Claiming breaks in service for childcare may be excused for the purposes of member service in the NYS Employees’ Retirement System
Soronen v Comptroller, 244 A.D.2d 842
William Soronen, Jr., was a temporary aide to a New York State Senator during the 1974 and 1975 legislative sessions. He worked on a part-time basis. In July 1975 Soronen accepted a position with a private law firm. In 1978 he was appointed as a confidential law clerk to a State Supreme Court justice and joined the New York State Employees’ Retirement System [ERS].
Soronen subsequently applied for retroactive membership in ERS based on his service with the State legislature in 1974 and 1975 pursuant to Section 803 of the Retirement and Social Security Law.
ERS rejected his application on the grounds that he had a “break in service.” Soronen appealed, contending that he had not reapplied for employment with the State legislature, although his employer would have approved such part-time employment, because he wanted to care for his son. He attributed his three-plus year break in public service to childcare, claiming that Section 803(b)(2) allowed certain breaks in service “attributed to the birth of a child... or care for such child.”
The Appellate Division affirmed ERS’ determination, noting that Soronen’s break in public service was due to the end of the 1975 legislative session and his termination from his temporary employment, not childcare. The Court also commented that Soronen had not demonstrated that “a public employment position was definitely available to him during both the 1976 and 1977 legislative sessions and that he turned [them] down because of child care requirements.”
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
August 27, 2010
Disciplinary action could affect eligibility for Unemployment Insurance
Disciplinary action could affect eligibility for Unemployment Insurance
Cuevas v Sweeney, 246 A.D.2d 718
Sometimes an employee who has been dismissed from his or her position as a result of disciplinary action will file for unemployment insurance benefits. Typically the Unemployment Insurance Board will hold that the individual is disqualified from receiving such benefits because his or her employment was terminated for misconduct. Can the board rely on the disciplinary determination as the basis for denying the claim? Yes, it may, as the Cuevas decision by the Appellate Division illustrates.
Naptale Cuevas, a Mental Hygiene Therapy Aide employed by a State agency, was found guilty of abusing and threatening his supervisor with physical harm. An arbitrator issued the decision after a disciplinary grievance hearing conducted in accordance with the provisions of a Taylor Law agreement.
The arbitrator ruled that dismissal was appropriate based on Cuevas’ being found guilty of the charges and the fact that Cuevas “previously had carried out a physical assault upon a security guard.” The Court said that the Board properly gave collateral estoppel* effect to the arbitrator’s determination when it ruled that Cuevas had lost his job under disqualifying misconduct.
* The doctrine of collateral estoppel is used in situations where the conclusiveness of a judgment in a prior action involving the same parties is applied in a subsequent action involving a different claim, here a claim for unemployment insurance benefits.
Cuevas v Sweeney, 246 A.D.2d 718
Sometimes an employee who has been dismissed from his or her position as a result of disciplinary action will file for unemployment insurance benefits. Typically the Unemployment Insurance Board will hold that the individual is disqualified from receiving such benefits because his or her employment was terminated for misconduct. Can the board rely on the disciplinary determination as the basis for denying the claim? Yes, it may, as the Cuevas decision by the Appellate Division illustrates.
Naptale Cuevas, a Mental Hygiene Therapy Aide employed by a State agency, was found guilty of abusing and threatening his supervisor with physical harm. An arbitrator issued the decision after a disciplinary grievance hearing conducted in accordance with the provisions of a Taylor Law agreement.
The arbitrator ruled that dismissal was appropriate based on Cuevas’ being found guilty of the charges and the fact that Cuevas “previously had carried out a physical assault upon a security guard.” The Court said that the Board properly gave collateral estoppel* effect to the arbitrator’s determination when it ruled that Cuevas had lost his job under disqualifying misconduct.
* The doctrine of collateral estoppel is used in situations where the conclusiveness of a judgment in a prior action involving the same parties is applied in a subsequent action involving a different claim, here a claim for unemployment insurance benefits.
August 26, 2010
Disqualifying an applicant for employment based on psychological evaluations
Disqualifying an applicant for employment based on psychological evaluations
Coffey v Kampe, NYS Supreme Court, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]
The Coffey case concerns the disqualification of an individual who wanted to become a police officer because he did not pass the psychological evaluation portion of the Police Officer examination. Section 50 of the Civil Service Law allows a municipal civil service commission to disqualify an applicant if, after passing the required examination, he or she is found not to meet any of the announced requirements.
Coffey took the written test for Nassau County police officer. He scored highly on the written test and was ranked 70th among 70,000 candidates. He also passed a background investigation. But he was disqualified based on the results the third part of Nassau County’s screening process: a three-tiered psychological test battery.
Coffey’s objected, but his appeal was dismissed by the Commission. He sued, contending that his disqualification was arbitrary or capricious. The Commission replied that it had acted in accordance with all relevant rules, policies, and standards, which it had adopted in order to properly administer the provisions of Section 50 of the Civil Service Law.
According to the decision, the Commission found that Coffey failed the psychological screening process because he did not “score within an acceptable range on the objective psychological screening test, and failed in the personal psychological test and interviews.”
The Commission’s psychological screening process had been reviewed and approved by the Appellate Division [Keryc v Nassau County Civil Service Commission, et al, 143 AD2d 669].
New York State Supreme Court Justice O’Connell said, “Courts have also upheld determinations of disqualification, where, as here, the Commissioner of Civil Service found that an applicant was unqualified to serve in a law enforcement position for poor results on standardized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) exam, among other reasons,” citing the Appellate Division’s decision in Conlon v Commissioner of County of Suffolk, 640 NYS2d 145.
Under the Commission’s rules, the applicant has the burden of establishing his or her qualifications for appointment as a police officer. In dismissing Coffey’s petition, Justice O’Connell said that “where, as here, [the individual] was not actually an employee, but an applicant for appointment, he [or she] must demonstrate that the Commission was arbitrary and capricious, or acted in manner without a rational basis in not making the appointment. The Court ruled that Coffey had not proved this to be the case.
In addition, Justice O’Connell found that Coffey had failed to disclose certain information to the county including five military disciplinary proceedings, two of which resulted in disciplinary actions.
The full text of the ruling is at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/
Coffey v Kampe, NYS Supreme Court, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]
The Coffey case concerns the disqualification of an individual who wanted to become a police officer because he did not pass the psychological evaluation portion of the Police Officer examination. Section 50 of the Civil Service Law allows a municipal civil service commission to disqualify an applicant if, after passing the required examination, he or she is found not to meet any of the announced requirements.
Coffey took the written test for Nassau County police officer. He scored highly on the written test and was ranked 70th among 70,000 candidates. He also passed a background investigation. But he was disqualified based on the results the third part of Nassau County’s screening process: a three-tiered psychological test battery.
Coffey’s objected, but his appeal was dismissed by the Commission. He sued, contending that his disqualification was arbitrary or capricious. The Commission replied that it had acted in accordance with all relevant rules, policies, and standards, which it had adopted in order to properly administer the provisions of Section 50 of the Civil Service Law.
According to the decision, the Commission found that Coffey failed the psychological screening process because he did not “score within an acceptable range on the objective psychological screening test, and failed in the personal psychological test and interviews.”
The Commission’s psychological screening process had been reviewed and approved by the Appellate Division [Keryc v Nassau County Civil Service Commission, et al, 143 AD2d 669].
New York State Supreme Court Justice O’Connell said, “Courts have also upheld determinations of disqualification, where, as here, the Commissioner of Civil Service found that an applicant was unqualified to serve in a law enforcement position for poor results on standardized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) exam, among other reasons,” citing the Appellate Division’s decision in Conlon v Commissioner of County of Suffolk, 640 NYS2d 145.
Under the Commission’s rules, the applicant has the burden of establishing his or her qualifications for appointment as a police officer. In dismissing Coffey’s petition, Justice O’Connell said that “where, as here, [the individual] was not actually an employee, but an applicant for appointment, he [or she] must demonstrate that the Commission was arbitrary and capricious, or acted in manner without a rational basis in not making the appointment. The Court ruled that Coffey had not proved this to be the case.
In addition, Justice O’Connell found that Coffey had failed to disclose certain information to the county including five military disciplinary proceedings, two of which resulted in disciplinary actions.
The full text of the ruling is at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/
Discontinuing certain disability benefits
Discontinuing certain disability benefits
Town of Cortland v PERB, NYS Supreme Court, [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports]
The Town of Cortland unilaterally adopted policies and procedures that terminated certain benefits that were being paid to police officers disabled in the line of duty if they had received such benefits for more than one year. These benefits were not expressly provided for by Section 207-c of the General Municipal Law. In support of its action, the town cited Section 71 of the Civil Service Law [Worker’s Compensation Leave], which authorizes a public employer to “terminate” an individual who has been absent for a cumulative period of at least one year.
The town also adopted procedures requiring (1) “timely notice” of any job-related injuries, (2) a time limit for appealing proposed light duty assignments and (3) a requirement that police officers claiming Section 207-c benefits charge any lost time to accumulated leave credits pending a determination of their eligibility for such benefits.
A state Supreme Court justice upheld a PERB ruling that the town’s unilateral adoption of such policies and procedures constituted a violation of Section 209-a(1)(d) of the Taylor Law. The court affirmed PERB’s order directing that these policies and procedures be rescinded. If such changes are to be implemented, they must be collectively negotiated.
The court stated that the submission of such policies and procedures to the bargaining process would not have any adverse effect upon Cortland’s ability to exercise any of the rights, which it is accorded under General Municipal Law Section 207-c.
Because the issue was settled under the Taylor Law, the court did not address the town’s innovative argument that Section 71 of the Civil Service Law can serve as statutory authority for discontinuing certain benefits for officers who had been absent because of a work connected injury for one year or longer.
Civil Service Law Section 71 [Workers’ Compensation Leave] applies to employees who have been “separated from service” because of a work-related injury or disease as defined in the Workers’ Compensation Law. If the injury did not “permanently incapacitate” the individual, Section 71 mandates that the public employer give the disabled employee a leave of absence for at least one year. Section 71 also authorizes a public employer to “terminate” an individual who has been absent for a cumulative period of at least one year.
The key issue here is what legislature meant by the term “separated from service.” While “separated” is not defined in the statute, reading Section 71 in its entirety suggests that it refers to a situation where the individual is physically unable to report to work rather having been “removed” from his or her position.
Application to Sections 207-a and 207-c: An employee who is receiving benefits under GML 207-a or 207-c may be physically unable to report to work. And some individuals who receive benefits under 207-a or 207-c also receive worker’s compensation benefits. Does this mean at least some employees on 207 leaves are “separated from service” within the meaning of Section 71? And do the provisions of Section 71 therefore apply to theses public employees receiving benefits under 207-a or 207-c?
Courts have not yet ruled on whether Section 71 is applicable in Section 207-a or 207-c situations. However, if the issue is litigated in the future, it is quite possible that courts will conclude that Section 71 simply does not apply in Section 207-a and Section 207-c situations.
The reason is that neither Section 207-a nor Section 207-c authorize the separation of an employee injured in the line of duty. Sections 207-a and 207-c appear to view disabled individuals as remaining employees who are subject to recall upon the termination of the disability or, under appropriate circumstances, assigned to perform light duty. In fact, Sections 207-a and 207-c provide for the continuation of compensation until his or her retirement, attaining the mandatory age of retirement or such other time as the individual is no longer qualified for such benefits. Arguably, the event of separation or termination in the sense referred to in Section 71 does not appear to occur in 207-a or 207-c situations.
On the other hand, the courts might well view the provisions of Section 71 to be triggered in a situation in which Section 207-a or Section 207-c salary payments are discontinued by the employer and the individual fails to return to duty, claiming that his or her disability prevents his or her doing so.
Under these facts, the individual, in effect, concedes that his or her absence is due to a workers’ compensation injury He or she has been separated from service -- i.e., cannot report for duty -- and thus the employer can deem that he or she is entitled to Section 71 leave by operation of law. Such a situation is clearly distinguishable from the employee’s status under Section 207-a or Section 207-c where he or she is physically continued on the payroll and thus has not been “separated.”
Another distinguishing element: Section 71 applies only in situations where the individual is determined not to be permanently incapacitated as a result of an occupational injury or disease. In contrast, Section 207-a and 207-c benefits are provided regardless of whether the individual’s work related injury is determined to have resulted in a temporary disability or a permanent incapacity.
Other cases: Other cases dealing with discontinuing certain benefits to individuals being paid pursuant to Section 207-a or Section 207-c include Chalachan v City of Binghamton, 55 NY2d 989, [contractual right to payment for accrued vacation credits while individual was receiving Section 207-a benefits] and PBA, Village of Walden, 30 PERB 3053, [discontinuation of a past practice that provided “contractual benefits” for vacations and other leaves to persons receiving Section 207-c benefits].
In Chalachan the Court of Appeals said that disabled firefighters were entitled to compensation and medical payments as a matter of law but “any additional benefits must be expressly provided for in the agreement....”
In Walden PERB observed that the Taylor Law agreement was silent as to such payments and found that they had been extended to disabled officers “only pursuant to a practice developed over time.” PERB ruled that Walden had not violated Section 209-a.1(d) when it unilaterally discontinuing its past practice.
PERB noted the PBA’s complaint was a “noncontract grievance,” and under the terms of the contract the “final disposition of past practice grievances” was left to the Village Manager. Accordingly, PERB concluded, “... the language in the ... [negotiated] grievance procedure vests the village with the right to continue or discontinue past practices in its discretion.”
Town of Cortland v PERB, NYS Supreme Court, [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports]
The Town of Cortland unilaterally adopted policies and procedures that terminated certain benefits that were being paid to police officers disabled in the line of duty if they had received such benefits for more than one year. These benefits were not expressly provided for by Section 207-c of the General Municipal Law. In support of its action, the town cited Section 71 of the Civil Service Law [Worker’s Compensation Leave], which authorizes a public employer to “terminate” an individual who has been absent for a cumulative period of at least one year.
The town also adopted procedures requiring (1) “timely notice” of any job-related injuries, (2) a time limit for appealing proposed light duty assignments and (3) a requirement that police officers claiming Section 207-c benefits charge any lost time to accumulated leave credits pending a determination of their eligibility for such benefits.
A state Supreme Court justice upheld a PERB ruling that the town’s unilateral adoption of such policies and procedures constituted a violation of Section 209-a(1)(d) of the Taylor Law. The court affirmed PERB’s order directing that these policies and procedures be rescinded. If such changes are to be implemented, they must be collectively negotiated.
The court stated that the submission of such policies and procedures to the bargaining process would not have any adverse effect upon Cortland’s ability to exercise any of the rights, which it is accorded under General Municipal Law Section 207-c.
Because the issue was settled under the Taylor Law, the court did not address the town’s innovative argument that Section 71 of the Civil Service Law can serve as statutory authority for discontinuing certain benefits for officers who had been absent because of a work connected injury for one year or longer.
Civil Service Law Section 71 [Workers’ Compensation Leave] applies to employees who have been “separated from service” because of a work-related injury or disease as defined in the Workers’ Compensation Law. If the injury did not “permanently incapacitate” the individual, Section 71 mandates that the public employer give the disabled employee a leave of absence for at least one year. Section 71 also authorizes a public employer to “terminate” an individual who has been absent for a cumulative period of at least one year.
The key issue here is what legislature meant by the term “separated from service.” While “separated” is not defined in the statute, reading Section 71 in its entirety suggests that it refers to a situation where the individual is physically unable to report to work rather having been “removed” from his or her position.
Application to Sections 207-a and 207-c: An employee who is receiving benefits under GML 207-a or 207-c may be physically unable to report to work. And some individuals who receive benefits under 207-a or 207-c also receive worker’s compensation benefits. Does this mean at least some employees on 207 leaves are “separated from service” within the meaning of Section 71? And do the provisions of Section 71 therefore apply to theses public employees receiving benefits under 207-a or 207-c?
Courts have not yet ruled on whether Section 71 is applicable in Section 207-a or 207-c situations. However, if the issue is litigated in the future, it is quite possible that courts will conclude that Section 71 simply does not apply in Section 207-a and Section 207-c situations.
The reason is that neither Section 207-a nor Section 207-c authorize the separation of an employee injured in the line of duty. Sections 207-a and 207-c appear to view disabled individuals as remaining employees who are subject to recall upon the termination of the disability or, under appropriate circumstances, assigned to perform light duty. In fact, Sections 207-a and 207-c provide for the continuation of compensation until his or her retirement, attaining the mandatory age of retirement or such other time as the individual is no longer qualified for such benefits. Arguably, the event of separation or termination in the sense referred to in Section 71 does not appear to occur in 207-a or 207-c situations.
On the other hand, the courts might well view the provisions of Section 71 to be triggered in a situation in which Section 207-a or Section 207-c salary payments are discontinued by the employer and the individual fails to return to duty, claiming that his or her disability prevents his or her doing so.
Under these facts, the individual, in effect, concedes that his or her absence is due to a workers’ compensation injury He or she has been separated from service -- i.e., cannot report for duty -- and thus the employer can deem that he or she is entitled to Section 71 leave by operation of law. Such a situation is clearly distinguishable from the employee’s status under Section 207-a or Section 207-c where he or she is physically continued on the payroll and thus has not been “separated.”
Another distinguishing element: Section 71 applies only in situations where the individual is determined not to be permanently incapacitated as a result of an occupational injury or disease. In contrast, Section 207-a and 207-c benefits are provided regardless of whether the individual’s work related injury is determined to have resulted in a temporary disability or a permanent incapacity.
Other cases: Other cases dealing with discontinuing certain benefits to individuals being paid pursuant to Section 207-a or Section 207-c include Chalachan v City of Binghamton, 55 NY2d 989, [contractual right to payment for accrued vacation credits while individual was receiving Section 207-a benefits] and PBA, Village of Walden, 30 PERB 3053, [discontinuation of a past practice that provided “contractual benefits” for vacations and other leaves to persons receiving Section 207-c benefits].
In Chalachan the Court of Appeals said that disabled firefighters were entitled to compensation and medical payments as a matter of law but “any additional benefits must be expressly provided for in the agreement....”
In Walden PERB observed that the Taylor Law agreement was silent as to such payments and found that they had been extended to disabled officers “only pursuant to a practice developed over time.” PERB ruled that Walden had not violated Section 209-a.1(d) when it unilaterally discontinuing its past practice.
PERB noted the PBA’s complaint was a “noncontract grievance,” and under the terms of the contract the “final disposition of past practice grievances” was left to the Village Manager. Accordingly, PERB concluded, “... the language in the ... [negotiated] grievance procedure vests the village with the right to continue or discontinue past practices in its discretion.”
August 25, 2010
ALJ recommends that employer permit employee to retire rather than suffer dismissal in consideration of his 29-year unblemished service record
ALJ recommends that employer permit employee to retire rather than suffer dismissal in consideration of his 29-year unblemished service record
NYC Fire Department v Gill, OATH Index #1871/10
Although the New York City Fire Department sought the termination of Harold Gill’s employment as a firefighter after he tested positive for cocaine in a random drug test, OATH Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis recommended that the termination be stayed to permit Gill to retire in light of his unblemished 29-year record of service with the Department.
ALJ Fay also recommended that the Gill pay a substantial fine.
The text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/10_Cases/10-1871.pdf
NYC Fire Department v Gill, OATH Index #1871/10
Although the New York City Fire Department sought the termination of Harold Gill’s employment as a firefighter after he tested positive for cocaine in a random drug test, OATH Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis recommended that the termination be stayed to permit Gill to retire in light of his unblemished 29-year record of service with the Department.
ALJ Fay also recommended that the Gill pay a substantial fine.
The text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/10_Cases/10-1871.pdf
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