Commissioner of Education no longer has jurisdiction to determine the merits of disciplinary charges served on a tenured teacher
Appeal of Nicola A. DeMarco from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding disciplinary charges, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, No. 15,850,
Nicola A. DeMarco, a tenured teacher employed by the New York City Department of Education [DOE], was served with disciplinary charges initiated by his principal at Louis Armstrong Middle School.
DeMarco demanded a hearing on the charges to be conducted by a three-member panel* pursuant to Education Law §3020-a, and also demanded dismissal of the charges on the ground that “disciplinary charges pursuant to §3020-a may not be initiated by a principal without review and approval by higher authority.”
DOE refused DeMarco’s demands on the grounds that it had adopted alternate disciplinary procedures as authorized by Education Law §3020(4);** its agreement with the United Federation of Teachers did not provide for three-member disciplinary panels; and … the authority to initiate disciplinary charges had been properly delegated to principals by the Community Superintendent of Community School District involved.
The Commission dismissed DeMarco’s appeal for lack of personal jurisdiction after finding that DeMarco had not served the only agent authorized to accept service of his appeal on behalf of the DOE, the Office of the Corporation Counsel.
In addition, the Commissioner said that DeMarco’s appeal had to be dismissed because, as Commissioner, he no longer had subject matter jurisdiction. Education Law §3020-a was substantially amended in 1994 and the Commissioner no longer had jurisdiction to review either final or nonfinal determinations by disciplinary hearing officers.
The amendment, said the Commissioner, “specifically gives the hearing officer authority to hear and decide all motions, including, but not limited to, motions to dismiss disciplinary charges, citing Education Law §3020-a[c][iii] and [iv].” Accordingly, concluded the Commissioner, DeMarco’s request that he dismiss the charges would require a review of the merits, which review was no longer within his jurisdiction.
* §3020-a.2(c) provides that in the event the disciplinary charges concern pedagogical incompetence or issues involving pedagogical judgment, the educator may elect to have the hearing conducted by either a single hearing officer or a three-member panel. All other charges are to be heard by a single hearing officer.
** As the Court of Appeals indicated in Antinore v State, 40 NY2d 6, a collective bargaining agreement may provide for alternatives to the statutory provisions provided such modifications are consistent with administrative due process.
The full text of the Commissioners decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume48/d15850.htm
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 in other jurisdictions in general.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL
July 26, 2010
July 23, 2010
Applying the Rule of Three when there are tied scores involved
Applying the Rule of Three when there are tied scores involved
Source: A Google Alert received by NYPPL
A "Google Alert" received by NYPPL via the Internet concerned applying the Rule of Three set out in §61.1 of the Civil Service Law based on the following facts:
“I scored a 100 on a New York State civil service promotional exam. There were 7 openings for supervisor. Five candidates scored a 100. One of the four declined the promotional opportunity. The promotions were given to two eligibles who scored 100, four eligibles who scored 95, and one eligible who scored a 90.
“I am familiar with the "rule of three" and have researched New York State Civil Law, NYS CSL 61.1 in particular. Every example that is given refers to a situation in which one promotional opportunity is available. For example, if one eligible scores 100, one eligible scores 95, and one eligible scores 90, and all the other candidates score lower than 90, the rule of three means that the eligible who scored the 90 can be given the promotion over the two eligibles who scored higher that he/she did.
“However, I did not come across an example of how the rule of three would work when more than one position is available.”
NYPPL’s response:*
Considering the application of the Rule of Three on a “step-by-step basis,” the Rule of Three “works” as follows:
1. As to the five candidates receiving a score of 100, as one has declined, the four remaining eligibles are certified. Two are appointed, resulting in five vacancies yet remaining to which appointments may be made.**
2. The next group of candidates eligible for selection for appointment would consist of the two remaining candidates scoring 100 plus the four eligibles that received a score of 95, a total of six eligibles. The four eligibles attaining a score of 95 are appointed, leaving one vacancy yet to fill.
3. The next group of candidates eligible for selection for appointment would consist of the two candidates with a score of 100 and the one [or more] eligibles attaining a score of 90. A candidate who received a score of 90 on the examination may be lawfully selected, thereby filling the last available vacancy, without offending the Rule of Three.
Another example:
Ten candidates received scores of 100 while four achieved scores of 95 and one candidate had a score of 90. Again, one of the candidates attaining a score of 100 declines, leaving nine candidates with scores of 100 interested in being appointed. With seven vacancies available for appointment, the appointing authority may fill all, some or none of the vacancies but only the nine interested candidates attaining scores of 100 are "reachable" for appointment. Candidates receiving a score of less than 100 are not included on the list certified for appointment and thus are not part of the candidate pool. Why? Because once six appointments are made from among the nine eligibles attaining a score of 100, three eligibles remain available for selection to fill the seventh and last vacancy, thus triggering the Rule of Three.
If, however, a second eligible attaining a score of 100 were to decline the appointment, all four eligibles with a score of 95 would become eligible for appointment and they, together with the remaining eight eligibles have a score of 100, would constitute a pool of twelve individuals reachable for appointment and the appointing authority could select any seven of the twelve for the appointment.***
In other words, the number of candidates eligible for appointment at any particular point in time is a "moving target."
[NYPPL periodically post answers to selected general questions concerning public personnel law issues. Readers may e-mail their question to publications@nycap.rr.com]
* This analysis assumes that the "entire eligible list" consisted of ten eligibles: five candidates attaining a score of 100, four candidates attaining a score of 95 and one candidate attaining a score of 90. However, had there been more than one candidate attaining a score of 90, all the eligibles attaining a score of 90 would have been in the "candidate pool."
** N.B. An appointing authority is not required to use a mandatory eligible list and may, as a matter of discretion, elect not to fill the vacancy. On the other hand, an appointing authority may use a “non-mandatory” eligible list to fill a vacancy either on a permanent basis or on a provisional basis. However, if the appointing authority makes a provisional appointment “from a nonmandatory list,” the appointee may attain tenure in the position under certain circumstances [see Civil Service Law §65.4.] The seminal case that considered such an appointment situation is Matter of Roulette, 40 AD2d 611.
*** In some departments and agencies the appointing authority may elect, or pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, be required to fill vacancies on the basis of the "Rule of the List" whereby individuals on an eligible list are appointed in the order of their rank or position on the list.
Source: A Google Alert received by NYPPL
A "Google Alert" received by NYPPL via the Internet concerned applying the Rule of Three set out in §61.1 of the Civil Service Law based on the following facts:
“I scored a 100 on a New York State civil service promotional exam. There were 7 openings for supervisor. Five candidates scored a 100. One of the four declined the promotional opportunity. The promotions were given to two eligibles who scored 100, four eligibles who scored 95, and one eligible who scored a 90.
“I am familiar with the "rule of three" and have researched New York State Civil Law, NYS CSL 61.1 in particular. Every example that is given refers to a situation in which one promotional opportunity is available. For example, if one eligible scores 100, one eligible scores 95, and one eligible scores 90, and all the other candidates score lower than 90, the rule of three means that the eligible who scored the 90 can be given the promotion over the two eligibles who scored higher that he/she did.
“However, I did not come across an example of how the rule of three would work when more than one position is available.”
NYPPL’s response:*
Considering the application of the Rule of Three on a “step-by-step basis,” the Rule of Three “works” as follows:
1. As to the five candidates receiving a score of 100, as one has declined, the four remaining eligibles are certified. Two are appointed, resulting in five vacancies yet remaining to which appointments may be made.**
2. The next group of candidates eligible for selection for appointment would consist of the two remaining candidates scoring 100 plus the four eligibles that received a score of 95, a total of six eligibles. The four eligibles attaining a score of 95 are appointed, leaving one vacancy yet to fill.
3. The next group of candidates eligible for selection for appointment would consist of the two candidates with a score of 100 and the one [or more] eligibles attaining a score of 90. A candidate who received a score of 90 on the examination may be lawfully selected, thereby filling the last available vacancy, without offending the Rule of Three.
Another example:
Ten candidates received scores of 100 while four achieved scores of 95 and one candidate had a score of 90. Again, one of the candidates attaining a score of 100 declines, leaving nine candidates with scores of 100 interested in being appointed. With seven vacancies available for appointment, the appointing authority may fill all, some or none of the vacancies but only the nine interested candidates attaining scores of 100 are "reachable" for appointment. Candidates receiving a score of less than 100 are not included on the list certified for appointment and thus are not part of the candidate pool. Why? Because once six appointments are made from among the nine eligibles attaining a score of 100, three eligibles remain available for selection to fill the seventh and last vacancy, thus triggering the Rule of Three.
If, however, a second eligible attaining a score of 100 were to decline the appointment, all four eligibles with a score of 95 would become eligible for appointment and they, together with the remaining eight eligibles have a score of 100, would constitute a pool of twelve individuals reachable for appointment and the appointing authority could select any seven of the twelve for the appointment.***
In other words, the number of candidates eligible for appointment at any particular point in time is a "moving target."
[NYPPL periodically post answers to selected general questions concerning public personnel law issues. Readers may e-mail their question to publications@nycap.rr.com]
* This analysis assumes that the "entire eligible list" consisted of ten eligibles: five candidates attaining a score of 100, four candidates attaining a score of 95 and one candidate attaining a score of 90. However, had there been more than one candidate attaining a score of 90, all the eligibles attaining a score of 90 would have been in the "candidate pool."
** N.B. An appointing authority is not required to use a mandatory eligible list and may, as a matter of discretion, elect not to fill the vacancy. On the other hand, an appointing authority may use a “non-mandatory” eligible list to fill a vacancy either on a permanent basis or on a provisional basis. However, if the appointing authority makes a provisional appointment “from a nonmandatory list,” the appointee may attain tenure in the position under certain circumstances [see Civil Service Law §65.4.] The seminal case that considered such an appointment situation is Matter of Roulette, 40 AD2d 611.
*** In some departments and agencies the appointing authority may elect, or pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, be required to fill vacancies on the basis of the "Rule of the List" whereby individuals on an eligible list are appointed in the order of their rank or position on the list.
Vacating an arbitration award based on allegations that the arbitrator was not impartial
Vacating an arbitration award based on allegations that the arbitrator was not impartial
Meehan v Nassau Community College, App. Div., 251 A.D.2d 417, Motion for leave to appeal dismissed, 92 N.Y.2d 946
This item summarizes a number of related decisions involving the same parties considered by the Appellate Division.
Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules [CPLR] sets out very limited grounds upon which a party who has either participated in an arbitration, or has been served with a notice of intention to arbitrate, may ask the courts to vacate or modify the award. In order to vacate an award, the court must find that the rights of the moving party were prejudiced by:
1. Corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award; or
2. Partiality of an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, except where the award was by confession; or
3. An arbitrator, or agency or person making the award exceeded his or her power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made; or
4. The failure to follow the procedure of this article, unless the party applying to vacate the award continued with the arbitration with notice of the defect and without objection.
Nassau County Community College sought to overturn two arbitration awards under Article 75.
The first, referred to by the Appellate Division as the “overload arbitration,” involved a complaint by the Nassau County Community College Adjunct Faculty Association that the college had assigned certain “overload courses” to members of the full-time faculty, rather than employ members of the adjunct faculty to teach these courses.
The second award, the “History Department” arbitration, involved persons who lacked certain academic credentials teaching in that department.
In both cases the college asked the court to vacate the award because one member of a three-person arbitration panel selected by the parties had direct personal knowledge of the disputed facts underlying the grievances and that this arbitrator testified concerning these facts during the arbitration. This conduct by the arbitrator, the College urged, justified overturning the arbitration panel’s award in favor of the Association.
The contract grievance procedure relevant between the parties provided that the arbitration panel would consist of “one member selected by the College Administration, one selected by the Adjunct Faculty Association, and a third selected by mutual consent.”
According to the ruling, the Association’s designated member of the arbitration panel testified at the arbitration that because of “the assignment of various overload courses, more senior adjunct instructors had been `bumped’ by less senior full-time instructors” as well as other matters at issue. The College argued that “[a]rbitrator Loiacono demonstrated partiality and engaged in misconduct when he testified in support of the [union’s] position” at the arbitration.
In “overload courses” award the Appellate Division rejected the college’s argument, holding that “that the CPLR does not authorize vacatur on this ground.” According to the Appellate Division, the terms of CPLR 7511(b)(ii), which specify that the “partiality” of an arbitrator “appointed as a neutral” may be a basis for vacatur, imply that the “partiality” of a party-designated member of an arbitral board may not be the basis for vacatur.
The Appellate Division said “a party-designated arbitrator may in fact be `partial’“ and that by itself this is not grounds for vacating an arbitration award. Nor did the Appellate Division have any problem with a panel member testifying at the hearing.
This ruling may have a significant impact in Section 3020-a disciplinary appeals, which now are processed pursuant to CPLR Article 75 rather than CPLR Article 78 as was the case before Section 3920-a was amended in 1984. Syquia v Harpursville Central School District, 568 NYS2d 263 involved the alleged partiality of members of a disciplinary panel convened under the “old” Education Law Section 3020-a.
The attorney for Harpursville had advanced the argument that “a 3020-a hearing is, and is intended to be, something other than a fully impartial fact finding hearing, and that the panel members selected respectively by the Board of Education and by the teacher are advocates for the party respectively selecting them, with only the Chairman intended to be impartial.”
A state Supreme Court justice said that this was a misunderstanding in educational circles, “if such in fact exists.” The court declared that it was a “misapprehension that in 3020-a hearings the panel member selected by the Board is the `Board’s representative,’ and the panel member selected by the teacher is the `teacher’s representative,’ and only the Chairman is expected to be neutral and impartial.” According to the Meehan decision, this is no longer the case.
In the Nassau decision, [decided pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR, rather than Article 78, the court held that a party-designated arbitrator may, in fact, be partial. Accordingly, said the court, Mr. Loiacono’s participation in the arbitration proceedings in the dual capacity of arbitrator and witness may serve as a basis for vacatur only if his behavior in this regard can be properly characterized as constituting corruption, fraud, or misconduct within the meaning of CPLR Section 7511[b][1][i].
Holding that Loiacono’s behavior could not be so characterized, the court confirmed the award. Nor was the “overload course” award held to be violative of public policy. According to the decision, a collective bargaining agreement limiting the college’s ability to assign courses in excess of a specified amount did not interfere with its ability to establish qualifications for its faculty.
In contrast, in the “History Department” aspect of the appeal the Appellate Division decided that the award, “which requires the college to reinstate the grievants, although it is undisputed that they were unqualified to teach courses in the History Department because of their lack of certain academic credentials,” should be vacated. This, however, was not because of Loiacono’s testimony and his participation as an arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings. Rather, said the court, the award had to be vacated because it violates public policy.
The court explained that although not every arbitration under a Taylor Law agreement “that threatens to limit the management prerogatives [of a public employer] is violative of public policy,” here the award’s mandate affected the college’s authority to establish the qualifications of its adjunct faculty and thereby affect the maintenance of academic standards in the classroom.
Meehan v Nassau Community College, App. Div., 251 A.D.2d 417, Motion for leave to appeal dismissed, 92 N.Y.2d 946
This item summarizes a number of related decisions involving the same parties considered by the Appellate Division.
Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules [CPLR] sets out very limited grounds upon which a party who has either participated in an arbitration, or has been served with a notice of intention to arbitrate, may ask the courts to vacate or modify the award. In order to vacate an award, the court must find that the rights of the moving party were prejudiced by:
1. Corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award; or
2. Partiality of an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, except where the award was by confession; or
3. An arbitrator, or agency or person making the award exceeded his or her power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made; or
4. The failure to follow the procedure of this article, unless the party applying to vacate the award continued with the arbitration with notice of the defect and without objection.
Nassau County Community College sought to overturn two arbitration awards under Article 75.
The first, referred to by the Appellate Division as the “overload arbitration,” involved a complaint by the Nassau County Community College Adjunct Faculty Association that the college had assigned certain “overload courses” to members of the full-time faculty, rather than employ members of the adjunct faculty to teach these courses.
The second award, the “History Department” arbitration, involved persons who lacked certain academic credentials teaching in that department.
In both cases the college asked the court to vacate the award because one member of a three-person arbitration panel selected by the parties had direct personal knowledge of the disputed facts underlying the grievances and that this arbitrator testified concerning these facts during the arbitration. This conduct by the arbitrator, the College urged, justified overturning the arbitration panel’s award in favor of the Association.
The contract grievance procedure relevant between the parties provided that the arbitration panel would consist of “one member selected by the College Administration, one selected by the Adjunct Faculty Association, and a third selected by mutual consent.”
According to the ruling, the Association’s designated member of the arbitration panel testified at the arbitration that because of “the assignment of various overload courses, more senior adjunct instructors had been `bumped’ by less senior full-time instructors” as well as other matters at issue. The College argued that “[a]rbitrator Loiacono demonstrated partiality and engaged in misconduct when he testified in support of the [union’s] position” at the arbitration.
In “overload courses” award the Appellate Division rejected the college’s argument, holding that “that the CPLR does not authorize vacatur on this ground.” According to the Appellate Division, the terms of CPLR 7511(b)(ii), which specify that the “partiality” of an arbitrator “appointed as a neutral” may be a basis for vacatur, imply that the “partiality” of a party-designated member of an arbitral board may not be the basis for vacatur.
The Appellate Division said “a party-designated arbitrator may in fact be `partial’“ and that by itself this is not grounds for vacating an arbitration award. Nor did the Appellate Division have any problem with a panel member testifying at the hearing.
This ruling may have a significant impact in Section 3020-a disciplinary appeals, which now are processed pursuant to CPLR Article 75 rather than CPLR Article 78 as was the case before Section 3920-a was amended in 1984. Syquia v Harpursville Central School District, 568 NYS2d 263 involved the alleged partiality of members of a disciplinary panel convened under the “old” Education Law Section 3020-a.
The attorney for Harpursville had advanced the argument that “a 3020-a hearing is, and is intended to be, something other than a fully impartial fact finding hearing, and that the panel members selected respectively by the Board of Education and by the teacher are advocates for the party respectively selecting them, with only the Chairman intended to be impartial.”
A state Supreme Court justice said that this was a misunderstanding in educational circles, “if such in fact exists.” The court declared that it was a “misapprehension that in 3020-a hearings the panel member selected by the Board is the `Board’s representative,’ and the panel member selected by the teacher is the `teacher’s representative,’ and only the Chairman is expected to be neutral and impartial.” According to the Meehan decision, this is no longer the case.
In the Nassau decision, [decided pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR, rather than Article 78, the court held that a party-designated arbitrator may, in fact, be partial. Accordingly, said the court, Mr. Loiacono’s participation in the arbitration proceedings in the dual capacity of arbitrator and witness may serve as a basis for vacatur only if his behavior in this regard can be properly characterized as constituting corruption, fraud, or misconduct within the meaning of CPLR Section 7511[b][1][i].
Holding that Loiacono’s behavior could not be so characterized, the court confirmed the award. Nor was the “overload course” award held to be violative of public policy. According to the decision, a collective bargaining agreement limiting the college’s ability to assign courses in excess of a specified amount did not interfere with its ability to establish qualifications for its faculty.
In contrast, in the “History Department” aspect of the appeal the Appellate Division decided that the award, “which requires the college to reinstate the grievants, although it is undisputed that they were unqualified to teach courses in the History Department because of their lack of certain academic credentials,” should be vacated. This, however, was not because of Loiacono’s testimony and his participation as an arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings. Rather, said the court, the award had to be vacated because it violates public policy.
The court explained that although not every arbitration under a Taylor Law agreement “that threatens to limit the management prerogatives [of a public employer] is violative of public policy,” here the award’s mandate affected the college’s authority to establish the qualifications of its adjunct faculty and thereby affect the maintenance of academic standards in the classroom.
Multiple Section 75 thirty-day suspensions without pay are permitted if additional disciplinary charges are subsequently filed against the employee
Multiple Section 75 thirty-day suspensions without pay are permitted if additional disciplinary charges are subsequently filed against the employee
Figueroa v NYS Thruway Authority, App. Div., 251 A.D.2d 773
The New York State Thruway Authority filed a series of four charges against Gladys Figueroa, its Affirmative Action Administrator. Each time it suspended her without pay for 30 days pending the completion of the disciplinary action as permitted by Section 75 of the Civil Service Law.
In a number of instances the suspensions overlapped pending disciplinary actions because she was served with new charges before a hearing was completed on earlier charges based on new alleged acts of misconduct.
The first hearing officer found Figueroa guilty and recommended a 60-day suspension without pay; a second hearing officer found her guilty and recommended she be given a reprimand. Before the hearings to resolve the third and fourth disciplinary sets of charges commenced, Figueroa resigned.
Figueroa sued, challenging the findings of the hearing officers with respect to the first and second set of charges and the lawfulness of her four 30-day suspensions without pay. She also asked for back pay and benefits or, in the alternative, new hearings.
According to the Appellate Division, in most instances the hearing officer found Figueroa guilty based on her own admissions. Among the examples of such admissions cited by the court: Figueroa admitted that she had deliberately read confidential material after being told not to; that she left the building after being told to wait outside a supervisor’s office; and that she did not return “excess” travel advances to the Authority in a timely manner.
As to the four suspensions, the court pointed out that Section 75.3 allows an employer to suspend an employee without pay for up to 30 days without pay. It said that it was not persuaded that it was improper to suspend Figueroa “on each of the four separate occasions when she was charged with misconduct.”
The Appellate Division distinguished Figueroa’s situation from that where the appointing authority “has deliberately severed charges for the sole purpose of imposing multiple suspensions.” It noted that the second, third and fourth suspensions resulted from events that occurred after Figueroa had returned from work following the earlier suspensions and resulted in new charges of misconduct being filed against her. However, said the court, Figueroa was still entitled to hearings on the third and fourth sets of charges filed against her because “her resignation neither terminated the proceedings” with respect to those charges nor “obviated [the] adjudication of them.”
Accordingly, the court ruled that hearings on these charges should be held. It also said that Figueroa “if so inclined [may] pursue an action for back pay.”
The Appellate Division pointed out, there was no evidence that Figueroa’s resignation constituted a waiver or abandonment of her claims for back salary.
Figueroa v NYS Thruway Authority, App. Div., 251 A.D.2d 773
The New York State Thruway Authority filed a series of four charges against Gladys Figueroa, its Affirmative Action Administrator. Each time it suspended her without pay for 30 days pending the completion of the disciplinary action as permitted by Section 75 of the Civil Service Law.
In a number of instances the suspensions overlapped pending disciplinary actions because she was served with new charges before a hearing was completed on earlier charges based on new alleged acts of misconduct.
The first hearing officer found Figueroa guilty and recommended a 60-day suspension without pay; a second hearing officer found her guilty and recommended she be given a reprimand. Before the hearings to resolve the third and fourth disciplinary sets of charges commenced, Figueroa resigned.
Figueroa sued, challenging the findings of the hearing officers with respect to the first and second set of charges and the lawfulness of her four 30-day suspensions without pay. She also asked for back pay and benefits or, in the alternative, new hearings.
According to the Appellate Division, in most instances the hearing officer found Figueroa guilty based on her own admissions. Among the examples of such admissions cited by the court: Figueroa admitted that she had deliberately read confidential material after being told not to; that she left the building after being told to wait outside a supervisor’s office; and that she did not return “excess” travel advances to the Authority in a timely manner.
As to the four suspensions, the court pointed out that Section 75.3 allows an employer to suspend an employee without pay for up to 30 days without pay. It said that it was not persuaded that it was improper to suspend Figueroa “on each of the four separate occasions when she was charged with misconduct.”
The Appellate Division distinguished Figueroa’s situation from that where the appointing authority “has deliberately severed charges for the sole purpose of imposing multiple suspensions.” It noted that the second, third and fourth suspensions resulted from events that occurred after Figueroa had returned from work following the earlier suspensions and resulted in new charges of misconduct being filed against her. However, said the court, Figueroa was still entitled to hearings on the third and fourth sets of charges filed against her because “her resignation neither terminated the proceedings” with respect to those charges nor “obviated [the] adjudication of them.”
Accordingly, the court ruled that hearings on these charges should be held. It also said that Figueroa “if so inclined [may] pursue an action for back pay.”
The Appellate Division pointed out, there was no evidence that Figueroa’s resignation constituted a waiver or abandonment of her claims for back salary.
Assigning a disabled police officer to a “desk job” held to be a reasonable accommodation
Assigning a disabled police officer to a “desk job” held to be a reasonable accommodation
Keever v Middletown, 145 F.3d 809
According to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, providing a “desk job” as a reasonable accommodation to a disabled police officer satisfied Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] accommodation requirements despite the fact that the officer preferred a different assignment.
Richard T. Keever, a Middletown, Ohio police officer, contended that the desk assignment was demeaning and involved reduced responsibility. He said that he should have either been given a different shift or assigned to a detective position. He sued, contending claiming that the City failed to accommodate his disability, unlawfully harassed him about his disability, and constructively discharged him from the force by forcing him to retire.
The court disagreed, finding no ADA violation. ADA, the court observed, does not require an employer to give an employee his or her “preferred accommodation.” Under ADA the employer can make any reasonable accommodation it determines to be fit and appropriate.
According to the Sixth Circuit, “in determining whether an accommodation is reasonable, the employer must consider (1) the particular job involved, its purpose, and its essential functions; (2) the employee’s limitations and how those limitations can be overcome; (3) the effectiveness an accommodation would have in enabling the individual to perform the job; and (4) the preference of the employee,” citing 29 CFR Section 1630.9(a).
Essentially the court concluded that Keever was not “otherwise qualified” for the position of patrol officer, that he was not constructively discharged, and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment discrimination.
This ruling, made under federal law, may prove relevant to making “light duty” assignments of personnel receiving disability benefits under Section 207-a or Section 207-c of New York’s General Municipal Law [GML].
As was noted in City of Cohoes v Local 2562, 94 NY2d 686, “light duty” is based on the non-working individual’s medical condition and physical capacity rather than upon any contractual requirement. “GML Section 207-a is properly understood as being independent of contractual provisions governing regular duty, by giving full pay to fully or partially disabled firefighters performing no work or only `light duty.’“
In the words of the Court of Appeals:
"Our conclusion that appellants must submit medical evidence contesting the City's physician's findings in order to trigger a hearing is also supported by the holdings, in other contexts, that due process does not require a hearing on a claimed invasion of a property or liberty interest in governmental employment, until the employee has raised a genuine dispute on operative facts (see, Codd v Velger, 429 US 624, 627; Matter of Economico v Village of Pelham, 50 NY2d 120, 128; Matter of Dolan v Whalen, 49 NY2d 991, 993). Thus, the Appellate Division properly rejected appellants' claim of entitlement to a due process hearing before being ordered to return to duty.”
The Cohoes decision, however, implies that light duty could be viewed as a “permissive subject” of collective bargaining under the Taylor Law and ultimately made subject to arbitration under the terms of the agreement.
Keever v Middletown, 145 F.3d 809
According to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, providing a “desk job” as a reasonable accommodation to a disabled police officer satisfied Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] accommodation requirements despite the fact that the officer preferred a different assignment.
Richard T. Keever, a Middletown, Ohio police officer, contended that the desk assignment was demeaning and involved reduced responsibility. He said that he should have either been given a different shift or assigned to a detective position. He sued, contending claiming that the City failed to accommodate his disability, unlawfully harassed him about his disability, and constructively discharged him from the force by forcing him to retire.
The court disagreed, finding no ADA violation. ADA, the court observed, does not require an employer to give an employee his or her “preferred accommodation.” Under ADA the employer can make any reasonable accommodation it determines to be fit and appropriate.
According to the Sixth Circuit, “in determining whether an accommodation is reasonable, the employer must consider (1) the particular job involved, its purpose, and its essential functions; (2) the employee’s limitations and how those limitations can be overcome; (3) the effectiveness an accommodation would have in enabling the individual to perform the job; and (4) the preference of the employee,” citing 29 CFR Section 1630.9(a).
Essentially the court concluded that Keever was not “otherwise qualified” for the position of patrol officer, that he was not constructively discharged, and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment discrimination.
This ruling, made under federal law, may prove relevant to making “light duty” assignments of personnel receiving disability benefits under Section 207-a or Section 207-c of New York’s General Municipal Law [GML].
As was noted in City of Cohoes v Local 2562, 94 NY2d 686, “light duty” is based on the non-working individual’s medical condition and physical capacity rather than upon any contractual requirement. “GML Section 207-a is properly understood as being independent of contractual provisions governing regular duty, by giving full pay to fully or partially disabled firefighters performing no work or only `light duty.’“
In the words of the Court of Appeals:
"Our conclusion that appellants must submit medical evidence contesting the City's physician's findings in order to trigger a hearing is also supported by the holdings, in other contexts, that due process does not require a hearing on a claimed invasion of a property or liberty interest in governmental employment, until the employee has raised a genuine dispute on operative facts (see, Codd v Velger, 429 US 624, 627; Matter of Economico v Village of Pelham, 50 NY2d 120, 128; Matter of Dolan v Whalen, 49 NY2d 991, 993). Thus, the Appellate Division properly rejected appellants' claim of entitlement to a due process hearing before being ordered to return to duty.”
The Cohoes decision, however, implies that light duty could be viewed as a “permissive subject” of collective bargaining under the Taylor Law and ultimately made subject to arbitration under the terms of the agreement.
State Comptroller’s report of the use of contacts for personal and other services by the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance
State Comptroller’s report of the use of contacts for personal and other services by the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance
Source: Office of the New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli
During the three-year audit period, the Department of Taxation and Finance had 81 contracts for personal and miscellaneous services totaling about $563 million. More than 98 percent of this amount related to contracts for either information technology or banking services.
Auditors examined whether the department was adequately justifying the need to initially contract out for such services and periodically reassessing whether such contracts could be deferred, eliminated or reduced to save state funds.
The auditors found that the department was sometimes but not always performing these activities.
The full text of the audit report is posted on the Internet at: http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093010/09s38.pdf
Source: Office of the New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli
During the three-year audit period, the Department of Taxation and Finance had 81 contracts for personal and miscellaneous services totaling about $563 million. More than 98 percent of this amount related to contracts for either information technology or banking services.
Auditors examined whether the department was adequately justifying the need to initially contract out for such services and periodically reassessing whether such contracts could be deferred, eliminated or reduced to save state funds.
The auditors found that the department was sometimes but not always performing these activities.
The full text of the audit report is posted on the Internet at: http://osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093010/09s38.pdf
US Department of Labor to conduct Family Medical Leave Act study
US Department of Labor to conduct Family Medical Leave Act study
Source: The FMLA Blog - http://federalfmla.typepad.com/fmla_blog/
Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved by Carl C. Bosland, Esq. Reproduced with permission. Mr. Bosland is the author of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation.
On July 21, 2010 Labor Secretary Hilda Solis announced that next year the U.S. Department of Labor will conduct a study of how families use Family Medical Leave Act [FMLA] leave, as well as "information on regulatory changes, among other things."
In the past, DOL studies have been a precursor to regulatory changes. While there is no mandatory format, past FMLA studies have been a combination of surveys of significant FMLA stakeholders combined with public solicitations of comments. Interested parties should take this as a "heads-up" to begin to think about and prepare to address what you like about the current regulatory regime, and what you would like to see changed.
The announcement also suggests that the DOL does not intend on making any regulatory changes before the upcoming mid-term elections this November, something of a surprise (at least to me).
Source: The FMLA Blog - http://federalfmla.typepad.com/fmla_blog/
Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved by Carl C. Bosland, Esq. Reproduced with permission. Mr. Bosland is the author of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation.
On July 21, 2010 Labor Secretary Hilda Solis announced that next year the U.S. Department of Labor will conduct a study of how families use Family Medical Leave Act [FMLA] leave, as well as "information on regulatory changes, among other things."
In the past, DOL studies have been a precursor to regulatory changes. While there is no mandatory format, past FMLA studies have been a combination of surveys of significant FMLA stakeholders combined with public solicitations of comments. Interested parties should take this as a "heads-up" to begin to think about and prepare to address what you like about the current regulatory regime, and what you would like to see changed.
The announcement also suggests that the DOL does not intend on making any regulatory changes before the upcoming mid-term elections this November, something of a surprise (at least to me).
July 22, 2010
Disciplinary actions held in absentia
Disciplinary actions held in absentia
Clarke v NYC Board of Education, App. Div., 251 A.D.2d 403
No one gave Fernando A. Clarke, a purchasing agent employed by the New York City Board of Education, permission to be absent from his job on February 14, 1994. To make matters worse, he never returned to work and didn’t bother to appear for a scheduled disciplinary hearing.
Clarke was served with charges of AWOL pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Although Clarke did not appear at the scheduled disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer found him guilty of the charges filed against him. The board adopted the findings and recommendations of the disciplinary hearing officer and terminated Clarke from his position.
The Appellate Division dismissed Clarke’s appeal challenging his termination. The court pointed out that Clarke (1) was aware of the time and place of the Section 75 hearing; (2) failed to attend the hearing; or (3) offer any proof on his own behalf.
The decision notes that the only evidence in the disciplinary hearing record was that Clarke had been continuously absent from his position without approval since February 14, 1994 and that he had not provided any satisfactory explanation for this absence. This, said the Appellate Division, was sufficient to provide the substantial evidence needed to support the board’s determination.
This decision demonstrates the fact that an appointing authority may proceed with a disciplinary hearing notwithstanding the fact that the accused employee fails to appear at the proceeding. However, before making a final determination in cases where the Section 75 disciplinary hearing was conducted in absentia, the appointing authority should make certain that:
1. The employee was served with the disciplinary charges and that he or she was advised of the time and place of the hearing;
2. A diligent effort was made to contact the individual on the day of the hearing to determine if there was a reasonable explanation for his or her failure to appear as scheduled before the hearing officer started the hearing;
3. A formal hearing was conducted and that the employer was required to introduce evidence proving its charges before the hearing officer;
4. A formal record of the hearing was made and a transcript provided to the appointing authority and, if requested, to the employee.
Finally, the employee must be advised of the appointing authority’s determination and his or her right of appeal.
Clarke v NYC Board of Education, App. Div., 251 A.D.2d 403
No one gave Fernando A. Clarke, a purchasing agent employed by the New York City Board of Education, permission to be absent from his job on February 14, 1994. To make matters worse, he never returned to work and didn’t bother to appear for a scheduled disciplinary hearing.
Clarke was served with charges of AWOL pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Although Clarke did not appear at the scheduled disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer found him guilty of the charges filed against him. The board adopted the findings and recommendations of the disciplinary hearing officer and terminated Clarke from his position.
The Appellate Division dismissed Clarke’s appeal challenging his termination. The court pointed out that Clarke (1) was aware of the time and place of the Section 75 hearing; (2) failed to attend the hearing; or (3) offer any proof on his own behalf.
The decision notes that the only evidence in the disciplinary hearing record was that Clarke had been continuously absent from his position without approval since February 14, 1994 and that he had not provided any satisfactory explanation for this absence. This, said the Appellate Division, was sufficient to provide the substantial evidence needed to support the board’s determination.
This decision demonstrates the fact that an appointing authority may proceed with a disciplinary hearing notwithstanding the fact that the accused employee fails to appear at the proceeding. However, before making a final determination in cases where the Section 75 disciplinary hearing was conducted in absentia, the appointing authority should make certain that:
1. The employee was served with the disciplinary charges and that he or she was advised of the time and place of the hearing;
2. A diligent effort was made to contact the individual on the day of the hearing to determine if there was a reasonable explanation for his or her failure to appear as scheduled before the hearing officer started the hearing;
3. A formal hearing was conducted and that the employer was required to introduce evidence proving its charges before the hearing officer;
4. A formal record of the hearing was made and a transcript provided to the appointing authority and, if requested, to the employee.
Finally, the employee must be advised of the appointing authority’s determination and his or her right of appeal.
Participating in an arbitration
Participating in an arbitration
Elmira Heights CSD v Ed. Support Staff Asso., App Div 250 A.D.2d 983, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 92 N.Y.2d 807
What should a party to an arbitration do if it believes that the controversy to be submitted to the arbitrator is not arbitrable? As the Elmira Heights decision points out, such an objection must be raised by applying for a stay of arbitration or it is waived.
The issue arose after the Elmira Heights Central School District, which was paying the entire cost of its health insurance plan for employees and retirees, negotiated a provision in the Taylor Agreement between the parties, Section 16.1, requiring employees to pay a “percentage of the annual premium for their health insurance coverage.” In contrast, health insurance for employees who retired was covered in another section of the same agreement, Section 16.14. Section 16.14 made no provision for health insurance contributions to be paid by individuals upon their retirement.
In January 1995 the school board adopted a resolution requiring all employees to pay 10 percent of the cost of their health insurance. The superintendent advised all retirees that they, too, would be required to pay 10 percent of the cost of their health insurance. The retirees filed a contract grievance complaining that the imposition of such a payment violated the terms and conditions of Section 16.14.
Ultimately the matter was submitted for arbitration. The arbitrator first found that the grievance was arbitrable. In the arbitration that followed, the arbitrator concluded that the district had violated the agreement when it unilaterally imposed a “co-pay for the health care plan for its retirees.” The district was directed to refund any contributions for premiums made by retirees.
Next the district filed an Article 75 action to vacate the award. Supreme Court granted the district’s petition, finding that the arbitrator “exceeded his authority,” and that the award was contrary to law. The Association appealed the decision. At the Appellate Division the district argued that the retirees were neither members of the negotiating unit nor employees as defined in the collective bargaining agreement and thus the arbitrator exceed his authority in ordering it to refund the retirees’ contributions.
The Appellate Division said that what the district was really arguing was that “the arbitrator did not have the power to decide the question at issue and, therefore, there was nothing to arbitrate.” The court ruled that such an argument cannot be raised in a motion to vacate the arbitration award; it must be raised in a motion to stay the arbitration in the first instance.
As to whether or not the arbitrator exceeded his authority, the decision notes that an arbitrator exceeds his or her power “only if he or she gave a completely irrational construction to the provision in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties.”
Here, said the court, the agreement provides for employee contributions for health insurance but is silent with respect to such contributions by retirees. The arbitrator considered the parties’ past practice and concluded that the district “inappropriately required its retirees to contribute to the cost of their health care ... a determination ... [the arbitrator] was well within his right to make.”
Pointing out that the fact that a different construction might have been given to Section 16.14 does not mean that the arbitrator rendered a completely irrational interpretation and thereby crafted a new contract for the parties, the Appellate Division denied the district’s application to vacate the award.
Elmira Heights CSD v Ed. Support Staff Asso., App Div 250 A.D.2d 983, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 92 N.Y.2d 807
What should a party to an arbitration do if it believes that the controversy to be submitted to the arbitrator is not arbitrable? As the Elmira Heights decision points out, such an objection must be raised by applying for a stay of arbitration or it is waived.
The issue arose after the Elmira Heights Central School District, which was paying the entire cost of its health insurance plan for employees and retirees, negotiated a provision in the Taylor Agreement between the parties, Section 16.1, requiring employees to pay a “percentage of the annual premium for their health insurance coverage.” In contrast, health insurance for employees who retired was covered in another section of the same agreement, Section 16.14. Section 16.14 made no provision for health insurance contributions to be paid by individuals upon their retirement.
In January 1995 the school board adopted a resolution requiring all employees to pay 10 percent of the cost of their health insurance. The superintendent advised all retirees that they, too, would be required to pay 10 percent of the cost of their health insurance. The retirees filed a contract grievance complaining that the imposition of such a payment violated the terms and conditions of Section 16.14.
Ultimately the matter was submitted for arbitration. The arbitrator first found that the grievance was arbitrable. In the arbitration that followed, the arbitrator concluded that the district had violated the agreement when it unilaterally imposed a “co-pay for the health care plan for its retirees.” The district was directed to refund any contributions for premiums made by retirees.
Next the district filed an Article 75 action to vacate the award. Supreme Court granted the district’s petition, finding that the arbitrator “exceeded his authority,” and that the award was contrary to law. The Association appealed the decision. At the Appellate Division the district argued that the retirees were neither members of the negotiating unit nor employees as defined in the collective bargaining agreement and thus the arbitrator exceed his authority in ordering it to refund the retirees’ contributions.
The Appellate Division said that what the district was really arguing was that “the arbitrator did not have the power to decide the question at issue and, therefore, there was nothing to arbitrate.” The court ruled that such an argument cannot be raised in a motion to vacate the arbitration award; it must be raised in a motion to stay the arbitration in the first instance.
As to whether or not the arbitrator exceeded his authority, the decision notes that an arbitrator exceeds his or her power “only if he or she gave a completely irrational construction to the provision in dispute and, in effect, made a new contract for the parties.”
Here, said the court, the agreement provides for employee contributions for health insurance but is silent with respect to such contributions by retirees. The arbitrator considered the parties’ past practice and concluded that the district “inappropriately required its retirees to contribute to the cost of their health care ... a determination ... [the arbitrator] was well within his right to make.”
Pointing out that the fact that a different construction might have been given to Section 16.14 does not mean that the arbitrator rendered a completely irrational interpretation and thereby crafted a new contract for the parties, the Appellate Division denied the district’s application to vacate the award.
Use of polygraph tests in an administrative disciplinary hearing
Use of polygraph tests in an administrative disciplinary hearing
Ost v Town of Woodstock, Appellate Division, 251 A.D.2d 724, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 92 N.Y.2d 817
One of the issues raised in the Ost case was the admission of testimony concerning a polygraph [lie-detector] test during a Section 75 disciplinary hearing.
Shawn Ost, a Town of Woodstock police officer, was terminated from his position for allegedly using his police vehicle to “give a young civilian woman a ride to her home outside the geographical boundaries of the Town, without authorization and subjected her to unwanted sexual contact” [the August 1994 incident] and other charges and specifications concerning other alleged misconduct involving the same woman about a year later.
Ost argued that the disciplinary hearing “was tainted by the admission of testimony regarding a polygraph test” of the [young woman] involved in the incident. The Appellate Division said that such testimony may be considered in a Section 75 disciplinary hearing “if it is otherwise material and relevant, so long as there is ... as there was in this instance ... substantial evidence of the reliability of the machine and the qualifications of the operator.”
As to Ost’s complaint that “he was not offered an opportunity to take a similar test,” the court commented that although Ost indicated that he would be willing to submit to such an examination, he never asked for a test to be scheduled or take any steps to arrange for one on his own.
Another issue that was considered by the Appellate Division was the Town’s decision to dismiss Ost in the face of the hearing officer’s recommendation that he be reprimanded and suspended for 30 days without pay. It noted that initially the Supreme Court had rejected all of Ost’s arguments but one -- that the town had failed to set forth the rationale underlying its departure from the hearing officer’s findings and recommended penalty.
Subsequently the town explained its reasons for its decision -- it found that Ost had lied about his activities in August 1995, and “his testimony regarding the earlier incident was incredible as well.” The Appellate Division affirmed the town’s decision as to guilt and the penalty it imposed on Ost. It said that “reversal of the penalty would not be warranted for the Board explicitly found ... that [Ost’s] actions in August 1995, alone, necessitated his termination from the police force.”
Ost v Town of Woodstock, Appellate Division, 251 A.D.2d 724, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 92 N.Y.2d 817
One of the issues raised in the Ost case was the admission of testimony concerning a polygraph [lie-detector] test during a Section 75 disciplinary hearing.
Shawn Ost, a Town of Woodstock police officer, was terminated from his position for allegedly using his police vehicle to “give a young civilian woman a ride to her home outside the geographical boundaries of the Town, without authorization and subjected her to unwanted sexual contact” [the August 1994 incident] and other charges and specifications concerning other alleged misconduct involving the same woman about a year later.
Ost argued that the disciplinary hearing “was tainted by the admission of testimony regarding a polygraph test” of the [young woman] involved in the incident. The Appellate Division said that such testimony may be considered in a Section 75 disciplinary hearing “if it is otherwise material and relevant, so long as there is ... as there was in this instance ... substantial evidence of the reliability of the machine and the qualifications of the operator.”
As to Ost’s complaint that “he was not offered an opportunity to take a similar test,” the court commented that although Ost indicated that he would be willing to submit to such an examination, he never asked for a test to be scheduled or take any steps to arrange for one on his own.
Another issue that was considered by the Appellate Division was the Town’s decision to dismiss Ost in the face of the hearing officer’s recommendation that he be reprimanded and suspended for 30 days without pay. It noted that initially the Supreme Court had rejected all of Ost’s arguments but one -- that the town had failed to set forth the rationale underlying its departure from the hearing officer’s findings and recommended penalty.
Subsequently the town explained its reasons for its decision -- it found that Ost had lied about his activities in August 1995, and “his testimony regarding the earlier incident was incredible as well.” The Appellate Division affirmed the town’s decision as to guilt and the penalty it imposed on Ost. It said that “reversal of the penalty would not be warranted for the Board explicitly found ... that [Ost’s] actions in August 1995, alone, necessitated his termination from the police force.”
July 21, 2010
Governor Paterson revokes his proclamations calling for extraordinary legislative sessions
Governor Paterson revokes his proclamations calling for extraordinary legislative sessions
Source: New York State Office of the Governor
On July 21, 2010, Governor David A. Paterson revoked his proclamations for the extraordinary sessions he issued on January 17, 2010 and June 26, 2010.
The Governor explained that “This revocation lays to rest spurious claims by both the Assembly and Senate that any prior extraordinary session convened by gubernatorial proclamation remains in progress."
Governor Paterson said that he stands "ready to convene a new extraordinary session of the Legislature pursuant to his authority under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution should he deem such an action necessary in the coming weeks.”
According to the Governor’s Office's statement, Article IV, Section 3 of the New York State Constitution gives the Governor broad and unambiguous legal authority "to convene the legislature, or the senate only, on extraordinary occasions."
This provision, said the Governor's Office, has been part of the New York State Constitution since it was first adopted on April 20, 1777.* “Since that time – more than 230 years and four constitutions later** – the provision remains virtually unchanged and imposes no requirement on the Governor to seek legislative permission before convening an extraordinary session.”
* Article XVIII of The Constitution of 1777, in pertinent part, provides that “[The Governor] shall have power to convene the assembly and senate on extraordinary occasions; to prorogue them [i.e., discontinue a session of a legislative body without dissolving it] from time to time, provided such prorogations shall not exceed sixty days in the space of any one year…."
In 1812, then Governor Daniel D. Tompkins [1807-1817; 1817-1825], pursuant to the authority set out in Article XVIII of the Constitution of 1777, "prorogued the legislature" -- the only recorded instance of a New York State governor exercising such power. The full text of the Constitution of 1777 is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ny-1777.htm
** New York State has had five constitutions, adopted in 1777, 1821, 1846, 1894, and 1938, respectively.
The full text of the Governor’s Office's statement is posted on the Internet at: http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/072110Session.html
Source: New York State Office of the Governor
On July 21, 2010, Governor David A. Paterson revoked his proclamations for the extraordinary sessions he issued on January 17, 2010 and June 26, 2010.
The Governor explained that “This revocation lays to rest spurious claims by both the Assembly and Senate that any prior extraordinary session convened by gubernatorial proclamation remains in progress."
Governor Paterson said that he stands "ready to convene a new extraordinary session of the Legislature pursuant to his authority under Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution should he deem such an action necessary in the coming weeks.”
According to the Governor’s Office's statement, Article IV, Section 3 of the New York State Constitution gives the Governor broad and unambiguous legal authority "to convene the legislature, or the senate only, on extraordinary occasions."
This provision, said the Governor's Office, has been part of the New York State Constitution since it was first adopted on April 20, 1777.* “Since that time – more than 230 years and four constitutions later** – the provision remains virtually unchanged and imposes no requirement on the Governor to seek legislative permission before convening an extraordinary session.”
* Article XVIII of The Constitution of 1777, in pertinent part, provides that “[The Governor] shall have power to convene the assembly and senate on extraordinary occasions; to prorogue them [i.e., discontinue a session of a legislative body without dissolving it] from time to time, provided such prorogations shall not exceed sixty days in the space of any one year…."
In 1812, then Governor Daniel D. Tompkins [1807-1817; 1817-1825], pursuant to the authority set out in Article XVIII of the Constitution of 1777, "prorogued the legislature" -- the only recorded instance of a New York State governor exercising such power. The full text of the Constitution of 1777 is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ny-1777.htm
** New York State has had five constitutions, adopted in 1777, 1821, 1846, 1894, and 1938, respectively.
The full text of the Governor’s Office's statement is posted on the Internet at: http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/072110Session.html
Writ of mandamus unavailable to an individual seeking the removal of material from his or her personnel file where discretionary action involved
Writ of mandamus unavailable to an individual seeking the removal of material from his or her personnel file where discretionary action involved
Hazen v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 06142, Decided on July 20, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department
Is a letter to an individual concerning his or her work performance constructive criticism or pejorative reprimand? The courts have held that characterizing the letter as a "reprimand" constitutes discipline, entitling the individual to a Section 3020-a hearing or a contract disciplinary procedure. In contrast, if the letter simply contains "criticism of a teacher's performance," it may not rise to the level of formal disciplinary action and thus no disciplinary hearing would be required. This appears to be the rationale underlying the ruling of the Appellate Division in Hazen.
Wendy Hazen filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order directing the New York City Board of Education “to expunge certain [critical] letters from [her] personnel file. Supreme Court denied Hazen’s petition and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
The Appellate Division explained that Hazen sought to compel the removal of the letters to which she objected from her file, which was an action in the nature of mandamus.
However, said the court, placing the letters in her personnel file and deciding whether or not to remove then when Hazen demand their being expunged, are essentially discretionary actions. Mandamus* is not an available remedy in situations involving an administrator’s discretionary action. It is an “extraordinary remedy” limited in its application to vindicate an individual's clear legal entitlement to a course of action.
Further, said the court, Hazen was not entitled to a hearing in this matter as the relevant provision in the controlling collective bargaining agreement sets out the teacher's due process rights to review and challenge entries in her personnel file. The court then found that “there is no reason to conclude that [the school district] failed to follow the procedural requirements imposed by that contract or otherwise acted unlawfully.
In addition, the Appellate Division noted that the actions objected to by Hazen “were not disciplinary or penalty measures related to the filing or disposition of formal charges” and thus she was not entitled to a hearing pursuant to Education Law §3020-a.
* Latin for "We command." The writ of mandamus is an order from a superior body to an inferior body ordering the inferior body [or an individual] to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06142.htm
Hazen v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 06142, Decided on July 20, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department
Is a letter to an individual concerning his or her work performance constructive criticism or pejorative reprimand? The courts have held that characterizing the letter as a "reprimand" constitutes discipline, entitling the individual to a Section 3020-a hearing or a contract disciplinary procedure. In contrast, if the letter simply contains "criticism of a teacher's performance," it may not rise to the level of formal disciplinary action and thus no disciplinary hearing would be required. This appears to be the rationale underlying the ruling of the Appellate Division in Hazen.
Wendy Hazen filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order directing the New York City Board of Education “to expunge certain [critical] letters from [her] personnel file. Supreme Court denied Hazen’s petition and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
The Appellate Division explained that Hazen sought to compel the removal of the letters to which she objected from her file, which was an action in the nature of mandamus.
However, said the court, placing the letters in her personnel file and deciding whether or not to remove then when Hazen demand their being expunged, are essentially discretionary actions. Mandamus* is not an available remedy in situations involving an administrator’s discretionary action. It is an “extraordinary remedy” limited in its application to vindicate an individual's clear legal entitlement to a course of action.
Further, said the court, Hazen was not entitled to a hearing in this matter as the relevant provision in the controlling collective bargaining agreement sets out the teacher's due process rights to review and challenge entries in her personnel file. The court then found that “there is no reason to conclude that [the school district] failed to follow the procedural requirements imposed by that contract or otherwise acted unlawfully.
In addition, the Appellate Division noted that the actions objected to by Hazen “were not disciplinary or penalty measures related to the filing or disposition of formal charges” and thus she was not entitled to a hearing pursuant to Education Law §3020-a.
* Latin for "We command." The writ of mandamus is an order from a superior body to an inferior body ordering the inferior body [or an individual] to perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06142.htm
Divorced retiree may enroll his or her new spouse for dependent coverage in the retiree’s health insurance plan as provided by the CBA
Divorced retiree may enroll his or her new spouse for dependent coverage in the retiree’s health insurance plan as provided by the CBA
Giblin v Village of Johnson City, 2010 NY Slip Op 06133, Decided on July 15, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department
When William Giblin retired from his position with the Village of Johnson City, he continued his individual and dependent health insurance for himself and his then-wife pursuant to the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement [CBA]. The controlling provisions in the CBA provided that "[a]ll present retirees … and all members who retire in the future shall continue to receive Blue Cross, Blue Shield Major Medical Insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents (or comparable coverage as may then be in effect)."
Giblin and his then-wife divorced some time later. As the dependent health insurance coverage for Giblin’s former wife automatically terminated upon divorce, Johnson City terminated Giblin’s “family health insurance plan, switching him to an individual coverage plan.”
Some time later Giblin remarried and he asked Johnson City to enroll his new spouse in the City’s health insurance plan as his dependent. Johnson City refused to do so and advised Giblin that he “no longer had family coverage and was not entitled to change his [individual coverage] plan to family coverage.”
Giblin sued, seeking a court order to annul the City’s determination and a declaration that it was required to provide dependent health insurance coverage to his new spouse. Supreme Court annulled the City’s denial of Giblin’s request and directed the City to extend health insurance benefits to Giblin new spouse as his dependent. The City appealed.
The Appellate Division commenced its consideration of the City’s appeal by noting that while Giblin is challenging an action by a municipality, the damages claimed flow from an alleged breach of contract. Accordingly, said the court, "the claim must be resolved through the application of traditional rules of contract law" rather than under CPLR Article 78.
The court then concluded that the City had “breached its contractual obligation” to provide health insurance benefits to Giblin new spouse. Pointing out that the CBA states that Giblin, as a retiree, "shall continue to receive" health insurance coverage for himself and his dependents…” the court observed that “Nothing in the agreement freezes benefits so as to limit coverage to people who are dependents of a retiree at the time of retirement.”
Rejecting the City’s argument that the word "continue" in the CBA supports its determination, the Appellate Division said that “when the whole sentence is read in context it says that insurance coverage will continue for retirees and their dependents, not that retirees will continue to receive the same type of coverage (family or individual).”
Further, the Appellate Division commented that the CBA did not “specifically prohibit retirees from changing their enrollment from individual to family coverage or vice versa.”
The court explained that although Giblin’s former wife was no longer eligible for coverage when they divorced, Giblin “did not request a change to individual coverage and, when he remarried, he merely desired to continue receiving family coverage as he had at the time of his retirement.”
Reading the plain language of the CBA, the Appellate Division decided that Giblin was entitled to a declaration that City must provide dependent health insurance coverage to Giblin new spouse.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06133.htm
Giblin v Village of Johnson City, 2010 NY Slip Op 06133, Decided on July 15, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department
When William Giblin retired from his position with the Village of Johnson City, he continued his individual and dependent health insurance for himself and his then-wife pursuant to the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement [CBA]. The controlling provisions in the CBA provided that "[a]ll present retirees … and all members who retire in the future shall continue to receive Blue Cross, Blue Shield Major Medical Insurance coverage for themselves and their dependents (or comparable coverage as may then be in effect)."
Giblin and his then-wife divorced some time later. As the dependent health insurance coverage for Giblin’s former wife automatically terminated upon divorce, Johnson City terminated Giblin’s “family health insurance plan, switching him to an individual coverage plan.”
Some time later Giblin remarried and he asked Johnson City to enroll his new spouse in the City’s health insurance plan as his dependent. Johnson City refused to do so and advised Giblin that he “no longer had family coverage and was not entitled to change his [individual coverage] plan to family coverage.”
Giblin sued, seeking a court order to annul the City’s determination and a declaration that it was required to provide dependent health insurance coverage to his new spouse. Supreme Court annulled the City’s denial of Giblin’s request and directed the City to extend health insurance benefits to Giblin new spouse as his dependent. The City appealed.
The Appellate Division commenced its consideration of the City’s appeal by noting that while Giblin is challenging an action by a municipality, the damages claimed flow from an alleged breach of contract. Accordingly, said the court, "the claim must be resolved through the application of traditional rules of contract law" rather than under CPLR Article 78.
The court then concluded that the City had “breached its contractual obligation” to provide health insurance benefits to Giblin new spouse. Pointing out that the CBA states that Giblin, as a retiree, "shall continue to receive" health insurance coverage for himself and his dependents…” the court observed that “Nothing in the agreement freezes benefits so as to limit coverage to people who are dependents of a retiree at the time of retirement.”
Rejecting the City’s argument that the word "continue" in the CBA supports its determination, the Appellate Division said that “when the whole sentence is read in context it says that insurance coverage will continue for retirees and their dependents, not that retirees will continue to receive the same type of coverage (family or individual).”
Further, the Appellate Division commented that the CBA did not “specifically prohibit retirees from changing their enrollment from individual to family coverage or vice versa.”
The court explained that although Giblin’s former wife was no longer eligible for coverage when they divorced, Giblin “did not request a change to individual coverage and, when he remarried, he merely desired to continue receiving family coverage as he had at the time of his retirement.”
Reading the plain language of the CBA, the Appellate Division decided that Giblin was entitled to a declaration that City must provide dependent health insurance coverage to Giblin new spouse.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06133.htm
A government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity unless violative of an individual's statutory or constitutional rights
Cavanaugh v Doherty, Appellate Division, 243 A.D.2d 92
Erin Cavanaugh, an Assistant Public Relations Aide employed by the State Department of Correctional Services and Thomas Doherty, Appointment Secretary in the Executive Department, became involved in a political argument at a restaurant. Their oral exchanges culminated in Cavanaugh calling Doherty an “explicitve deleted.” Doherty allegedly responded that “he would 'have her job in the morning'“.
Forty-eight hours later Cavanaugh was unemployed.
Cavanaugh sued, claiming a breach of her employment contract; abusive discharge; violation of her civil rights and other wrongdoings by Doherty, James Flateau, her immediate supervisor and John Patterson, a Correctional Services’ deputy commissioner who allegedly ordered Flateau to fire Cavanaugh because of her retort during her off-duty argument with Doherty.
Although at this stage of the proceeding the appeal essentially concerned challenges by the parties to the Supreme Court’s allowing certain claims and defenses to survive and dismissing others, the Appellate Division addressed a number of significant issues in the course of reviewing the matter.
One is of particular importance, addressing the concept of a public official’s “qualified immunity.”
The court said that a government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate [an individual’s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have know....”
Commenting that the official has the burden of demonstrating that his or her acts enjoy a qualified immunity, the Appellate Division said that although Flateau was acting within the ambit of his official duties, as he was instructed to terminate Cavanaugh, “none of the defendants has established that they had an objectively reasonable belief that their actions did not violate clearly established rights of [Cavanaugh], particularly as it appears that [Cavanaugh’s] termination was retributive in nature for the personal affront to Doherty ... and because each was aware of or should have been aware of [Cavanaugh’s] First Amendment rights.”
The court concluded that “the defendants have not established entitlement to qualified immunity,” and reinstated Cavanaugh’s civil rights violation claims.
In contrast, the Appellate Division said that while Cavanaugh’s allegations that her employment was intentionally terminated without justification and she suffered damages as a result was sufficient to allege a prima facie tort against Doherty and Patterson, this claim against Flateau should be dismissed because, said the court, “he was acting within the ambit of his official duties.”
The opinion also notes that pubic policy prohibits the maintenance of a suit against the State or, by extension, an official acting in his or her official capacity for prima facie tort.”
The Appellate Division pointed out that two of Cavanaugh’s claims were brought against the defendants in their “official capacity.” These consisted of an alleged breach of her employment contract and an alleged violation of Section 201-d of the Labor Law. The court said that the Supreme Court properly ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over these causes of action and that they should have been filed with the Court of Claims.
Cavanaugh v Doherty, Appellate Division, 243 A.D.2d 92
Erin Cavanaugh, an Assistant Public Relations Aide employed by the State Department of Correctional Services and Thomas Doherty, Appointment Secretary in the Executive Department, became involved in a political argument at a restaurant. Their oral exchanges culminated in Cavanaugh calling Doherty an “explicitve deleted.” Doherty allegedly responded that “he would 'have her job in the morning'“.
Forty-eight hours later Cavanaugh was unemployed.
Cavanaugh sued, claiming a breach of her employment contract; abusive discharge; violation of her civil rights and other wrongdoings by Doherty, James Flateau, her immediate supervisor and John Patterson, a Correctional Services’ deputy commissioner who allegedly ordered Flateau to fire Cavanaugh because of her retort during her off-duty argument with Doherty.
Although at this stage of the proceeding the appeal essentially concerned challenges by the parties to the Supreme Court’s allowing certain claims and defenses to survive and dismissing others, the Appellate Division addressed a number of significant issues in the course of reviewing the matter.
One is of particular importance, addressing the concept of a public official’s “qualified immunity.”
The court said that a government official performing a discretionary function is entitled to qualified immunity provided his or her conduct does not violate [an individual’s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have know....”
Commenting that the official has the burden of demonstrating that his or her acts enjoy a qualified immunity, the Appellate Division said that although Flateau was acting within the ambit of his official duties, as he was instructed to terminate Cavanaugh, “none of the defendants has established that they had an objectively reasonable belief that their actions did not violate clearly established rights of [Cavanaugh], particularly as it appears that [Cavanaugh’s] termination was retributive in nature for the personal affront to Doherty ... and because each was aware of or should have been aware of [Cavanaugh’s] First Amendment rights.”
The court concluded that “the defendants have not established entitlement to qualified immunity,” and reinstated Cavanaugh’s civil rights violation claims.
In contrast, the Appellate Division said that while Cavanaugh’s allegations that her employment was intentionally terminated without justification and she suffered damages as a result was sufficient to allege a prima facie tort against Doherty and Patterson, this claim against Flateau should be dismissed because, said the court, “he was acting within the ambit of his official duties.”
The opinion also notes that pubic policy prohibits the maintenance of a suit against the State or, by extension, an official acting in his or her official capacity for prima facie tort.”
The Appellate Division pointed out that two of Cavanaugh’s claims were brought against the defendants in their “official capacity.” These consisted of an alleged breach of her employment contract and an alleged violation of Section 201-d of the Labor Law. The court said that the Supreme Court properly ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over these causes of action and that they should have been filed with the Court of Claims.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigating a complaint based on the same issues as earlier litigated
The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars relitigating a complaint based on the same issues as earlier litigated
Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Company, App. Div., 251 A.D.2d 389 [Affirmed on basis of collateral estoppel, 93 N.Y.2d 343]
It is a basic principle of law that an individual may not relitigate a claim that he or she had early presented to, and had been considered and decided by, the courts.
Kimball Parker was dismissed from his position as a volunteer firefighter with Blauvelt for insubordination following a disciplinary hearing conducted by the Orangetown Town Board.
Parker challenged his dismissal pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, seeking an order directing his reinstatement and monetary damages. As part of his Article 78 action Parker complained that his 42 USC 1983 civil rights had been violated.
His 42 USC 1983 civil rights action was dismissed without prejudice by a Supreme Court justice while his Article 78 appeal from his termination was transferred to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division considered and rejected Parker’s Article 78 petition, confirming his dismissal from the fire company by the town board. [Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Company, 222 AD2d 437].
Parker then commenced a civil rights action, essentially raising the same issues previously considered in his Article 78 action. Blauvelt moved for summary judgment and the Appellate Division agreed on the grounds that the issues and facts raised by Parker were the same in both actions.
The court noted that Parker had a “full and fair opportunity to challenge and defend against them” and therefore, even if the remedy sought under 42 USC 1983 was different from those he had sought in his Article 78 action, further consideration of his 42 USC 1983 claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata [a matter judicially acted upon] and collateral estoppel [there was a conclusive judgment in another action].
Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Company, App. Div., 251 A.D.2d 389 [Affirmed on basis of collateral estoppel, 93 N.Y.2d 343]
It is a basic principle of law that an individual may not relitigate a claim that he or she had early presented to, and had been considered and decided by, the courts.
Kimball Parker was dismissed from his position as a volunteer firefighter with Blauvelt for insubordination following a disciplinary hearing conducted by the Orangetown Town Board.
Parker challenged his dismissal pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, seeking an order directing his reinstatement and monetary damages. As part of his Article 78 action Parker complained that his 42 USC 1983 civil rights had been violated.
His 42 USC 1983 civil rights action was dismissed without prejudice by a Supreme Court justice while his Article 78 appeal from his termination was transferred to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division considered and rejected Parker’s Article 78 petition, confirming his dismissal from the fire company by the town board. [Parker v Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Company, 222 AD2d 437].
Parker then commenced a civil rights action, essentially raising the same issues previously considered in his Article 78 action. Blauvelt moved for summary judgment and the Appellate Division agreed on the grounds that the issues and facts raised by Parker were the same in both actions.
The court noted that Parker had a “full and fair opportunity to challenge and defend against them” and therefore, even if the remedy sought under 42 USC 1983 was different from those he had sought in his Article 78 action, further consideration of his 42 USC 1983 claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata [a matter judicially acted upon] and collateral estoppel [there was a conclusive judgment in another action].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
CAUTION
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press.
Email: n467fl@gmail.com