Selected summaries
of decisions alleging unlawful discrimination in violation of state
and, or, federal civil rights laws posted by New York Public Personnel Law.
Click on text to access the summary.
Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and possibly in other jurisdictions in general.
Selected summaries
of decisions alleging unlawful discrimination in violation of state
and, or, federal civil rights laws posted by New York Public Personnel Law.
Click on text to access the summary.
At issue here is whether Tier 3 police officers in the New York City Police Pension Fund (PPF) who otherwise might be eligible for retirement credit under the statutory provisions discussed in the decision may use those provisions to apply prior non-police service toward their eligibility for retirement.
The Court of Appeals held that they may not. The court noted that plain language of Retirement and Social Security Law §513(c)(2) limits eligible prior service for those officers to police service.
Accordingly the Court of Appeals concluded the proceeding should be dismissed.
Click HERE to access the Court of Appeals' decision posted on the Internet.
Certain civil service positions in the classified service are placed in the "exempt" class reflecting the duties of the position are of a confidential nature and requires personal qualities that cannot practicably be tested by an examination. Subject to certain exceptions set out in §75.1(b) of the Civil Service Law, incumbents of positions in the Exempt Class are terminable at will.
The issue before the court: A challenge to a provision in the relevant
collective bargaining agreement that, in the words of the Court of Appeals, "purports to provide for-cause termination
protection to certain exempt class employees."*
The Court held that provision in the agreement unenforceable to the extent it granted such protections to officers and employees in the Exempt Class except as otherwise provided by §75.1(b) of the Civil Service Law.
*Although not all exempt class employees are officers of the entity, all exempt class officers of the entity are employees of the entity.
Click HERE to access the decision of the Court of Appeals posted on the Internet.
Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition to vacate a determination of Respondents, which denied Plaintiff's application for World Trade Center Accidental Disability Retirement (WTC ADR) benefits, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling, without costs.
The Court of Appeals noted this was the third CPLR Article 78 proceeding brought by Plaintiff' seeking to vacate the denial of her application for WTC ADR benefits, based on her failure to demonstrate that she engaged in rescue, recovery and cleanup operations at the statutorily defined WTC site during the statutory period. The Court of Appeals had affirmed the denial of those benefits by Respondents in connection with the evidence submitted on her first two applications, Matter of Salerno v Kelly, 139 AD3d 516.
In support of her third attempt, Plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a retired colleague, stating that at the time of the terrorist attack, he was stationed with Plaintiff at the offices of the Internal Affairs Bureau. However, the location so identified "was outside the qualifying area."
Accordingly, said the Court, Respondents had a rational basis for denying Plaintiff's application, and for concluding that the colleague's affidavit was not persuasive, in light of the other contrary evidence, including overtime slips signed by Plaintiff indicating that she worked at IAB and/or command and control during the relevant period.
Click HERE to access the decision of the Court of Appeals posted on the Internet.
The Comptroller denied a State Trooper's [Petitioner] application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Petitioner had filed an application for accidental disability retirement alleging that he was permanently disabled due to, among other things, posttraumatic stress disorder resulting from an incident in which Petitioner shot a suspect who was driving a car at a high rate of speed towards the Petitioner.
Citing Matter of McGoey v DiNapoli, 194 AD3d 1296, the Appellate Division noted that the applicant, here the Petitioner, bore the burden of establishing that his disability was the result of an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and the Comptroller's determination on that point will be sustained "if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole substantial evidence."
In this instance, said the court, substantial evidence supports the Comptroller's determination that Petitioner's use of deadly force to protect himself from imminent danger, "although not typical, and certainly a traumatic experience, was inherent in his duties and training."
Applying the "inherent risk" principles set out by the Court of Appeals in Kelly v DiNapoli, 30 NY3d 674 and applied in Matter of Kowal v DiNapoli, 145 AD3d 1152, the Appellate Division opined that the Comptroller's determination that the incident at issue "did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §63-bb will not be disturbed."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.
Petitioner was served with a notice of discipline setting out six charges of misconduct alleging violations of the agency's rules, regulations and code of conduct. Petitioner denied the charges and demanded a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75. The Employer withdrew one of the six charges after the §75 disciplinary hearing. The Hearing Officer subsequently found Petitioner guilty of the five remaining charges and recommended that the Petitioner be terminated from his position. The Appointing Authority reviewed the record and Hearing Officer's recommendation, found Petitioner guilty of the five remaining charges of misconduct and terminated his employment. Petitioner appealed the Appointing Authority's decision.
The Appellate Division, opining that the five charges were supported by substantial evidence, explained:
1. New York State's Civil Service Law §75(1) provides an employee in the classified service of a public employer covered by the statute "shall not be removed or otherwise subjected to any disciplinary penalty except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges"; and
2. "The standard of review of such a determination made after a disciplinary hearing is whether it is supported by substantial evidence."
Turning to Petitioner's challenging the penalty imposed, of termination of his employment, as "excessive", the Appellate Division said in determining whether an imposed disciplinary penalty is excessive, "this Court must consider whether, in light of all the relevant circumstances, the penalty is so disproportionate to the charged offenses as to shock one's sense of fairness",* citing Matter of Scuderi-Hunter v County of Delaware, 202 AD3d at 1317.
The court, recognizing that Petitioner had been employed by the Appointing Authority "for nearly 25 years with no prior disciplinary issues and that he submitted 15 letters by individuals acclaiming their belief in his good character," said "sexual harassment in the work place is among the most offensive and demeaning torments an employee can undergo.'"
Noting that the record "establishes numerous incidents of sexual harassment" by Petitioner, the Appellate Division said: it "cannot conclude that the penalty of termination was so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness".
* A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances. The text of this NYPPL e-book focuses on court decisions addressing disciplinary penalties imposed on employees in the public service in instances where the individual has been found guilty of misconduct and, or, incompetence. For more information click HERE.
Click HERE to access the full text of the Appellate Division's ruling summarized above.