixed term of office may only be removed for cause after notice and hearing. In particular the court ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [CFPB] is constitutional and that its director can be terminated by the President only for cause.

In the words of the majority of the Circuit Court, sitting en banc: "Applying binding Supreme Court precedent, we see no constitutional defect in the statute preventing the President from firing the CFPB Director without cause."

Is the PHH decision relevant with respect to an effort by the President to summarily remove Special Counsel Robert Mueller from his position?

In this reviewer's opinion, PHH probably would not control as the Special Counsel currently so serving has not been appointed for a fixed term of office. 

However, 28 CFR 600.7(d) provides as follows:

"(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General [or under the present circumstances, Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein]. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal."

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein's letter to Mr. Mueller** setting out the terms and conditions of his appointment as Special Counsel states that §§600.4 through 600.10 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

Further, 28 CFR 600.9 Notification and Reports by the Attorney General, in pertinent part, provides:

"(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -

"(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel."

Although not specifically so stated in 28 CFR 600.7(d), "due process of law" may require that the removal of a Special Counsel be effected only upon his or her  being found guilty of "misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies" after notice and hearing.

*The PPH decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/B7623651686D60D585258226005405AC/$file/15-1177.pdf

** The appointment letter is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408-Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.html

The individual's retiring from his or her position to avoid disciplinary action may have unexpected consequences

The individual's retiring from his or her position to avoid disciplinary action may have unexpected consequences

Castro v Safir, 291 A.D.2d 212

An employee may elect to retire from his or her position when charges of incompetency or misconduct have been, or are about to be, filed against the individual.

4 NYCRR 5.3(b), which applies to officers and employees of the State as the employer in the Classified Service and employees of certain other public entities, provides, in pertinent part, that "... when charges of incompetency or misconduct have been or are about to be filed against an employee, the appointing authority may elect to disregard a resignation filed by such employee and to prosecute such charges and, in the event that such employee is found guilty of such charges and dismissed from the service, his termination shall be recorded as a dismissal rather than as a resignation." Many local civil service commission and county personnel officers have promulgated a local law, rule or regulation similar to 4 NYCRR 5.3(b).

In certain situations an individual who seeks to retire after he or she is terminated from his or her position as the result of being found guilty of disciplinary charges may find that he or she has forfeited the pension portion of his or her retirement allowance to which he or she may have otherwise been entitled.*

In Castro, the basic issue involved the result of his disciplinary termination from his position prior to the effective date of his retirement. If he had been lawfully so dismissed from the position, any pension benefits to which he would have otherwise been entitled would be forfeited pursuant to §13-173.1 of the New York City Administrative Code.**

Castro sued the Department contending that it had terminated him in bad faith in order to frustrate his eligibility for pension benefits as the New York City Employees' Retirement System's Medical Board had earlier found Castro eligible for ordinary disability retirement.***

The Appellate Division ruled that Castro had forfeited his pension benefits as he had been dismissed from his position for cause before he effective date of his retirement on ordinary disability and thus he was not in service on the effective date of his retirement, a ruling  consistent with the Court of Appeals' holding in its Waldeck and Barbaro rulings.

In Waldeck v NYC Employees' Retirement System, 81 N.Y.2d 804, decided with Barbaro v NYC Employees' Retirement System, the Court of Appeals said that §13-173.1 provides that an employee's disciplinary termination prior to effective date of his or her voluntary resignation results in a forfeiture of his or her eligibility for pension benefits.

Sometimes a disappointed retiree, as did Castro, alleges his or her termination constituted the employer acting in bad faith.

In Cipolla v Kelly 26 A.D.3d 171, the Appellate Division held that “The fact that [the individual] was about to retire, or that [the individual] ultimately settled the criminal charges by pleading to a violation, does not demonstrate [that the individual’s] termination [from his or her position was made] in bad faith.”

* The decision in Blair v Horn, 2008 NY Slip Op 32581(U), not selected for publication in the Official Reports, suggests that a court could deem a retirement to be the equivalent of a resignation within the meaning of 4 NYCRR 5.3(b) [See  http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2008/2008_32581.pdf].

** §13-173.1 requires an employee to "be in service" on the effective date of his or her retirement or vesting of retirement benefits. If the employee is not "in service" on that date, he or she forfeits his or her pension benefits.

*** According to the decision, Castro was terminated from his position after he had applied for ordinary disability retirement but before he was actually retired for disability.

The Castro decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_00697.htm

Penalty of dismissal recommended for an employee found guilty of violating the public trust and other disciplinary charges

Penalty of dismissal recommended for an employee found guilty of violating the public trust and other disciplinary charges

OATH Index No. 1767/17

A New York City Division of Housing housing inspector, whose duties included inspecting private and multiple dwellings for safety and "illegal conversions in cellars" was served with disciplinary charges alleging that he had [1] unlawfully converting the cellar of his two-family residence into single rooming units; [2] unlawfully installing kitchen and plumbing fixtures in the cellar space and [3] his failure to advise his employer of his ownership of his residence constituted a conflict of interest.

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge Joycelyn McGeachy-Kuls found that the inspector had, indeed, unlawfully converted his cellar into rooming units, which he rented to tenants. Further, the ALJ noted that the rooms were unsafe because "they lacked the required means of egress."

Finding that the inspector's conduct showed disregard for the housing and safety standards he was charged with enforcing and was in violation of the public trust, Judge McGeachy-Kuls recommended that the inspector be terminated from his employment with the Division of Housing.

Also noted was a procedural element that the ALJ had to address. The inspector's employer called [the inspector as a witness] and asked him if "he had been arrested for violations at the subject premises." The inspector declined to answer the question invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to provide information that might be incriminating.*

The Division of Housing asked Judge McGeachy-Kuls that she "draw an adverse inference from the [inspector's] refusal to answer questions. The inspector then "stipulated to the admission of the criminal complaint filed against [him] citing violations at the subject premises."

Under the circumstances the ALJ said that she found it "unnecessary to draw an adverse inference."

* At the time of this disciplinary hearing was held criminal charges filed against the inspector were still pending.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/17_cases/17-1767.pdf

Complying with administrative procedural requirements prior initiating litigation seeking information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law

Complying with administrative procedural requirements prior initiating litigation seeking information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law

Empire Ctr. for Pub. Policy, Inc. v N.Y.C. Off. of Payroll Admin., 2018 NY Slip Op 01143, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court granted the Empire Center for Public Policy's CPLR Article 78 petition seeking to compel the New York City Office of Payroll Administration [Administration] to disclose certain information it had requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law [FOIL]. The court also referred the matter to a special referee to hear and report on the appropriate amount of attorney's fees to be awarded to the Center.

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed Supreme Court's ruling "on the law" without costs and dismissed the Center's Article 78 petition.

The Appellate Division noted that the Center and Administration had corresponded regarding Administration's attempt to comply with the Center's request. Administration indicated it would not be able to compile the date requested until October 2015. On November 5, responding to the Center's inquiry concerning Administration's failure to yet provide all the data it had requested, Administration ask Center for an additional 20 days to provide the requested data.

Acknowledging that in South Shore Press v Havemeyer, 136 AD3d 929, it was held that a failure to provide an approximate date when a petitioner's FOIL request would be granted constituted a constructive denial, the Appellate Division ruled that here the Center's appeal was premature as Administration had not constructively denied the Center's FOIL request in that Administration had provided "most of the information" by November 18."

The Appellate Division, conceding that a custodian of a public record's failure to provide an approximate date when a FOIL request would be granted constituted a constructive denial, found that the Center "did not file an administrative appeal from [the Administration's November 18 response] and thus the Center failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before commencing its Article 78 action.

The decision notes that in Taylor v NYC Police Department, FOIL Unit, 25 AD3d 347, [leave to appeal denied 7 NY3d 714], despite the FOIL Unit's untimely response to Taylor's FOIL request, Taylor improperly institute an Article 78 action "without first taking an administrative appeal" challenging the untimely response to his FOIL request.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_01143.htm

Employer advanced good faith reasons supporting its decision to terminate a probationary employee

Employer advanced good faith reasons supporting its decision to terminate a probationary employee

Cooper v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 01240, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court annulled the New York City Department of Education's determination terminating probationary employee John Cooper's from his position. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's ruling "on the law."

The Appellate Division held that Cooper failed to establish that he was terminated in bad faith in view of the record demonstrating that his performance during his probationary period was unsatisfactory.

On the contrary, said the court, "the record demonstrates that [the New York City Department of Education] had a good faith reason for its determination" in that there were issues with Cooper's leadership, communication, and project management skills, which not resolved despite Cooper's supervisor's repeated advice that he needed to improve and her efforts to assist him.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_01240.htm

Selected reports posted in Employment Law News by WK Workday

Selected reports posted in Employment Law News by WK Workday

Source: Wolters Kulwer

Selected reports posted by WK Workday February 23, 2018

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

Telecommuting for 10 weeks could be reasonable accommodation for in-house attorney

Yard-Man inferences can’t create ambiguity in CBA to find lifetime vesting of healthcare benefits

EEOC ‘regarded as’ ADA claims fail for therapist fired over concern she might contract Ebola

Employee fired for violating workplace violence policy, not for PTSD

Network administrator can’t use docs stolen from HR director’s email in his race bias lawsuit

Sexual harassment roundtable slated for March 1 with complimentary CLE

Federal whistle blower protection against retaliation is not triggered unless the individual complies with the procedures set out in the controlling federal law, rule or regulation

Federal whistle blower protection against retaliation is not triggered unless the individual complies with the procedures set out in the controlling federal law, rule or regulation

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, USSC, No. 16-1276

Both the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, typically referred to as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, generally referred to as the Dodd-Frank Act, shield whistle blowers from retaliation by their employer for "whistle blowing" but they differ in important respects.

Sarbanes-Oxley applies to all "employees" who report misconduct to the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC], any other federal agency, Congress, or an internal supervisor [see 18 U. S. C. §1514A(a)(1)].

In contrast, Dodd-Frank defines a "whistle blower" as any individual who provides . . . information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the SEC, in a manner established, by rule or regulation, by the SEC [see, generally, 15 U. S. C. §78u– 6(a)(6)].

Paul Somers alleged that his employer, Digital Realty Trust, Inc., [DRT] terminated him shortly after he reported suspected securities-law violations by the company to senior DRT management. Somers then initiated litigation against DRT, contending that he had been terminated in retaliation for his "whistle blowing" in violation of Dodd-Frank.

DRT asked the court to dismiss Somers lawsuit contending that Somers was not a whistle blower within the meaning of 15 USC §78u-6(h) because he failed to alert the Security and Exchange Commission of the suspected violations of Dodd-Frank prior to his termination.

The District Court denied the motion, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals concluded that §78u-6(h) does not necessitate recourse to the SEC prior to gaining "whistle blower" status, and it accorded deference to the SEC's regulation, citing Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Dodd-Frank anti-retaliation provision does not extend to an individual who, like Somers, had not reported a violation of the securities laws to the SEC prior to his or her termination from his or her employment.

The court explained that "When a statute includes an explicit definition, [the court] must follow that definition ...."An individual who falls outside the protected category of “whistle blowers” as defined in the law, rule or regulation is ineligible to seek redress regardless of the conduct in which that individual has engaged. 

With respect to officers and employees of New York State as an employer and its political subdivisions, §75-b of the Civil Service Law provides as follows:

"2. (a) A public employer shall not dismiss or take other disciplinary or other adverse personnel action against a public employee regarding the employee's employment because the employee discloses to a governmental body information: (i) regarding a violation of a law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety; or (ii) which the employee reasonably believes to be true and reasonably believes constitutes an improper governmental action. "Improper governmental action" shall mean any action by a public employer or employee, or an agent of such employer or employee, which is undertaken in the performance of such agent's official duties, whether or not such action is within the scope of his employment, and which is in violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation" [emphasis supplied].

In Ringle v Onondaga County, 267 AD2d 1088, in determining Ringle’s and Sawyer’s rights under Section 75-b of the Civil Service Law, the Appellate Division noted that alleged violations of Section 75-b are typically challenged by the individual bringing an Article 78 action [Article 78, Civil Practice Law and Rules].* 

In filing such a petition, said Appellate Division, the individual seeks to vindicate a private rather than a public right. What private right? The right not to be dismissed or otherwise subjected to reprisals because of his or her disclosures to other governmental agencies of the media.

This conclusion meant that both Ringle and Sawyer had fallen into a procedural trap.

The Appellate Division said that because the “Civil Service Law Section 75-b causes of action Ringle and Sawyer brought sought to vindicate only their individual interests their claims were properly dismissed by the lower court because neither had filed a notice of claim as required by Section 50-a of the General Municipal Law Section and Section 52 of the County Law.**

In addition, the court pointed out that Section 75-b does not serve as a shield against disciplinary action being taken against an employee where there is a “separate and independent basis” for discipline the individual.

Finally, the Appellate Division observed that “by commencing actions pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 75-b, Ringle and Sawyer are barred from asserting any other State law cause of action related to the alleged retaliatory discharges.”

* In contrast, in DiGregorio v MTA Metro-N. R.R., 140 AD3d 530, the court ruled that where the collective bargaining agreement so provides, an allegation that the employer violated the “whistle-blower” statute is adjudicated in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

** This ruling implies that where an individual sues a school district or BOCES claiming he or she was dismissed or subjected to punitive action in violation of Section 75-b, he or she must file a notice of claim in accordance with Section 3813(1) of the Education Law. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1276_b0nd.pdf