Judicial review of an administrative determination made after an adversarial hearing is limited

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after an adversarial hearing is limited

Buccieri v County of Westchester, 2018 NY Slip Op 07305, Appellate Division, Second Department

A Westchester County employee [Petitioner] was served with disciplinary charges and specifications pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service. The appointing authority, the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation [Commissioner], suspended Petitioner without pay for 30 days while the §75 disciplinary action was pending.*

The §75 hearing officer found Petitioner guilty of a number of the specifications set out in the charges and recommended a penalty: a 30-day suspension without pay. The Commissioner adopted the findings of the hearing officer and imposed the penalty recommended, suspension with out pay for 30 days.**

Petitioner filed a CPLR Article 78 petition seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's determination, contending that the Commissioner was not a qualified decision maker.

Supreme Court agreed, finding that the Commissioner had actively participated in the underlying events leading up to the disciplinary proceeding. Thus, said the court, the Commissioner should have recused herself from reviewing the hearing officer's findings and recommendation and rendering a final determination.

Accordingly, Supreme Court remanded the matter the Commissioner to appoint a duly qualified, impartial decision maker to review the hearing officer's findings and recommendation and to render a new determination.

The Commissioner appointed a Westchester County Department of Human Resources Deputy Commissioner to review the hearing officer's findings and recommendation and to render a new final determination, and if Petitioner was found guilty of any of the charges and specification filed against Petitioner, the to be imposed.

The Deputy Commissioner adopted the findings and the penalty recommended by the §75 hearing officer, suspension of Petitioner's for 30 days without pay. Petitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a judicial review the Deputy Commissioner's determination.

The Appellate Division set out the following guidelines followed by courts in reviewing a challenge to an administrative determination such as one made after a §75 disciplinary hearing:

1. Judicial] review of an administrative determination in an employee disciplinary case made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 is limited to considering whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

2. It is the duty of the administrative tribunal, not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses and determine which testimony to accept and which to reject.

3. A court may set aside the penalty imposed by an appointing authority only if it found to be so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.

* An employee so suspended without pay pursuant to §75 must be respored to the payroll after 30 days pending a final disciplinary determination by the appointing authority.

** The time during which an officer or employee is suspended without pay may be considered as part of the penalty at the discretion of the appointing authority. If he or she is found not guilty of all charges and specifications, he or she shall be restored to his or her position with back pay for the period of his or her suspension without pay less the amount of any unemployment insurance benefits he or she may have received during such period.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_07305.htm

An employee alleged not to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is entitled to notice of the allegation and the opportunity to contest it

An employee alleged not to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is entitled to notice of the allegation and the opportunity to contest it

Jakubowicz v Village of Fredonia, 2018 NY Slip Op 02059, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Supreme Court, Chautauqua County directed that Jakubowicz, an employee of the Village of Fredonia,  be "fully reinstated to his former employment with full back pay and benefits retroactive to the date of his termination." The Village appealed.*

The Appellate Division first addressed "Appeal No. 2" in which the Village contended that a commercial driver's license is a minimum qualification for Jakubowicz's position as a Mechanic II in the Village and that "his failure to maintain such minimum qualification required the termination of his employment."

The court rejected the Village's claim, noting that the Mechanic II position in the Village required  possession, "at time of appointment and during service in this classification, of a valid NYS Motor Vehicle Operator's license appropriate for the type of vehicles which the employee may from time to time operate."

Explaining that due process and fundamental fairness require that a qualification or requirement for employment must be expressly stated in order for an employer to bypass the protections afforded by the Civil Service Law or a collective bargaining agreement and summarily terminate an employee, the Appellate Division said that in this instance the  requirement of a commercial driver's license is not "expressly stated."

In addition, said the court, quoting Matter of Carr v New York State Dept. of Transp., 70 AD3d 1110, while "an employee charged with failing to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is only entitled to notice of the charge and the opportunity to contest it", the Village in this instance offered Jakubowicz a hearing "to afford [him] the opportunity to present information to the Village why [he] should not be administratively terminated from employment." However, there is no dispute that a hearing was never held.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court was correct in determining that Jakubowicz's termination was arbitrary and capricious.

* The Village submitted two appeals, denominated Appeal 1 and Appeal 2, but dismissed Appeal 1 as academic in view of its ruling with respect to Appeal 2.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02059.htm

Unauthorized recording of a court proceeding

Unauthorized recording of a court proceeding

Matter of Attorney Grievance Committee M-3080, 2018 NY Slip Op 07278, Appellate Division, First Department

Attorney Grievance Committee M-3080 for the First Judicial Department instituted disciplinary against an attorney alleging the attorney had made an unauthorized recording of a court proceeding in violation of New York Rules of Professional Conduct, 22 NYCRR 1200.0 rule 8.4(d), Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice.

The Committee found the attorney guilty of professional misconduct and a Referee was appointed to conduct a sanction hearing. Ultimately the parties stipulated that the attorney had engaged in a pattern of misconduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Noting  that [1] the attorney had no disciplinary history nor had ever been sanctioned by any court for misconduct; [2] the misconduct arose in the course of a contentious domestic relations action in which the attorney appeared pro se; [3] the attorney at the time of the incident had limited experience in the practice of law; and [4] the attorney had acknowledged  the wrongfulness of making an unauthorized recording in light of Rule 8.4(d), the Appellate Division found that " public censure" was an appropriate penalty and granted the parties' motion for "discipline by consent."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_07278.htm

Pension plan managers vested with exclusive authority to determine a member's retirement benefits precludes judicial review of its calculation of Plan benefits

Pension plan managers vested with exclusive authority to determine a member's retirement benefits precludes judicial review of its calculation of Plan benefits

Hughey v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 02129, Appellate Division, First Department

Plaintiff in this action retired from his position with the Long Island Rail Road, an MTA subsidiary, at age 63.49. Plaintiff, as a commuter rail employee, was also eligible to  receive Tier II pension benefits after the requisite years of service under the Railroad Retirement Act. In addition, MTA employees receive pension benefits from the MTA Pension Plan.

Article 3.07(a)(ii) of the MTA Pension Plan, provide for an "offset" that reduced the amount of benefits payable under the Plan by the benefits "which would be payable to the Member involved at age 62 under Tier II. "Plaintiff, however, was still in service at age 62 and did not retired from MTA at age 63.49. Accordingly, the amount of the offset was determined by the MTA's Board of Managers on the basis of Plaintiff's actual age at the effective date of his retirement, 63.49 years of age.

Plaintiff sought a review of the Board's determination basing his pension benefits on his actual age at retirement, 63.49 years rather than determining his pension benefits to be that which would have been payable had he actually retired at age 62, a difference of $160.83 per month.

The Board denied Plaintiff's appeal, which determination was affirmed by the Appellate Division. 

The court explained that "Article 6.02 of the Plan conferred on its Board of Managers" sole and absolute discretionary authority to interpret the Plan and decide any dispute and all matters arising in connection with the operation or administration of the Plan, as well as to decide questions, including legal and factual questions, relating to the calculation and payment of benefits under the Plan.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02129.htm

Rejection of employee's application for reinstatement after admitting to conduct reflecting discredit on the department not arbitrary or capricious

Rejection of employee's application for reinstatement after admitting to conduct reflecting discredit on the department not arbitrary or capricious

Hayes v Nigro, 2018 NY Slip Op 07124, Appellate Division, Second Department

New York City Firefighter Sean Hayes charged with violating New York City Fire Department [FDNY] rules and regulations barring the use of prohibited substances.

In lieu of going forward with a disciplinary proceeding, Hayes settled the matter by entering into a stipulation with the FDNY that [1] allowed him to vest his pension in lieu of facing the penalty of termination and [2] set out his admission to conduct reflecting discredit upon the FDNY arising out of his testing positive for methadone during a random drug test while he was working and violations of the oath of office.

Some three years later Hayes applied for reinstatement to his former position with FDNY. His application was rejected by the Commissioner in consideration of his disciplinary record and the untimeliness of the request. Hayes then initiated an Article 78 proceeding seeking a court order annulling the Commissioner's determination and directing his reinstatement to his former position of firefighter.*

The Supreme Court denied the Article 78 petition and Hayes appealed the court's decision.

Sustaining the Supreme Court's decision, the Appellate Division explained that:

1. A request to the Commissioner for the reinstatement of a firefighter must be made within one year from the date of his or her separation from the FDNY and Hayes' request some three years after his resignation was untimely;

2. Reinstatement is not a right and the decision to reinstate a former employee is within the sole discretion of the Commissioner, and who is not required to state a reason for denying the reinstatement; and

3. The Commissioner's determination rejecting the request will be sustained  unless it is shown to be arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion.

In this instance, said the court, Hayes did not seek to be reinstated as a FDNY firefighter until almost three years after he had left the FDNY after admittedly illegal and potentially dangerous conduct. Thus, said the Appellate Division,  agreeing with Supreme Court, "the determination of the Commissioner was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion."

Addressing Hayes' efforts with respect to "discovery," the Appellate Division said that such discovery was "not relevant to the Commissioner's individualized and discretionary assessment of [Hayes'] application" for reinstatement.

* Hayes also sought discovery of the FDNY's records of all applicants for reinstatement for the period from January 2014 to the date of the commencement of his Article 78 proceeding. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_07124.htm

Recently posted on the Internet

AELE Monthly Law Journal

Public Safety Employee Right to "Name-Clearing" Hearings

View at http://www.aele.org/law/2018all11/2018-11MLJ201.pdf

Fire, Police & Corrections Personnel Reporter

This issue has cases on age discrimination, arbitration procedures, collective bargaining, Fair Labor Standards Act: overtime in general, handicap/abilities discrimination: in general, handicap/abilities discrimination: “regarded as” disabled, retaliatory personnel actions, and union activity. View at: http://www.aele.org/law/2018all11/FP2018NOV.html

Disciplinary probation

Disciplinary probation

Reillo v New York State Thruway Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 02170, Appellate Division, Second Department

New York State Thruway Authority employee Anthony Reillo was served with  disciplinary charges alleging certain misconduct.

Reillo and the Thruway Authority then entered into a stipulation settling the disciplinary action whereby Reillo agreed to a one-year period of "disciplinary probation" which provided that the Thruway Authority could summarily terminate Reillo from his employment for any similar act or acts of misconduct. 

In addition, settlement stipulation provided that the determination that Reillo had engaged in such misconduct was to be at the sole discretion of the Thruway Authority.

In February 2016, the Thruway Authority terminated Reillo's employment based on incidents that occurred while he was still serving as a  disciplinary probationer. Reillo file an Article 78 petition seeking a court order directing the Thruway Authority to reinstate him to his former position with back salary.

Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on procedural grounds, finding that Reillo failed to serve the notice of petition on the Attorney General as required by CPLR §7804(c). Reillo appealed but the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination.

CPLR §7804(c) provides that when a CPLR Article 78 proceeding is commenced against a "state body or officers" by a notice of petition, the notice of petition must be served upon the Attorney General. Following a "particularized inquiry" into the nature of the Thruway Authority and the statute claimed to be applicable to it, the Appellate Division concluded  that the Thruway Authority is a "state body" for the purposes of CPLR §7804(c). Thus, said the court, as the Attorney General had not been timely served, Supreme Court properly dismissed Reillo's petition.

Although the merits of Reillo termination was not considered in this action, it should be noted that frequently a settlement of a disciplinary action provides for the employee to serve a disciplinary probationary period and, as in Reillo, the individual is subject to being summarily terminated "without notice and hearing" if he or she violates the terms or conditions of his or her "disciplinary probation" settlement.

If, however, an employee is to be dismissed for violating the conditions of the disciplinary probation, the appointing authority must to make certain that the actions, or omissions, cited for triggering the termination of the employee serving the disciplinary probationary period do indeed violate the specific terms or conditions enumerated in the disciplinary settlement agreement as the decision in Taylor v Cass, 122 AD2d 885, demonstrates.

Taylor, a Suffolk County employee, won reinstatement with full retroactive salary and contract benefits after he was summarily, and as was ultimately determined, improperly, dismissed from his position while serving a disciplinary probation period.

In Taylor's case the terms of the disciplinary probation provided that Taylor could be terminated without any hearing if, in the opinion of his superior, his job performance was “adversely affected” by his “intoxication on the job during the next six months." Taylor was subsequently terminated without a hearing for “failing to give a fair day’s work” and “sleeping during scheduled working hours.”

The Appellate Division said the dismissal was improper because Taylor was not terminated for the sole reason specified in the settlement of the disciplinary action agreement: intoxication on the job.

As the court noted in  Matter of Sepulveda, 123 AD2d 703, even employees who would otherwise be entitled to the benefits of Section 75 of the Civil Service Law or a similar statute, an employee's agreement to be placed on probation pursuant to terms set out in a settlement of a disciplinary action agreement sacrifices the notice and hearing requirements that would otherwise be available to the employee by such statute for the duration of his or her disciplinary probationary period.

Additionally, it is good practice make certain that the employee’s acceptance of disciplinary probation is set out in settlement of the disciplinary action agreement is made openly, knowingly and voluntarily and be memorialized to that effect in the written agreement signed by the parties.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02170.htm

Challenging a hearing officer's determination following a §3020-a disciplinary hearing

Challenging a hearing officer's determination following a §3020-a disciplinary hearing

Appeal of Douglas S. White, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,521

Douglas S. White submitted an Education Law §3020-a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of 6 of 7 specifications set out in two Charges filed against him by the Roosevelt Union Free School District Board of Education [Roosevelt] and the penalty imposed by the Arbitrator, suspension without pay for 42 school days, to the Appellate Division for judicial review.

The Appellate Division vacated portions of the hearing officer’s findings and remanded the matter to the hearing officer for a review and determination of the penalty to be imposed on White in consideration to the court's decision in the matter.*

The hearing officer, in consideration of the Appellate Division's decision, reduced the penalty to be imposed on White. White thereupon appealed the reduced penalty to the Commissioner of Education, contending, among other things, that the hearing officer erred by imposing a penalty upon on remand. 

Roosevelt challenged White's appeal, contending that it must be dismissed because [1] White failed to make proper service of his appeal; [2] the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to consider White's appeal; and [3] White's appeal had been untimely filed.

Citing 8 NYCRR 275.8(a), the Commissioner said that the appeal must be dismissed for improper service, explaining that the Commissioner’s regulations requires that [1] the petition be personally served upon each named respondent and [2] if a school district is named as a respondent, service upon the school district is to be made personally by "delivering a copy of the petition to the district clerk, to any trustee or any member of the board of education, to the superintendent of schools, or to a person in the office of the superintendent who has been designated by the board of education to accept service."

Turning to Roosevelt's claim that the Commissioner "lacked jurisdiction to review the decision of a hearing officer in a §3020-a proceeding," the Commissioner noted that Education Law §3020-a was amended by Chapter 691 of the Laws of 1994 to divest the Commissioner of jurisdiction to review determinations of hearing officers, both final and non-final.

Addressing Roosevelt's argument claiming "untimeliness," the Commissioner said that "[w]eighing the parties’ submissions," she found that Roosevelt had met its burden of proving its affirmative defense that service was improper and that White failed to rebut the evidence provided by Roosevelt with respect to its claim of the lack of proper service.

Finally, the Commissioner noted that the only relief sought by White in this appeal is that "the charges be overturned and expunged from his record and that he be awarded reimbursement for his expenses resulting from the charges, including attorneys’ fees and lost wages." However, explained the Commissioner, "...  even if [White's] appeal had been properly served, it would be dismissed as [the Commissioner of Education has] no jurisdiction over [White's] claims and lack the authority to grant the relief sought."

* See White v Roosevelt Union Free Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 147 AD3d 1071, posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_01371.htm

The Commission's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume58/d17521

Reinstatement to a position in the classified service following appointment to a position in the unclassified service with the State University of New York

Reinstatement of an individual to a position in the classified service following his or her appointment to a position in the unclassified service with the State University of New York

Question: May an individual with permanent status who resigned from a position in the competitive class of the Classified Service to accept a position with the State University of New York in the Unclassified Service* be reinstated to a position in the competitive class following his or her separation from his or her State University of New York position in the Unclassified Service?

Response: In NYPPL's editor's opinion, the rules applicable in such a situation** are as follows:

1. An employee who resigns from his or her permanent appointment then serving in a position in the competitive class to accept a position with the State University of New York in the Unclassified Service is eligible for reinstatement:

a. With his or her former agency in the same position, or in a similar or lower grade position, except that such a reinstatement cannot be made in the face of [i] a special military list established pursuant to §243.11 of the Military Law;*** or [ii] a preferred list.

b. A different department or agency in the same title and grade, or in a similar or lower grade position, except that such a reinstatement cannot be made in the face of [i] a special military list; [ii] a preferred list; [iii] a "department or agency" promotion list; or [iv] an existing promotion field in that department or agency.

2. For the purposes of reinstatement and similar personnel rights and considerations, service in the classified service is not deemed to be a "break in service" by reason of an intervening unclassified service employment.

* See also, §355-a.10 of the Education Law, "Salary, status, and accumulated leave credits of employees whose employment changes as between the classified and the unclassified service," for additional provisions of law applicable to incumbents of positions in the State University upon the jurisdictional reclassification of his or her position. 

**N.B.  Note 4 NYCRR 5.4, RULES FOR THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE, provides as follows:

A permanent employee who has resigned from his position may be reinstated, without examination, within one year from the date of such resignation in the position from which he resigned, if then vacant, or in any vacant position to which he was eligible for transfer or reassignment. In computing the one-year period within which a person may be reinstated after resignation, the day the resignation takes effect, any time spent in active service in the military or naval forces of the United States or of the State of New York, and any time served in another position in the civil service of the same governmental jurisdiction shall not be counted. In an exceptional case, the commission may, for good cause shown and where the interests of the government would be served, waive the provisions of this section to permit the reinstatement of a person to his former position more than one year after resignation. For the purpose of this section, where an employee on leave of absence resigns, such resignation shall be deemed effective as of the date of the commencement of such leave.

*** Persons not covered by the provisions of §243.11 may be entitled to have their names placed on a "military reemployment list" pursuant to §243.12 of the Military Law.        

Election Workers: Payroll Reporting and Withholding

Election Workers: Payroll Reporting and Withholding 

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Click on text highlighted in color to access the full report

Each election year, state and local government entities hire temporary workers to conduct primary and general elections. Election workers are subject to unique reporting and withholding requirements and may be coveredby a Section 218 Agreement.

IRS Videos available

Watch the latest presentations made for federal, state and local governments.

Payroll Reporting for Election Workers Learn about reporting and withholding requirements that apply to paid election workers.

Why File Form 1099-MISC Learn about the basic filing requirements for reporting payments on Form 1099-MISC.

Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) Matching Program Use TIN Matching to validate whether the TIN and name combinations provided on Forms W-9 match IRS tax filing records prior to submitting related information returns.

10 Minutes on Reconciling Forms 941/W-3/W-2 to Gross Payroll Employers who reconcile payroll can avoid discrepancies by ensuring that employees’ wages and taxes reported to the IRS and the Social Security Administration match.

Find these presentations and more on the IRS Video Portal.

Employee privacy and expectations of privacy in the electronic age

Employee privacy and expectations of privacy in the electronic age

Does your organization have a policy concerning the use of its computer equipment? Has it addressed the use of E-mail by employees for personal communications?  Has it distributed copies of these policies to the staff?

The expectations of employees concerning E-mail privacy and the privacy of other material stored or sent on an employer's computer equipment for personal reasons is becoming a significant issue. The topic has been placed on the table in the course of collective bargaining while elsewhere employers have unilaterally adopted policies.

It would seem prudent for an employer to have a policy in place limiting or prohibiting the use of employer E-mail programs by a staff member for personal business. Some have suggested that without such a policy in place an employer could be exposed to claims of invasion of privacy if it reads E-mail records or the employee's "personal files" stored in the employer's computer.

On the other hand, complaints could arise alleging libel or unlawful discrimination resulting from an individual's using the employer's computer equipment. Some have observer that sending out an E-mail with a return address like  from "JSmith[at symbol]XYZagency.gov" is much like sending out a letter on government letterhead. 

What should be set out in such a  policy?

At a minimum the employees should be told that the use of  the "employer's E-mail program is limited to "department or agency business" and that they should not expect any "privacy" with respect to any information, personal or private business related, received, transmitted or stored electronically on the employer's computers.

The Society for Human Resource Management has recommended that employees be required to acknowledge in writing that they have been advised of the employer's computer/E-mail policies.

The following is adopted from the Society's model statement concerning the use of company equipment and the employer's E-mail capability by employees for personal purposes:

I, [name of employee], am aware and agree that, regardless of its source, [name of the employer] has, and may exercise, its rights to review, intercept, access, record, use and disclose all E-mail correspondence as well as all files and records in its computer system at any time, with or without any notice to employees, or the consent of any employee. I also understand that I have no right to expect any privacy with respect to any material I send, receive, place or retain in or through the [name of employer]'s computer system, including, but not limited to, E-mail sent to or received by me from a coworker or from an another individual or organization. I also understand and agree that the use of any office equipment, including any E-mail capability, in violation of this policy may  result in disciplinary action being taken against me.

A number of law suits have been filed against employers alleging that offensive, discriminatory or libelous communications concerning an individual, was created, transmitted or circulated by employees using the employer's electronic data processing equipment. For example, in Strauss v Microsoft Corporation [USDC SDNY, 91 Civ 5928], a federal district court allowed a former Microsoft employee,  Karen  Strauss, to introduce E-mail messages between Microsoft workers as evidence of sexual harassment.

Other means of communicating the employer's policy to staff include having a copy of the statement printed in the employer's "employee handbook"; posting a copy of the policy on all employee bulletin boards; and having a "reminder" greet the computer user each time he or she activates a computer terminal or desktop computer. It may also be advisable to periodically circulate a copy of the policy to all staff members or from time to time attach a copy of the policy to the employees' paycheck.

Once a policy is established, the employer should adopt procedures, and designate the individuals, to implement it and, in addition, periodically review it in order to "keep it current."

On a related issue, does your organization have a policy prohibiting employees from "electronically sabotaging" the work of another staff member or the company's database? This may become an increasing important concern as more and more work is performed electronically.

The New York State Department of Education's State Archives and Records Administration has published a booklet Managing Records in E-Mail Systems. The booklet includes a sample E-mail policy as well as suggestions concerning "E-mail etiquette." For a free copy of the booklet, write to the State Records Advisory Services, 9C71 Cultural Center, Albany, New York, 12230 [518-474-6771].

Employers also should be familiar with the provisions of the Electronic Communications Protection Act of 1986 and the federal Wiretap Act which set out a number of standards dealing with employee privacy in the workplace.

Arbitration award exonerating an employee the employer found guilty of sexually harassing a co-worker overturned as reflecting a "blame the victim" mentality

Arbitration award exonerating an employee the employer found guilty of sexually harassing a co-worker overturned as reflecting a "blame the victim" mentality

New York City Tr. Auth. v Phillips, 2018 NY Slip Op 02442, Appellate Division, First Department

The New York City Transit Authority [Authority] appealed a Supreme Court ruling rejecting its Article 75 petition seeking to vacate an arbitration award.

The New York City Transit Authority had sought a court order vacating a determination by an arbitrator that had set aside the Authority's determination that one of its employees [Harasser] was guilty of sexual harassment of his co-worker and the penalty it had imposed on Harasser -- termination from his position. Supreme Court denied the Authority's Article 75 petition to vacate an arbitration award, confirming the arbitration award and dismissing the proceeding. The Authority appealed the Supreme Court's decision.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, on the law, granted the Authority's petition, and the remanded the matter to a different arbitrator to [1] enter a finding that Harasser had subjected a co-worker to inappropriate and unwelcome comments of a sexual nature in violation of the Authority's sexual and other discriminatory harassment policy and [2] to pass upon the appropriateness of the penalty of termination imposed by the Authority on Harasser.

The Appellate Division, in reversing the Supreme Court's ruling,  noted that [1] the arbitrator had "expressly" agreed with the pertinent factual findings set out in the investigation report submitted by the Authority's Office of Equal Employment Opportunity [EEO],* but [2] had nonetheless, "incredibly and inconsistent with his own findings, the arbitrator  ruled that [Harasser's] conduct did not "rise to the level" of sexual harassment."

Further, said the court, "[t]he arbitrator's decision fashions a remedy that violates public policy." Moreover, the award contains language maligning victims in an entirely inappropriate manner, including statements that it was incumbent on the involved co-worker to take appropriate action if she felt Harasser's comments were inappropriate and that such a "blame the victim" mentality inappropriately shifts the burden of addressing a hostile work environment to the employee.

The Appellate Division then opined that the arbitrator's decision belies the realities of workplace sexual harassment. "The fact that the victim did not earlier report [Harasser's] behavior is not atypical and should in no way be construed as absolving [Harasser] of his misconduct" and the arbitrator's decision shifts the onus to the employee to report and fend off the harasser.

Accordingly, explained the Appellate Division, "public policy prohibits enforcement of the arbitration award in this case."

* EEO's report concluding that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Harasser had subjected a co-worker to inappropriate and unwelcome comments of a sexual nature in violation of the Authority's' sexual and other discriminatory harassment policy, which policy defined sexual harassment to include "unwelcome sexual advances and other behavior of a sexual nature when . . . such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02442.htm

Firefighting training for the purpose of developing a firefighter's ability to perform certain activities held not part of firefighting per se

Firefighting training for the purpose of developing a firefighter's ability to perform certain activities held not part of firefighting per se

Sears v City of New York, 160 AD3d 471,

Jamel Sears, a probationary firefighter, died as the result of suffering dehydration while performing the New York City's Fire Academy's physically demanding Functional Skills Training (FST) exercise course, a course designed to simulate actual firefighting tasks under a controlled environment. Sherita Sears submitted a claim for certain benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §205-a, claim predicated on an alleged violation of Labor Law §27-a,

The Appellate Division ruled that the plaintiff in this action, Sherita Sears, was not entitled to recover under GML §205-a,*as the injuries Jamel Sears had sustained while participating in FST exercises were not the type of occupational injury that Labor Law §27-a** was designed to address.

The court explained that the FST course was "part of training and not part of firefighting per se" and was for the purpose of developing the firefighter's ability to perform certain activities efficiently, which activities were a necessary and important part of their job as it ensures that a firefighter could effectively perform those tasks during an actual fire.

                                         

The Appellate Division opined that the "risks of dehydration and other physiological conditions experienced during FST training are the same as those inherent in actual firefighting. Given the special dangers firefighters face, and their responsibility to protect the public, judgments as to how they should be trained are better left for the FDNY supervisors and not second-guessed by the Department of Labor," apparently a reference to provisions set out in Labor Law §27-a(2)(2) in particular.

* GML §205-a, provides, in pertinent part, an "additional right of action to certain injured or representatives of certain deceased firefighters" in the event any accident, causing injury, death or a disease which results in death, occurs directly or indirectly as a result of any neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence of any person or persons in failing to comply with the requirements of any of the statutes, ordinances, rules, orders and requirements of the federal, state, county, village, town or city governments or of any and all their departments, divisions and bureaus, the person or persons guilty of said neglect, omission, willful or culpable negligence at the time of such injury or death shall be liable to pay any officer, member, agent or employee of any fire department injured, or whose life may be lost while in the discharge or performance at any time or place of any duty imposed by the fire commissioner, fire chief or other superior officer of the fire department,

** Labor Law §27-a(2), "Safety and health standards for public employees", provides in pertinent part, that every employer shall "(1) furnish to each of its employees, employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees; and (2) comply with the safety and health standards promulgated under this section. In applying this paragraph, fundamental distinctions between private and public employment shall be recognized."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02430.htm

Hamburg employee admits $150,000 theft of recreation fees

Hamburg employee admits $150,000 theft of recreation fees

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

On October 24, 2018 , State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Erie County District Attorney John J. Flynn announced that a Village of Hamburg recreation attendant admitted stealing more than $150,000 by skimming village fees and altering public records from 2011 to 2017.

Joanne Erickson, stole cash payments that were meant to fund an after-school program, a children’s summer program and recreation hall rental fees. She allegedly altered cash reports and submitted them to the village and the Recreation Center supervisor. The Comptroller’s office conducted an investigation and audit, discovered the theft and brought the matter to Flynn’s office as part of their ongoing partnership. Erickson was terminated from her $35,000-a-year post by the village in April 2018.

"Little by little, Ms. Erickson systematically defrauded the Hamburg taxpayers of $150,000,” DiNapoli said. “Thanks to the hard work of my office in partnership with District Attorney Flynn, Ms. Erickson has been held accountable.”

“This defendant not only stole from taxpayers, but stole money intended to support programs for children in the Village of Hamburg. I want to thank our partners in the State Comptroller’s Office for conducting this audit, which allowed us to prosecute this individual,” Flynn said.

Erickson, a 14-year village employee, pleaded guilty to grand larceny, false filing and official misconduct. She is due back in court on Jan. 9 for sentencing.

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and fraud and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by filing a complaint online at investigations@osc.state.ny.us, or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 14th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

A correction officer's application for performance of duty disability retirement is to be evaluated to determine if the disability resulted from an act or omission of an inmate

A correction officer's application for performance of duty disability retirement is to be evaluated to determine if the disability resulted from an act or omission of an inmate

Garcia v DiNapoli, 2018 NY Slip Op 06602, Appellate Division, Third Department

A county correction officer [Officer] filed for Retirement and Social Security Law §607-c performance of duty disability retirement benefits claiming he had suffered a  permanently disability as a result of his tripping and falling while descending stairs within the facility in the course of his preparing to move inmates to another location.

Officer's application was denied by the Retirement System on the ground that his alleged disability "was not the result of an act of any inmate" and ultimately the State Comptroller accepted the findings and recommendation of the hearing officer. Officer appealed the Comptroller's determination.

The Appellate Division noted that Officer was [1] required to establish that the alleged incapacity was "the natural and proximate result of any act of any inmate" and [2] had to demonstrate that Officer's claimed injuries were caused by direct interaction with an inmate and were caused by some affirmative act on the part of the inmate." Further, noted the court, the action by an inmate need not to be intentionally directed at the correction officer nor does need to be volitional or disobedient in a manner that proximately causes the officer's injury, but must be more than "a benign chore routinely performed in penal institutions by inmates."  

Officer testified that he daily performs a recreation movement and on the day of the incident he was performing a routine recreation movement in accordance with regular procedures when he heard footsteps behind him, turned around to look, and "saw an inmate right on [his] back" running down the stairs about two steps behind him." Officer then stated the "[u]pon unexpectedly seeing the inmate, [he] became 'scared,' missed a step and grabbed a railing with his arm but continued to fall to the ground, resulting in his injuries."

Officer testified that, although the inmate did not make physical contact with him until assisting him off the ground after he fell, "the inmate should not have been on the stairs at that time," as Officer had not yet given the command to the inmates to descend the stairs. Officer further explained that this incident had never happened before and that "inmates are always required to wait for his command before descending the stairs and entering the recreation yard."

The Appellate Division said that under circumstances it found that Officer had demonstrated that the injuries that he sustained from his fall occurred "contemporaneously with, and flowed directly, naturally and proximately from, the inmate's 'disobedient and affirmative act of descending down the stairs unexpectedly prior to receiving permission to do so.'"

Under these circumstances the court decided that Officer had demonstrated that the injuries that he sustained from his fall occurred "contemporaneously with, and flowed directly, naturally and proximately from, the inmate's disobedient and affirmative act of descending down the stairs unexpectedly prior to receiving permission to do so."

While "losing one's footing — without more — does not constitute an affirmative act," in this instance the Appellate Division concluded that Officer's misstep and fall flowed directly, naturally and proximately from the inmate's act of being out of place without permission and startling Officer by running down the stairs.

The Appellate Division remitted the matter to the Retirement System for further proceedings on the issue of the permanency of Officer's alleged disability

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_06602.htm

A retiree not in the collective bargaining unit when he or she became aggrieved may not file a "contract grievance" set out in the collective bargaining agreement

A retiree not in the collective bargaining unit when he or she became aggrieved may not file a "contract grievance" set out in the collective bargaining agreement

Meyer v City of Long Beach, 2018 NY Slip Op 06526, Appellate Division, Second Department

Certain retired police officers [Plaintiffs] sought to recover damages resulting from an alleged breach of the terms and conditions set out in a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] established pursuant to Article 14 of the Civil Service Law [the Taylor Law] from their former employer, the City of Long Beach [City]. Supreme Court denied the City's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' petition and the City appealed the Supreme Court's ruling. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, with costs.

The facts as reported in the Appellate Division's decision are as follows:

Plaintiffs were members of the Long Beach Patrolmen's Benevolent Associations [PBA], when the relevant CBA between the City  and the PBA expired. Efforts to negotiate a successor CBA failed and ultimately an arbitration award resulting from "compulsory interest arbitration," which allegedly had the statutory effect of becoming the successor CBA to the expired CBA for those members covered by the award, was issued.

The Plaintiffs here, however, had retired prior to the issuance of the arbitration award and although Plaintiffs claimed that the arbitration award applied to them, the City contends that it does not and refused to give them certain compensation mandated by the award.

The City argued that:

[1] the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars Plaintiffs from bringing this action, citing the decision in an improper practice charge filed by the Commanding Officers Association of Long Beach, New York, Inc. [COA] against the City with the New York State Public Employment Relations Board [PERB]. In that action  PERB determined that the City did not violate Civil Service Law §209-a(1) by refusing to allow COA members to share in the arbitration award; and

[2] Plaintiffs' failed to pursue the grievance procedure set out in the CBA established by the award bars their lawsuit seeking to recover damages for the alleged breach of contract.

With respect to the City's reliance on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the Appellate Division said that the issue raised in Plaintiffs' action is not identical to the issue litigated in an improper practice charge filed by COA against the City before PERB and PERB's determination that the City did not violate Civil Service Law §209-a(1) by refusing to allow COA members to share in the arbitration award did not determine whether the benefits set forth in the arbitration award applied to the Plaintiffs, who were never members of the COA. Thus, said the court, doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable to that issue.

As to the City's claim that Plaintiffs' failed  to pursue the grievance procedure set out in the successor CBA, the Appellate Division said that this failure "does not warrant dismissal of the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract" as "the CBA limits invocation of the grievance procedure outlined therein to 'bargaining unit member[s].'" The court explained that as retired employees of the City, Plaintiffs were not members of the collective bargaining unit when they became aggrieved and thus they could not have pursued the grievance procedure set out in the CBA that the City claimed was available to them.

The Appellate Division's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_06526.htm

Court of Appeals' decision addresses the concept of the separation of powers and the legislature's delegating rule making authority to a state department or agency

Court of Appeals' decision addresses the concept of the separation of powers and the legislature's delegating rule making authority to a state department or agency

LeadingAge N.Y., Inc. v Shah, 2018 NY Slip Op 06965, Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals' ruling in LeadingAge, et. al., [Proceeding No. 1.] and Coalition of New York State Public Health Plans, et al., Proceeding No. 2.] explores the concept of separation of powers in the context of the State legislature's delegation of certain rule making powers to the New York State Department of Health, an executive administrative agency [EAA].

The Court of Appeals observed that:

1. An EAA rule or regulation grounded in the statutory mandate must not usurp the Legislature's role;

2. An EAA rule or regulation [a] must be promulgated in consideration of, among other things, findings resulting from research and public comment, [b] have defined thresholds and exclusions, if any, and [c] decisions involving the application of rules and regulations by an EAA must be rational; and

3. An EAA may not promulgate rules or regulations reflecting ideas and policies that are inconsistent with effecting "legislative intent" as set out in the statute.

The Court of Appeals noted that the concept of the separation of powers is "the bedrock of the system of government adopted by this State in establishing three coordinate and coequal branches of government, each charged with performing particular functions." The concept also requires that the Legislature make the critical policy decisions, while the executive branch may be delegated with responsibility to implement those policies.*

The court explained that an EAA, as a creature of the Legislature, acts pursuant to specific grants of authority conferred by their creator. In effect, a legislative body may enact a general statute that reflects legislative policy and, or, intent and then grant authority to an EAA to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations that "expand upon the statutory text by filling in details consistent with that enabling legislation," i.e., promulgating rules and regulations reflecting the legislative body's intent. In the event an EAA promulgates a rule or regulations beyond the power granted to it by the legislature, the EAA is said to have acted "ultra vires"** and usurped the legislature's role thereby violating the doctrine of separation of powers.

In other words, the separation of powers doctrine requires that the legislature make the primary policy decisions while the EAA, in the exercise of its technical expertise, may be vested with considerable discretion to flesh out a policy broadly outlined by legislators in order to implement the legislature's "primary policy decisions."

The Court of Appeals then indicted that to attain this result in promulgating rules and regulations, an EAA may rely on a general but comprehensive grant of regulatory authority to determine the best methods to attain the objectives articulated by the legislature and "because it is not always possible to draw a clear line between the functions of the legislative and executive branches," common sense must prevail when determining whether an EAA has acted within its grant of authority delegated to it by the legislature.

If the court finds that the EAA has been empowered to regulate the matter in question and has not usurped any of the legislative body's prerogative, judicial review of the separation of powers inquiry is at a judicial end as it is not the court's role to question the efficacy or wisdom of the means chosen by the EAA to accomplish the ends identified by the legislature as it is the court's role to determine whether the agency acted within the scope of the authority delegated to it even if believes there are alternative and better means of effecting the legislative body's intent.

Should the court finds that the EAA meets this initial test, i.e., it has acted within the scope of the powers delegated to it by the legislature, it still may be necessary for the court to adjudicate another issue: are the rules, regulations and procedures adopted by the EAA to effect the legislative intent arbitrary and capricious?

* In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, the United States Supreme Court held that Congress violated the "nondelegation doctrine" by granting certain rule-making powers to a non-governmental entity under color of Article 8 of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States which vests in Congress the "power to regulate commerce...."

** Acting beyond one's or an entity's legal power or authority.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_06965.htm