Supplemental military leave benefits for certain New York State employees extended

 On August 13, 2025, the New York State Department of Civil Service posted the item set out below on the Internet: 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION Supplemental Military Leave Benefits,  

I.D. No. CVS-18-25-00006-A Filing No. 689 

Filing Date: 2025-07-25 Effective Date: 2025-08-13 

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Procedure Act, NOTICE is hereby given of the following action: 

Action taken: Amendment of sections 21.15 and 28-1.17 of Title 4 NYCRR, Statutory authority: Civil Service Law, section 6(1) 

Subject: Supplemental military leave benefits. 

Purpose: To extend the availability of supplemental military leave benefits for certain New York State employees until December 31, 2025. 

Published in the May 7, 2025 issue of the Register, I.D. No. CVS-18-25-00006-P. 

Final rule as compared with last published rule: No changes. 

The text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from: Jennifer Paul, NYS Department of Civil Service, Empire State Plaza, Agency Building 1, Albany, NY 12239, (518) 473-6598, email: commops@cs.ny.gov

Assessment of Public Comment: The agency received no public comment.

Plaintiff's efforts to vacate a determination of a hearing officer made pursuant to Education Law §3020-a rejected

A former teacher [Plaintiff], terminated by the New York City Department of Education [DOE] after "notice and hearing" pursuant Education Law §3020-a, initiated an action pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR challenging the decision and recommendation of an arbitrator that resulted in Plaintiff's termination as an employee of DOE. Supreme Court, however, granted DOE's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition, which ruling was affirmed by the Appellate Division, with costs.

Petitioner, then a tenured teacher employed by DOE, was terminated after being found guilty of charges of misconduct and neglect of duty.  The Education Law §3020-a hearing officer issued a written determination sustaining most of the specifications alleged by the DOE and recommended the Plaintiff be terminated from employment, which findings and recommendation were adopted by DOE.

Citing Matter of Waldren v Town of Islip, 6 NY3d 735, and other court decisions, the Appellate Division explained that a court may set aside an administrative penalty only if "it is so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness". Opining that "reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for . . . refashioning the penalty". The Appellate Division also noted that "A penalty should not be set aside where it is not irrational and does not shock the conscience."

As the question of whether the penalty "is so disproportionate to the misconduct as to shock the conscience requires a case by case factual analysis", the Appellate Division concluded that "in light of all of the circumstances of this case", the penalty of termination in the instant matter was "not irrational and does not shock the conscience".

As to Petitioner's contentions that the hearing officer's determination must be vacated because the arbitration did not conform to the procedures set forth in Education Law §3020-a or in the collective bargaining agreement, the Appellate Division ruled that such argument were "waived, as these issues were not raised at the arbitration hearing."

Accordingly, the Appellate Division found that "Supreme Court properly granted DOE's motion" to dismiss Plaintiff's CPLR Article 75 appeal.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

On August 12, 2025 Governor Kathy Hochul announced she had appointed Freida D. Foster as Chair of the New York State Workers' Compensation Board and has appointed Renee Delgado, Esq. to serve as Vice Chair of Workers’ Compensation Board

Governor Kathy Hochul appointed Freida D. Foster as Chair of the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). Ms. Foster has been a Board member since 2009 and Vice Chair since 2016. Former Chair Clarissa M. Rodriguez, Esq. stepped down from her role as Chair in July and will continue to serve as Board Member. Board Member Renee Delgado, Esq. has been appointed Vice Chair. Governor Hochul appointed Ms. Delgado as Board Member in 2022.

“New Yorkers deserve trusted, well-experienced individuals serving them and putting their best interests forward,” Governor Hochul said. “I look forward to working with Chair Foster and Vice Chair Delgado in their new capacities as the Board continues their work in protecting the rights of employees and employers and ensuring our workers get the benefits they need.”

WCB Board Chair Freida D. Foster
Governor Hochul’s appointee for the position of Chair of the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board is Ms. Foster. In the 16 years she has served on the WCB, Ms. Foster has reviewed tens of thousands of workers’ compensation appeals and helped the agency’s efforts to modernize its systems and processes. She also had an important role in implementing NYS Paid Family Leave and assisting the Chair with overall day-to-day oversight and management of the agency and the Full Board.

New York State Workers’ Compensation Board Chair Freida D. Foster said, “I am deeply grateful for the support from Governor Hochul and her executive team, as well as the incredible leadership team at the Board. I am honored to serve under this historic administration and look forward to building on the many important achievements made under the leadership of Chair Rodriguez.”

Ms. Foster has decades of professional experience in the areas of education, government/civic service, and public relations. Prior to joining the Workers' Compensation Board, Ms. Foster was a Public Relations Manager at Burson-Marsteller, where she was the Manager for largest account in the firm, Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and organized the city-wide education campaign for NYC’s voting system transition from manual to electronic machines.

Ms. Foster has held membership on several boards, all with a focus on community and/or civic service as well as student leadership. She currently serves as Chair of the Harlem Community Development Corporation Board of Directors and for the CUNY School of Public Health Advisory Board. Additionally, she sits on the Community Advisory Board for Channel Thirteen/WLIW. She previously served as a Trustee for the City University of New York (2006-16), helping oversee campus management.

A lifelong Harlem resident, Ms. Foster holds an MS in Corporate Communications from the University of Wisconsin and a BA in Communications from Hofstra University.

WCB Vice Chair Renee Delgado
Governor Hochul’s appointee for the position of Vice Chair is Board Member Renee Delgado, who has been serving on the WCB since 2022 and has devoted much of her career to advocating for workers' rights. An experienced attorney, Vice Chair Delgado worked for 14 years at the New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO (PEF) before joining the Board, holding various titles including Associate Counsel, Director of Contract Administration, and General Counsel. Renee has also worked as a Special Assistant in the Counsel's Office at the New York State Department of Labor, as Assistant Director of Legal Services at the SUNY Colleges of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, as Assistant District Attorney in Queens County and Albany County, and as a legislative aide in the New York State Assembly.

New York State Workers’ Compensation Board Vice Chair Renee Delgado said, “I am honored to be appointed Vice Chair of the NYS Workers’ Compensation Board and thank Governor Hochul for the opportunity to serve our great state. I look forward to working with Chair Foster to deliver a fair and efficient system that protects the rights of injured workers and employers.”

Ms. Delgado holds a juris doctorate from the CUNY School of Law at Queens College, a master's degree in criminal justice from John Jay College in Manhattan, and a bachelor's degree from SUNY Albany.

An award of attorneys' fees must be authorized by agreement between the parties, by statute, or by court rule

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Education [DOE] which denied the Petitioner's request for a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, DOE appealed an order of the Supreme Court which:

1. Granted the Plaintiff's petition;

2. Directed that the Petitioner be reinstated to her full employment status; and

3. Awarded the Petitioner $90,555.63 in back pay; and

4. Awarded the Petitioner $31,095 in attorneys' fees.

In response to the COVID-19 epidemic the  New York City Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene issued a mandate requiring all DOE employees to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. Such mandate was subsequently amended to provide that [nothing] in this [mandate] shall be construed to prohibit any reasonable accommodations otherwise required by law."

Pursuant to an arbitration award between DOE and the Petitioner's union Petitioner was placed on leave without pay while remaining eligible for health benefits and "given the option to comply with the vaccine mandate, retire, resign, or remain on unpaid leave with health benefits until September 6, 2022". Petitioner elected to extend her leave without pay through September 6, 2022 and signed a release and waiver to that effect which provided, in part, "I understand that if I have not returned by September 6, 2022, I shall be deemed to have voluntarily resigned and knowingly waive my rights to challenge such resignation."

On August 19, 2022, Petitioner submitted a request for a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate which DOE denied Petitioner's  request, finding that her application failed to meet the criteria for a religious-based accommodation. The denial did not mention the waiver.

Petitioner remained on leave without pay and retained her health benefits through September 6, 2022 but as she did not return to work by September 6, 2022, DOE deemed that, pursuant to the terms of the waiver and the arbitration award, she had voluntarily resigned as of September 6, 2022.

Subsequently Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, challenging DOE's denial of her request for a religious exemption and seeking reinstatement to her position as a teacher and an award of back pay and attorneys' fees. Supreme Court the petition be granted and that the Petitioner be reinstated to her full employment status. In addition Supreme Court found:

a. Petitioner was entitled to a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate; and

b. Awarded Petitioner the principal of sum of $90,555.63 in back pay;  and 

c. The sum of $31,095 in attorneys' fees. 

DOE appealed from both the Supreme Court's order and the judgment.

The Appellate Division held that DOE's appeal from the order must be dismissed "as no appeal lies as of right from an intermediate order entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 [citing CPLR 5701[b][1])] and any possibility of taking a direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the proceeding."

Although DOE contended that the waiver expressly precludes the Petitioner's claims in this proceeding and, therefore, the proceeding should have been dismissed, the Appellate Division opined that "The waiver at issue is a contract, and its  construction is governed by contract law [and] A court's fundamental objective in interpreting a contract is to determine the parties' intent from the language employed and to fulfill their reasonable expectations".

However, as acknowledged by DOE, the Appellate Division observed Petitioner's "contractual promise not to challenge her resignation was not a waiver of her right to seek an accommodation", and thus it follows that Petitioner did waive her right to seek a religious exemption. 

The Appellate Division explained "The clear terms of the waiver, as premised on the arbitration award, permitted the [Petitioner] to comply with the vaccine mandate and return to work by September 6, 2022. One way to comply with the vaccine mandate was for the [Petitioner] to get vaccinated. Another was to successfully obtain a religious exemption and reasonable accommodation" and the amendment to the vaccine mandate earlier noted did not bar individual from seeking reasonable accommodations. 

Noting that had Petitioner had successfully obtained an exemption and concomitant accommodation during the applicable time period, she would have been in compliance with the vaccine mandate and been able to return to work. In the words of the Appellate Division, "contrary to DOE's position, the waiver did not preclude this proceeding to challenge DOE's denial of the [Petitioner's] request for a religious exemption".

In its appeal DOE did not challenge the Supreme Court's determination that DOE's denial of the petitioner's request for a religious exemption was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, as per Supreme Court's determination, prior to September 6, 2022, the Petitioner was entitled to a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate, and DOE does not contest that determination on this appeal. Accordingly, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination in this regard.

However, the Appellate Division further held that because an award of attorneys' fees was  not authorized by an agreement between the parties, by statute, or by court rule, "the Supreme Court improperly awarded attorneys' fees to the [Petitioner]."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Lack of evidence in the record that the employer was aware of the employee's disability when denying a request for reasonable accommodation bars a court's summary judgment dismissing the employee's complaint

In an action to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL], Plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court order granting the Employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision "on the law, with costs", and denied the Employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff, a custodial worker, requested reassignment to a custodial position in one of the Employer's senior citizens centers as a reasonable accommodation of his disability. In response to the Plaintiff's request, Employer told Plaintiff "it was currently unable to provide the requested accommodation, as [granting] the request would require the [Plaintiff] to be permanently excused from performing the essential functions of his position".

Citing Executive Law §296[a], the Appellate Division observed that the NYSHRL prohibits discrimination in employment based on, among other prohibitions, disability. In particular, the Appellate Division noted that if a reasonable accommodation would permit the employee to perform the essential functions of the employee's position and the employee has a disability' within the meaning of the statute, "the employer cannot disadvantage the employee based on that disability".

As a reasonable accommodations includes "reassignment to an available position", an employer normally cannot obtain summary judgment on an employment discrimination claim based on disability pursuant to NYSHRL "unless the record demonstrates that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the employer duly considered the requested accommodation," and the employer cannot present such a record "if the employer has not engaged in interactions with the employee revealing at least some deliberation upon the viability of the employee's request".

In this instance the Employer failed to establish, prima facie, that it engaged in a good-faith interactive process that assessed the needs of the Plaintiff and the reasonableness of his requested accommodation. 

In the words of the court, "There is no evidence in the record that the [Employer] was aware of the [Plaintiff's] condition when [it] made [the] determination or that the [Employer] considered the accommodation that the [Plaintiff] was requesting to be reassigned to the position of a custodian at one of the [Employer's] senior  citizens centers". 

In particular, the Appellate Division noted the record showed:

1. The Employer testified that he had no memory of meeting with the Plaintiff to discuss his request for an accommodation;

2. The Employer testified that he did not know that the Plaintiff's request for an accommodation concerned psoriatic arthritis;

3. The Employer did not know the limitations typically associated with that condition; 

4. The Employer did not know the limitations that the condition allegedly caused the Plaintiff to suffer; and

5. The Employer testified that he did not speak with the Plaintiff's physician and did not recall reviewing any of the information that the physician provided to the Employer concerning the Plaintiff.

According, the Appellate Division held that the Employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint should have been denied by Supreme Court without regard to the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's opposition papers.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Selected items from various blogs posted during the week ending August 8, 2025

 

Think Universal Child Care Can't Be Done? Keep an Eye on What NYC Is Doing The city’s movement toward free care for kids up to age 2 could be a gamechanger with national implications. And it’s a sign of the growing political strength of working parents. READ MORE How Artificial Intelligence Transforms the Constituent Experience in Government This paper explores how AI is transforming constituent services in state and local government by streamlining operations, improving accessibility, and enhancing public trust. Through real-world examples, it offers practical guidance for implementing scalable, people-centered AI solutions that deliver measurable impact. DOWNLOAD  A Government Playbook to Prepare for the Next Wave of AI Innovation Many state and local governments are advancing their AI maturity, progressing from basic, prompt-based AI to more sophisticated generative AI and early agentic AI implementations. But as governments accelerate AI adoption, they still face several governance challenges. Download this guide to find out how your agency can move forward and capitalize on the next wave of AI innovation. DOWNLOAD Rethinking Digital Access: How Public Sector Agencies Are Solving Digital Identity at Scale  Learn how public agencies are making digital services easier to access, more secure, and more inclusive through smarter identity management. This guide explores the real-world impact of modern Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM) solutions, including reduced abandonment rates, stronger compliance, and better service access for all users—regardless of device, location, or digital literacy. DOWNLOAD  A Government Playbook to Prepare for the Next Wave of AI Innovation Many state and local governments are advancing their AI maturity, progressing from basic, prompt-based AI to more  sophisticated generative AI and early agentic AI implementations. But as governments accelerate AI adoption, they still face several governance challenges. Download this guide to find out how your agency can move forward and capitalize on the next wave of AI innovative. DOWNLOAD Exposing Organized Fraud Patterns in Government Programs  The message is clear: Fraudsters are attacking government programs with relentless speed, using stolen and fake identities, across state borders and within agencies, often driven by complex crime networks that are difficult to entirely track down and stop. READ MORE Get your AI benchmark and take action! Discover your agency’s AI readiness in just 5 questions — identify roadblocks and know where you stand. Reveal My AI Score!

State Comptroller DiNapoli Releases Municipal and School Audits

On August 7, 2025, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli  announced the following local government and school audits were issued.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the audit of interest.

Town of Pound Ridge – Procurement and Claims Auditing (Westchester County)

Town officials did not procure all goods and services in accordance with board policy and applicable statutory requirements. As a result, officials cannot support that all goods and services were procured in the most cost-effective manner, which may have resulted in higher operational costs that would be passed onto taxpayers. The board also did not always properly audit claims before approving them for payment. For example, town officials did not seek competition or maintain supporting documentation for 28 purchases totaling $745,372. In addition, 48 claims totaling $299,716 were not properly audited by the board before payment and 226 credit card purchases totaling $54,359 did not have supporting documentation such as receipts or itemized invoices.

Otisco Fire District – Financial Activities (Onondaga County)

We conducted an audit of the district’s financial management procedures and issued a report in February 2017 that identified certain conditions and opportunities for the board’s review and consideration. We returned to the district in July 2024 to conduct an audit follow-up review. Based on our review, the district made no progress in implementing corrective action. Of the three audit recommendations, two recommendations were not implemented, and one recommendation was not applicable for the period that we reviewed. During the course of our audit follow-up, we identified additional deficiencies in the district’s accounting records and procedures that resulted in a determination for a more comprehensive review. As such, we engaged the district in this separate audit.

Our audit determined that the board did not ensure that the treasurer was properly accounting for district collections and depositing funds in a timely manner, and the board and treasurer did not ensure disbursements were properly supported and authorized and that periodic financial information reported to the board was sufficient or accurate. Auditors determined that 12 collections totaling $425,202 were not deposited in a timely manner (averaging 154 days late), including two deposits totaling $22,143 that were made more than a year and a half late; eight collections totaling $24,453 were not recorded accurately; 11 claims totaling $130,435 were not approved by the board prior to payment; and 26 claims totaling $19,479 lacked adequate supporting documentation. In addition, the treasurer’s financial reports to the board were not accurate and supported by the accounting records. For example, the treasurer reported $53,424 less cash than was in the district’s bank accounts. Bank reconciliations included questionable reconciling items and were not provided to or reviewed by the board. The treasurer also did not provide financial records to the board for the annual audit, and the board did not request the treasurer’s financial records annually for audit.

Bayport-Blue Point Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Suffolk County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health regulations. Auditors determined 39 of the 312 (13%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. This occurred because district officials did not have complete sampling and remedial action plans that identified all water outlets for sampling or which water outlets they specifically exempted from sampling. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 39 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it. Of the 470 water outlets the district sampled for testing, 120 (26%) exceeded the lead action level. Auditors reviewed 25 of the water outlets with actionable lead levels and determined that 11 (44%) were not retested and effective controls were not implemented to prevent them from being used for cooking or drinking. District officials did not always report laboratory testing results to all parties or within the required time periods and did not notify staff, parents and/or guardians of the results in writing, as required. Finally, officials posted the test results of the potable water outlet sampling on the district’s website five weeks late.

Harpursville Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Broome County/Chenango County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health regulations. Auditors determined 24 of the 197 (12%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. Further, officials could not provide documentation that they notified staff, parents and/or guardians in writing of the testing results identifying that 37 out of 189 (20%) sampled water outlets exceeded the lead action level, as required. Finally, the district did not post the test results of the resampled potable water outlets on their website.

Oxford Academy and Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Chenango County)

District officials did not properly identify all potable water outlets for sampling or exemption as required by state law and Department of Health regulations. Auditors determined 173 of the 310 (56%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. None of the 40 water outlets the district sampled for testing exceeded the lead action level and district officials reported all testing results to the necessary parties in the required time periods and posted these results on their website as required.

Tupper Lake Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (S9-25-14) (Franklin County/St. Lawrence County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health regulations. Auditors determined 156 of the 310 (50%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. Of the 105 water outlets the district sampled for testing, 22 water outlets exceeded the lead action level. Auditors determined that 14 of these 22 outlets (64%) with actionable lead levels were still in service without a test showing they were now below the lead action level or effective controls to prevent them from being used. District officials did not ensure that the test results exceeding the lead action level were directly reported to the local health department within one business day. Additionally, district officials did not notify staff, parents and/or guardians of the test results exceeding the lead action level in writing within 10 business days, as required, or post the test results of all potable water outlet sampling and testing on the district’s website.

Johnstown City School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Fulton County/Montgomery County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health regulations. Auditors determined 95 of the 264 (36%) water outlets identified at select areas were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials. Of the 273 water outlets the district sampled for testing, 12 water outlets exceeded the lead action level. Auditors determined four of these 12 outlets with actionable lead levels were still in service, were not retested and effective controls were not implemented to prevent them from being used. Two of the water outlets were located in classrooms, one in a bathroom, and the other at a kitchen sink. Although district officials notified the local health department about the lead action exceedances resulting from tests, they did not notify staff, parents and/or guardians of these results in writing, as required. Further, they only posted details on their website of the water outlets that tested above the lead action level and remedial action taken, not the full testing results as required.

Poland Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Hamilton County/Herkimer County/Oneida County)

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health regulations. District officials were unable to determine which of the 176 water outlets auditors identified at select areas were sampled for testing. Therefore, auditors determined 132 of the 176 (75%) water outlets identified were not properly secured against use. Further, although 28 of the 129 water outlets that the district sampled and tested exceeded the lead action level, because district officials could not identify which water outlets exceeded the lead action level, and because there was no information on the lead levels of the 132 water outlets that auditors determined were not properly secured against use, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan. Although district officials learned on Dec. 22, 2020 that 28 water outlets exceeded the lead action level, as of the conclusion of our fieldwork on March 21, 2025, officials had not performed any remedial action on the 28 water outlets that exceeded the lead action level. Although the former director of facilities had a remedial action plan that described what remedial actions were planned or enacted for water outlets that tested above the lead action level, auditors were unable to determine whether such actions were implemented because current district officials could not identify the water outlets’ locations. District officials did not report exceedances directly to the local health department and did not have any documentation to support that staff, parents and/or guardians were notified of the exceedances in writing. Also, district officials did not always post results on the website and when they did, auditors were unable to determine if they had done so within the required time period.