The State Commissioner of Education lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal involving the non-renewal of the charter of a Charter School

The State Commissioner of Education lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal involving the non-renewal of the charter of a Charter School
Appeal of Ross Global Academy Charter School regarding the nonrenewal of its charter. Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision #16,194

The New York City Chancellor of Education, as a charter entity pursuant to Education Law §2851(3)(a), entered into a proposed charter agreement with Ross Global Academy Charter School [RGACS] for the operation of a charter school for five years. The proposed charter agreement was submitted to the New York State Board of Regents, which approved and issued it in January 2006.

In 2010, RGACS submitted an application to the Chancellor for the renewal of its charter for an additional five years, but was advised by the Chancellor’s staff in December 2010 that its charter would not be renewed by the Chancellor beyond the end of the 2010-2011 school year.

RGACS appealed, contending that the Chancellor and his staff [1] failed to follow appropriate policies and procedures in making the nonrenewal decision; [2] that it was treated differently than other allegedly “similarly situated” charter school; and [3] that its charter should be renewed.

The Commissioner dismissed RGACS’ appeal “for lack of jurisdiction.” The Commissioner said that Education Law §2852(6) provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary,” the denial of an application for a charter school by a charter entity “is final and shall not be reviewable in any court or by any administrative body.”

The Commissioner explained that as the appeal submitted by RGACS is an administrative proceeding that challenges the denial of an application for a charter school, he lacks jurisdiction to consider it “Because the legislature has proscribed administrative review….”

The Commissioner rejected RGACS’ argument that Education Law §2852(6) is not applicable because it applies only to the denial of an initial charter application and not, as here, to an application for the renewal of an existing charter school, noting that “Education Law §2851(4) provides, in pertinent part, that “[c]harters may be renewed, upon application, for a term of up to five years in accordance with the provisions of this article for the issuance of such charters pursuant to section twenty-eight hundred fifty-two of this article”

As to RGACS’ claim that the Regents was the ultimate authority with respect to ruling on its application for renewal, the Commissioner said that “it is the charter entity (in this case, the Chancellor) that has the ultimate authority to deny an application for a charter school’s renewal.”* The Commissioner said that the Board of Regents "does not have the ability" to reject or veto a “recommendation” of another charter entity or modify a proposed charter submitted by such entity, citing Bd. of Educ. of the Roosevelt UFSD., et al. v. Bd. of Trustees of the State University of New York, et al., 282 AD2d 166).

* The Commissioner noted that although the Chancellor’s staff prepared a report and submitted it to the Board of Regents in this matter with a “recommendation” that RGACS’ charter not be renewed beyond the 2010-2011 school year, this submission was not required by law and is without consequence to the chartering process.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume50/d16194.htm

Family Medical Leave Act and the Doctrine of Eleventh Amendment Immunity

Family Medical Leave Act and the Doctrine of Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Lambert v NYS Office of Mental Health, USDC, EDNY, Judge Gleeson, 97-CV-1347

Efforts by state employees to challenge alleged violations of federal civil rights and other laws have be rejected by federal courts under the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment Immunity. In the Lambert case, a federal district court dismissed claims alleging that the State’s Office of Mental Health [OMH] violated the Family Medical Leave Act on the basis of Eleventh Amendment Immunity.

Patricia Lambert had requested leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 [FMLA], 29 USC Section 2601 on December 16, 1994. She provided medical documentation in support of her request.

While her FMLA request was pending, she used sick leave, personal time, and vacation time to cover her absences from work. OMH, Lambert claimed, (1) found her to be her eligible for FMLA benefits on February 1995 but (2) terminated her in March 1995.

The court never reached the merits of Lambert’s allegations, holding that [s]ince Lambert’s FMLA claim against the Office of Mental Health is predicated on a request for leave involving her own health condition (in contrast, for example, to a request for leave for the birth of a child), it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The court cited Hale v Mann, 219 F.3d 61, 67, decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, as authority for its determination.

In Hale the Circuit Court said that FMLA’s abrogation of states’ sovereign immunity to suits regarding employees’ own health conditions exceeded Congress’s power under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Judge Gleeson also commented that Lambert’s FMLA claim against the individual defendants was inappropriate, noting a decision by the Eleventh Circuit holding that individual state officers are not employers within the meaning of the FMLA [Wascura v Carver, 169 F.3d 683].

Limiting the selection of arbitrators

Limiting the selection of arbitrators
Suffolk County PBA v Suffolk County, 273 AD2d 222

Suffolk County adopted a resolution [Resolution 377-1998] barring arbitrators who have served in labor disputes involving Nassau County within the preceding three years to serve in disputes under collective bargaining agreements voluntarily submitted to arbitration or in binding arbitration.

Suffolk County PBA challenged the resolution, contending that it violated both the terms of a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between it and the county and the Taylor Law. State Supreme Court Judge Jack J. Cannavo, agreed and ruled that the resolution was invalid.

The county appealed and the Appellate Division overturned the lower court’s decision. The Appellate Division held that the CBA and the Suffolk County Administrative Code, which was substantially equivalent to the Taylor Law, both contained binding arbitration provisions permitting Suffolk County to select arbitrators at its own discretion.

Pointing out that the county could exercise its discretion in selecting arbitrators, the Appellate Division declared that the PBA lacks standing to assert that the resolution is arbitrary or capricious, or that the Suffolk County Legislature did not possess the authority to determine how Suffolk County should select its arbitrators.

The court also commented that in contrast to the PBA’s contention, the resolution did not prohibit an arbitrator from making comparisons between Nassau and Suffolk County to determine arbitration issues.

State Comptroller DiNapoli proposes legislation providing for the forfeiture of pension benefits of members guilty of “Abuse of Public Trust”

State Comptroller DiNapoli proposes legislation providing for the forfeiture of pension benefits of members guilty of “Abuse of Public Trust”
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli has proposed the introduction of legislation providing for the forfeiture of pension benefits* if certain members of the System are found guilty of committing a felony related to the performance of their official duties.

DiNapoli’s bill also imposes a penalty up to twice the amount a public official benefited from the commission of a crime committed in the course of his or her performace [or presumably, an ommission] of his or her public duty.

DiNapoli, noting State Constitution’s prohibitions against any diminishment of retirement benefits for current public officials and public servants, indicated that the pension forfeiture provisions in the proposed bill would apply only to indiviuals becoming members of the Retirement System after the measure's effective date.

The proposed bill is posted on the Internet at:
http://osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/jan11/forfeiture.pdf.

As to the issue of a public officer or employee forfeiting retirement benefits under certain conditions, in Castro v Safir, 291 A.D.2d 212** the basic issue concerned the fallout of New York City police officer Antonio Castro's dismissal prior to the effective date of his retirement. If he was so lawfully dismissed, any pension benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled would be forfeited pursuant to Section 13-173.1 of the New York City Administrative Code.***

Section 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 retirement benefits.

Castro was terminated from his position following a "second arrest." As a result he became ineligible for the ordinary disability retirement benefits for which he had applied. He sued, contending that the Department 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 previously found Castro eligible for ordinary disability retirement.

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

The Appellate Division ruled that Castro had forfeited his pension benefits as he was discharged before he retired on ordinary disability, i.e., he was not in service on the effective date of his retirement.

This conclusion by the Appellate Division appears to parallel the Court of Appeals holding in its Waldeck and Barbaro rulings wherein the Court of Appeals said that Section 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. [Waldeck v NYC Employees' Retirement System, 81 N.Y.2d 804, decided with Barbaro v NYC Employees' Retirement System.]

Waldeck and Barbaro challenged the forfeiture of their respective retirement benefits on the ground that they had not been advised of the effective dates of their respective discharges from employment after being found guilty of disciplinary charges filed against them.

Both Waldeck and Barbaro had been terminated prior to their intended dates of voluntary resignation. Did this mean that they could not vest their retirement benefits and thus those benefits would, in effect, be forfeited? In a word -- yes!

The Court of Appeals said that Section 13-173.1 of the Administrative Code contains no requirement that employees receive notice of their discharge from employment, nor does any other statutory authority, and thus the fact that neither Waldeck nor Barbaro were aware that they had been terminated prior to the effective date of their respective resignations "has no relevance to the effective date of termination from employment under Section 13-173.1."

According to the decision, there is no legislative requirement for notice affecting the effective date of discharge for purposes of determining whether a pension has vested within the meaning of Section 13-173.1 of the Code.

* If enacted into law, this presumably could result in the forfeiture of the pension portion of the individual's retirement allowance but that portion of the individual's retirement allowance attributed to his or her "employee contributions" would be refunded.

** See, also, Cipolla v. Kelly 26 A.D.3d 171, wherein the court 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 [the individual’s] termination was in bad faith.”

*** As a police officer, Castro was a "public officer." He was also a public employee, as although not all public employees are public officers, all public officers are public employees.

Employee’s termination after hearing held in absentia annulled for failure to prove the employee was notified of the time and place of the hearing

Employee’s termination after hearing held in absentia annulled for failure to prove the employee was notified of the time and place of the hearing
Matter of Toolasprashad v Kelly, 2011 NY Slip Op 00419, Appellate Division, First Department

The Toolasprashad decision demonstrates that evidence that the accused individual was properly served with the notice a scheduled disciplinary hearing may become a critical element in the proceeding.

Rudranu Toolasprashad was terminated from his position following a disciplinary hearing that was held notwithstanding his failing to appear at the designated time and place.

Toolasprashad filed a petition seeking to annul his dismissal, which Supreme Court granted “to the extent of remanding the matter to respondents for a full hearing on proper notice to [Toolasprashad].” The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Appellate Division noted that the hearing officer found that Toolasprashad failed to appear for the hearing was without good cause, this finding was based on the Department representation that had made “diligent efforts to serve [Toolasprashad] with the charges against him and to notify him of the hearing and that [Toolasprashad] had not provided proper contact information in Peru, where he was on leave.”

While this may have otherwise been sufficient, the court said that the record indicated that “the sole evidence of [the Department’s] attempted service in Lima was counsel's hearsay representations.”

Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that the hearing officer’s determination that Toolasprashad’s failure to appear “was without good cause” lacked the requisite proof, citing People ex rel. Griffin v Walters, 83 AD2d 618.

Although the Department argued that “the technical rules of evidence need not be complied with in disciplinary proceedings before administrative bodies,” the court said that the deficiency in the proof of the Department’s efforts to effect service in Lima “goes beyond the lack of technical compliance.”

The court also called attention to the Rules of City of New York Police Department (38 RCNY) §15-03 which, in pertinent part, required that "[s]ervice of the Charges and Specifications shall be made in a manner reasonably calculated to achieve actual notice to the respondent" and that "[a]ppropriate proof of service shall be required."

Thus, concluded the Appellate Division, the Department failed to comply with its own stated obligation to provide Toolasprashad with the required notice of the time and place of the disciplinary hearing. Accordingly, said the court, the hearing officer’s decision to go forward with the disciplinary hearing in Toolasprashad's absence was arbitrary and capricious.

The Mari decision [Mari v Safir, 291 AD2d 298, motion for leave to appeal denied, 98 NY2d 613] sets out the general standards applied by the courts in resolving litigation resulting from conducting a disciplinary hearing in absentia.

The decision demonstrates that an individual against whom disciplinary charges have been filed cannot avoid the consequences of disciplinary action being taken against him or her by refusing to appear at the disciplinary hearing.

Conceding that Mari not present at the disciplinary hearing, the court said "a new hearing is not warranted." Unlike the issue in Toolasprashad, i.e., was the accused employee properly served, in Mari the Appellate Division pointed out that “[Mari] avoided service of the notice of the revised hearing date, and thereafter intentionally absented himself from the hearing."

The Toolasprashad decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_00419.htm

============================================
If you are interested in learning more about disciplinary procedures involving public officers and employees, please click here: http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/
============================================

Constitutionally protected speech

Constitutionally protected speech
Bradley v. James USCA, 8th Circuit, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 4781

In the course of an official investigation of an incident involving students in possession of firearms, Arch Bradley, a police captain, alleged that his chief of police chief, Larry James, was intoxicated while on duty at the time of the incident. As a result, Bradley was terminated from his position.*

Bradley sued, claiming that his speech was protected by the First Amendment and thus his termination was unconstitutional.

The Circuit Court disagreed; holding that Bradley’s statement concerning Chief James’ alleged intoxication was made in the context of his official duties – in the course of an official investigation of a law enforcement incident -- and therefore not constitutionally protected.

The legal issue, said the court, is essentially “did the employee speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern?” If the answer to the question is no, the employee does not have a First Amendment cause of action as a result of his or her employer’s taking adverse personnel action against the employee because of the speech.

Here, said the court, Bradley’s speech was made “pursuant to [his] official responsibilities.” As a police officer, Bradley had an official responsibility to cooperate with the investigation incident. His allegation that Chief James was intoxicated when the student incident occurred was made at no other time than during the subsequent investigation of that event. Thus, ruled the Circuit Court, Bradley’s speech was uttered in the course of his performing his official and professional duties. Accordingly, it was not constitutionally protected speech for the purposes of his First Amendment claim.

The Circuit Court affirmed the federal district court’s dismissal of Bradley’s complaint.

For the full text of the decision, go to:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/03/protected-speech.html

* Bradley was sent a letter that included the following statements: “Your inaction on February 6th and your unsubstantiated comments about Chief James are both terminable offenses.” The letter offered Bradley the opportunity to retire or be terminated. Bradley did not respond. Bradley was then sent a letter dismissing him from his position for “deliberate or gross neglect of duty” during the incident. Bradley’s allegation that Chief James was intoxicated at the time of the incident was not mentioned in the letter.

California’s Supreme Court confirms longstanding California rule concerning employee layoffs

California’s Supreme Court confirms longstanding California rule concerning employee layoffs
IAFF, Local 188 vs. Public Employment Relations Board [City of Richmond (Real Party in Interest),] California Supreme Court No. S172377

Source: Meyers Nave PLC. -- The Public Blog, posted at http://www.publiclawnews.com/public_law_news/2011/01/ -- Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, Meyers Nave. All rights reserved

"On Monday, January 24, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding an employer's duty to bargain under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act ("MMBA") in connection with layoffs. The opinion was authored by Acting Chief Justice Kennard, with a concurring and dissenting opinion filed by Justice Baxter.

"The Bottom Line: The Supreme Court simply affirmed a longstanding rule - that there is no duty to bargain over an employer's decision to layoff, but there is a duty to bargain over the implementation and effects of the decision. This has been the ongoing advice of labor attorneys for years. There is no new law in this decision that should cause public employers to change their practices.

"Discussion: Since approximately 1974, it has been the rule in California that public employers need not negotiate with labor unions about the decision to initiate layoffs. However, public employers must negotiate concerning the effects or impacts of the layoffs. The City of Richmond observed this advice in connection with firefighter layoffs, and the Fire Union claimed that the failure to negotiate constituted an unfair practice under the MMBA.

"This case affirms the rule. The Court expressly states: "We now reaffirm this rule. Under the MMBA, a local public entity that is faced with a decline in revenues or other financial adversity may unilaterally decide to lay off some of its employees to reduce its labor costs. In this situation, a public employer must, however, give its employees an opportunity to bargain over the implementation of the decision, including the number of employees to be laid off, and the timing of the layoffs, as well as the effects of the layoffs on the workload and safety of the remaining employees." (Op. at 19.)

"One additional aspect of the opinion is to define the criteria for permitting review of a decision by the [California] Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB"). The Court agreed with the court of appeal that when PERB refuses to issue a complaint under the MMBA, a superior court may review the decision by mandamus. The review is limited to determining "whether PERB's decision violates a constitutional right, exceeds a specific grant of authority, or is based on an erroneous statutory construction."

"Justice Baxter dissented from this portion of the opinion.

"For more information about this case or other labor and employment matters, contact Art Hartinger at 800.464.3559."