An employee may be subjected to disciplinary action for misusing his or her sick leave accruals

An employee may be subjected to disciplinary action for misusing his or her sick leave accruals

1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision 11,111

2. NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH], OATH Index No. 1468/17

Typically "attendance rules" for public employees permit the employee use his or her sick leave accruals to absent himself or herself from work in the event of personal illness, to care for a family member, including an opposite sex or a same-sex partner or a same-sex spouse, who is ill, for medical appointments, obtaining and training a medical service animal, in connection with pregnancy and other medical situations.

Some jurisdictions permit an employee to absent himself or herself from work without charge to leave credits in the event he or she is subjected to a "medical quarantine" while the availability and use of paid sick leave, sick leave at one-half pay and sick leave without pay by employees in a "collective bargaining unit" pursuant to an employer's "attendance rules" may be subject to provisions set out in a collective bargaining agreement. 

In any event, disciplinary action may be taken being taken against the employee who misuses his or her sick leave benefits.

For example, in Decisions of the Commissioner of Education #11,111, a teacher appealed a disciplinary hearing panel's finding her found guilty of "falsifying records" based on her misusing "family sick leave" benefits and suspending her without pay for nine and one half months.

The panel had found that the teacher had absented herself from work, charging her absence to her sick leave credits for an alleged “family illness” for three days immediately preceding the school district’s spring recess. The teacher, however, chanced to meet her principal at an "out of state" vacation site that they both were visiting on one of the days she had charged to her “family sick leave” leave credits. 

In OATH Index No. 1468/17 OATH Administrative Law Judge John B. Spooner found that a special officer violated his employer's rules when he absented himself from work for seven days using his sick leave accruals in order to remain on the payroll while attending "paid training sessions" being given by a private security company.

Judge Spooner rejected the officer’s claim that he was not working for the private company when he attended its training sessions, explaining that the officer’s signature on a letter accepting a position with the private company and his attending its required pre-employment training program constituted the commencement of an employment relationship with the company.

The judge also sustained charges alleging that the officer disobeyed instructions not to engage in  "outside work" without the prior approval of the Agency.

The ALJ recommended that the officer be terminated from his position with the Agency.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/17_cases/17-1468.pdf.pdf

Town Clerk arrested for allegedly attempting to "boost" her retirement benefits

Town Clerk arrested for allegedly attempting to "boost" her retirement benefits

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reports that Springport Town Clerk Deborah Waldron has been arrested for allegedly trespassing on a town computer in an effort to boost her retirement benefits with the New York State and Local Retirement System.

The Comptroller's audits and investigations have led to over 130 arrests and more than $30 million in restitutions.

Comptroller DiNapoli’s investigations focusing on allegations of retirement fraud alone has led to 24 arrests and the recovery of nearly $3 million in retirement funds since 2011.

Fighting such corruption is among the Comptroller's top priorities and in 2011 he, together with New York State Attorney General Schneiderman, created the Operation Integrity task force. The work of this task force has led to the recovery of unlawfully diverted taxpayer dollars. Among those convicted as the results of these efforts are former State Sen. Shirley Huntley for activities involving "member fraud;" of former Member of the Assembly William Scarborough for campaign and travel fraud; and of six Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty executives involving a multi-million dollar embezzlement.

The Comptroller's press release concerning Waldron's arrest is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/may17/051917a.htm?utm_source=weekly+news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=corruption&utm_content=20170521&utm_campaign=fiscal+oversight

U. S. Supreme Court decision provides some clarification concerning the legal standard applicable to students with a disability receiving an appropriate public education

U. S. Supreme Court decision provides some clarification concerning the legal standard applicable to students with a disability receiving an appropriate public education

Source: New York Municipalities Blog, Harris Beach, PLLC

On March 22, 2017, in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling focusing on the appropriate legal standard when determining if  a student with a disability is receiving an appropriate free public education (FAPE) via the student's individualized education program (IEP).

The New York Municipalities Blog item is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.harrisbeach.com/new-york-municipalities-blog/fape-standard-ieps-clarification-attempted-supreme-court/

The Supreme Court's decision is posted on the Internet at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf

An employee's failure to use the grievance procedure set out in the relevant collective bargaining agreement before commencing an Article 78 action may not be excused by the court

An employee's failure to use the grievance procedure set out in the relevant collective bargaining agreement before commencing an Article 78 action may not be excused by the court
Finkelstein v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 03850, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court annulled the New York City's Board of Education's [BOE] discontinuing Petitioner's probationary employment and ordered BOE to reinstate Petitioner to her former position "with full salary and benefits retroactive to September 30, 2014."

The Appellate Division unanimously vacated the Supreme Court's ruling, "on the law" with respect to Petitioner's reinstatement to her former position and payment of "full salary and benefits," but, citing Tucker  v Board of Educ., Community School Dist. No. 10, 82 NY2d 274, found that Petitioner was entitled to nine days' pay because she was given inadequate notice of her termination.

The court explained that Petitioner failed to avail herself of the grievance procedure set forth in her collective bargaining agreement before commencing the instant action seeking relief under CPLR Article 78 and thus Supreme Court "erred in relieving [Petitioner] of her obligation to exhaust her administrative remedies."*

In any event, said the court, a probationary employee may be terminated for "almost any reason, or for no reason at all," as long as it is not "in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason." Upon such termination "[T]he burden falls squarely on the petitioner to demonstrate, by competent proof, that a substantial issue of bad faith exists, or that the termination was for an improper or impermissible reason, and mere speculation, or bald, conclusory allegations are insufficient to shoulder this burden."

In this instance the Appellate Division found that the record indicated that Petitioner's dismissal was made in good faith and was based on substantiated findings after an independent investigation demonstrating that she neglected her duties and falsified records.

As to Petitioner's claim of the investigator's delay in publishing the written report concerning the matter, the court said that such delay "amounted to a mere technical violation of the collective bargaining agreement," as Petitioner had received timely notice of the allegations, as well as an opportunity to respond, prior to the issuance of the report. The Appellate Division then opined that Supreme Court's "conclusion of bad faith stemming from the lateness of the report was purely speculative."

* However, as the Appellate Division held in Amorosano-LePore v Grant, 56 AD3d 663, the employee's exhaustion of his or her administrative remedies is not required where his or her so doing would constitute an exercise in futility.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_03850.htm

An agency investigating a particular complaint on behalf of an employee may not, without prior notice to the employer, make broad findings of fact involving the employer's "over-all operations" and impose sanctions

An agency investigating a particular complaint on behalf of an employee may not, without prior notice to the employer, make broad findings of fact involving the employer's "over-all operations" and impose sanctions

MTA Bus Co. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2017 NY Slip Op 03903, Appellate Division, First Department

The New York State Division of Human Rights [SDHR] found that the MTA's policy of disqualifying all employees with bipolar disorder from working as a bus operator was an unlawful discriminatory act. The Division order MTA to pay a civil fine and penalty of $30,000. MTA appealed and the Appellate Division unanimously annulled the Division's decision and dismissed the complaint.

The Appellate Division noted that the record demonstrates, and the SDHR determined, that the "employee complainant" [Complainant], a bus operator, was placed on restricted duty for reasons unrelated to his alleged disability of bipolar disorder and ultimately terminated from his position. The record also indicated that Complainant had a "reckless driving record and that MTA dismissed him for his conduct in vandalizing three buses in passenger service." The court held that MTA "was justified" in terminating Complainant.

The court, however, said that rather than dismissing the complaint, SDHR proceeded to conclude that "[b]ecause MTA has a blanket policy disqualifying all employees with bipolar disorder from being appointed to, or remaining in, the Bus Operator position and passenger service, and because [MTA] does not individually assess the ability of those with bipolar disorder to perform the essential functions of the job, [MTA's] policy violates the Human Rights Law."

SDHR had not advised MTA that its policies with respect to the employment of individuals with a bipolar disorder were going to be reviewed. Such failure on the part of SDHR, said the court, denied MTA its right to due process.

The Appellate Division explained that although SDHR, its own motion, may investigate and file a complaint alleging discriminatory practices, it did not do in this instance. Rather, while investigating the bus operator's complaint, which was filed solely on his behalf and found that he had not been discriminated against, SDHR could not "and at the same time," make broad findings of fact and impose broad sanctions pertaining to MTA's "over-all operations."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_03903.htm

An employee's unreasonable failure to use an employer-provided preventive or remedial apparatus bars the consideration of his or her complaints of unlawful discrimination

An employee's unreasonable failure to use an employer-provided preventive or remedial apparatus bars the consideration of his or her complaints of unlawful discrimination

Magnusson v. County of Suffolk, et al., USCA, 2nd Circuit, Docket #16-1876-cv

This civil rights action brought pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1983 was founded on allegations of sexual harassment and sexual orientation harassment.*

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, however, did not reach the merits of the question of whether the County’s conduct constituted sex discrimination would constitute a violations of Title VII and, or, 42 U.S.C. §1983 because the Plaintiff, Arline Magnusson, "failed to follow the County’s internal grievance procedures" available to her.

The Circuit Court explained that “An employer may defend against [a hostile work environment claim] by showing both (1) that it had installed a readily accessible and effective policy for reporting and resolving complaints of sexual harassment, and (2) that [Magnusson] unreasonably failed to avail herself of that employer-provided preventive or remedial apparatus.”

The federal district court's decision indicated that "the County maintained a sexual harassment policy for the entire term of [Magnusson] employment" and that Magnusson had received documents instructing her on the Department of Public Work's [DPW] sexual harassment reporting procedures from both the DPW and her own union.  

Magnusson, however, had never provided appropriate County employees with any notice of the alleged incidents of harassment before initiating her action with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Accordingly, even if Magnusson had an otherwise viable hostile work environment claim, the County was protected from Title VII liability by successfully advancing such an affirmative defense.

Although there are instances where an employee’s failure to report sexual harassment can be excused if the employee has a credible fear of retaliation or believes that the complaint would be futile, based on the record the Circuit Court concluded that Magnusson's "conclusory assertions that she feared retaliation or that complaining would be futile fail as a matter of law to constitute sufficient evidence to establish that her fear was ‘credible.'"

Addressing Magnusson 's equal protection claim, the Circuit Court said it agreed with the district court that Magnusson "does not have a viable hostile work environment claim under §1983."

According to the Circuit Court's ruling, the incidents that Magnusson alleged in her complaint had occurred in 2003 and 2012. While presumably inappropriate incidents, the court observed that they had occurred nine years apart and the Magnusson failed to present evidence that these incidents unreasonably interfered with her job performance.

Accordingly, the Circuit Court ruled that Magnusson did not have a viable hostile work environment claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

* The court noted that Magnusson's Title VII sexual orientation harassment complaints were timely but that such allegations under §1983 were untimely.

The decision is posted on the Internet at"

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b88edb38-3438-4fd4-b25e-6daea280f646/1/doc/16-1876_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/b88edb38-3438-4fd4-b25e-6daea280f646/1/hilite/

The basis for challenging a decision by a civil service commission are limited

The basis for challenging a decision by a civil service commission are limited

Agbai v New York City Civ. Serv. Commn., 2017 NY Slip Op 03699, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court granted the NYC Civil Service Commission's motion dismissing a CPLR Article 78 petition seeking to vacate a determination by the Commission the terminated the petitioner's [Petitioner] employment as a New York City correction officer.

The Appellate Division explained that the New York City Civil Service Commission is subject to judicial review only if "the agency has acted illegally, unconstitutionally, or in excess of its jurisdiction," citing New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection v New York City Civ. Serv. Commn., 78 NY2d 318.

Supreme Court, said the Appellate Division, "properly rejected Petitioner's argument that the Administrative Law Judge did not have the authority and jurisdiction to conduct the challenged disciplinary hearing."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_03699.htm