Individual's refusal to participate in a PERB administrative hearing deemed a failure to prosecute his or her complaint

Individual's refusal to participate in a PERB administrative hearing deemed a failure to prosecute his or her complaint
Armata and United Federation of Teachers, 30 PERB 4713

Rebeca Armata elected not to attend the scheduled PERB hearing. Her complaint was dismissed on the grounds that she had failed to prosecute it. Armata then filed charges with PERB alleging that the United Federation of Teachers had violated its duty of fair representation.*

Armata had boycotted a PERB hearing. She had asked PERB’s Administrative Law Judge [ALJ], Angela M. Blassman, to issue nine subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses she wished to question such as the school district’s director of personnel, UFT officers and others. Blassman issued a subpoena for one of the witnesses but denied Armata’s other requests.

Armata told the ALJ that she objected to Blassman’s decision and said that “if PERB changes its position (and issues the remaining subpoenas) ... we’ll be happy to attend the hearing.” When Armata failed to appear, the UFT [and the School District] moved to dismiss the charges based on Armata’s failure to appear.

Blassman, characterizing Armata’s action as a “failure to prosecute,” granted the motion, commenting that Armata “flatly refused to appear for the hearing unless I changed my ruling regarding her subpoena requests.”

Blassman’s rationale for the dismissal was that “a party’s intentional refusal to appear at a hearing unless PERB rules in that party’s favor evidences an intentional disregard of PERB’s process and leaves me no choice but to dismiss the charge.” According to Blassman, “to hold otherwise would improperly allow a party, instead of PERB, to control the conduct of PERB’s proceedings and would permit a party to hold PERB and all other parties hostage to that party’s requests.”

The case raises the question: What should a party do if the ALJ declines to rule in its favor concerning procedural issues such as issuing a subpoena? The answer is simple. The proper course of action is for the party to proceed with the hearing and prosecute, or defend, the charge. If necessary, the party could appeal the ruling to PERB, including the denial of any of its procedural motions by the ALJ.

* The New York City Board of Education was also involved in this case as a “statutory party pursuant to Section 209-a.2 of the Civil Service Law” and had filed an answer denying all of Armata’s material allegations.

Considering the impact of the reallocation of the salary grade of positions on the collective bargaining unit

Considering the impact of the reallocation of the salary grade of positions on the collective bargaining unit
CSEA Local 1000, v PERB, Appellate Division, 248 A.D.2d 882

May a public employer unilaterally seek to reallocate certain titles to a higher salary grade, if such an action serves to remove employees from a bargaining unit?

Monroe County submitted a proposal to the County Legislature to upgrade county physical and occupational therapists. Approval of the proposal would remove 12 of the positions from the negotiating unit represented by CSEA.

CSEA Local 1000, contending that Monroe could not do this without first negotiating the proposed change with the union, filed an unfair labor practice charge with PERB. The complaint alleged that “the County engaged in bad-faith negotiations” and that its “tactics” were eroding the bargaining unit.

PERB reversed an administrative law judge’s ruling that the County violated Section 209-a(1)(a) and (d) when it unilaterally reallocated these titles to higher salary grades and the unilateral wage increase applied to bargaining unit titles was a per se violation of Section 209-a(1)(a).

PERB held that the reallocation of employees to a higher salary grade was not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. In response, CSEA appealed to challenge PERB’s findings and conclusions.

The Appellate Division probed PERB’s rationale for its ruling and found it was based on an earlier decision by the Appellate Division holding that the “allocation of positions to salary grade is primarily related to a ‘mission’ of an employer and not to terms and conditions of employment” [Evans v Newman, 71 AD2 240].

The court found this persuasive and upheld PERB’s decision. Relying on the Evans decision, PERB properly found that local governments should not be compelled to negotiate allocations of positions to salary grades because such decisions are “an essential aspect of the level and quality of service to be provided by a public employer.”

The Appellate Division, noting that its power to overturn a PERB decision is limited as PERB has been given the authority to determine whether a particular matter is a term or condition of employment, said that PERB's determination will be judicially upheld so long as PERB’s interpretation is legally permissible and so long as there is no breach of constitutional rights and protections.

The Appellate Division also rejected CSEA’s argument that the reallocation and removal of 12 employees from the negotiating unit that resulted from the change was the product of improper motives on the part of the County.

According to the court, "it is clear from the record that the decision to reallocate these titles to higher pay groups was motivated solely by the County's demonstrated need to provide competitive salaries for these positions thereby correcting past recruitment and retention problems.

Correction officer charged with disobeying an order to take a post assignment

Correction officer charged with disobeying an order to take a post assignment
NYC Department of Corrections v Callabrass, OATH Index #1981/10

Regina Callabrass, a New York City correction officer, was served with a number of disciplinary charges alleging, among other things, that she was guilty of disobeying an order to take a post assignment.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Tynia Richard recommended that the charge that the Callabrass disobeyed an order to take an assignment be dismissed. ALJ explained that when Callabrass objected to the assignment, the supervisor did not repeat the directive but, instead, commenced looking for another correction officer to accept the assignment.

With respect to Callabrass’ threat “to call in sick” when she received the unwanted assignment, the ALJ said that this constituted “conduct unbecoming an officer.” In addition Judge Richard found that Callabrass had made a false or misleading logbook entry.

After considering Callabrass’ long service record with no prior discipline, ALJ Richard recommended the imposition of a 5-day suspension without pay as the penalty for these two acts of misconduct.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/10_Cases/10-1981.pdf

Oath of office must be timely filed

Oath of office must be timely filed
Formal Opinion of the Attorney General, 98-F6

The filing of a timely oath of office is critical to an individual’s lawfully holding public office. The inter-relationship of the eligibility of a candidate to assume elective office and the filing of the required oath was addressed by the Attorney General in his Formal Opinion 98-F6.

A candidate for election to the Supreme Court, if elected, would become qualified for the position on January 24. His term of office, however, would commence on January 1. If elected, could the candidate lawfully file the required oath of office upon becoming qualified for the post on January 24?

Pointing out that Section 30 of the Public Officers Law states that an elective officer must file his or her oath of office within thirty days of the beginning of his or her term of office, the Attorney General concluded that in this instance filing the required oath between January 24, and January 30, would meet the Constitutional mandate [Section 1, Article XIII] that a public officer file his or her oath before undertaking the duties of the office.

What happens if the required oath is not filed within the 30-day period allowed under Section 30? The office is declared vacant.*

Where are such oaths to be filed?

1. The oath of every State officer must be filed with the Secretary of State; the oath of a municipal officer, including an officer of a school district, with the clerk of the jurisdiction.

2. The oath of all other officers, including library trustees, and officers of a BOCES, is to be filed with the county clerk of the county in which he or she resides. In addition, judicial officers of the unified court system must file an additional oath of office with the Office of Court Administration.

As noted above, the officer’s failure to file a timely oath results in a vacancy in the office by operation of law as the ruling in Vetere v Ponce demonstrates. Patrick A. Vetere, ready to commence his third four-year term as a member of the Harrison Town Council and Village Trustee, failed to file his oath of office within the 30-day period expiring February 1, 1996 as required by Section 30 of the Public Officers Law.

The town clerk declared Vetere’s office vacant on February 19 because of Vetere’s failure to file his oath of office. Although Vetere filed an oath of office on February 23, a few weeks later the Town Council and Village Trustees held a special meeting at which Benjamin DeForce was appointed to the vacancy.

DeForce subsequently resigned from the position and Vetere was appointed to the vacancy. Vetere then attempted to have the “certificate of vacancy” prepared by the town clerk on February 19 annulled and sought a declaratory judgment by a State Supreme Court justice that he was now entitled to a full four-year term of office as a result his reelection the previous November.

Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Colabella ruled that there was no statutory authority for issuing such a judgment. This means that Vetere will have to run for election for the remainder of the term to which he had already been elected. The decision states that “notwithstanding equitable considerations and the [Town’s] consent to reinstatement, the court can only direct reinstatement in the event it finds the petitioner was improperly removed as a matter of law.”

As Vetere’s removal was held to be proper, the Court dismissed his petition.

* Section 30 excuses the failure to file the oath within the 30-day period if the individual “was on active duty in the armed forces of the United States and absent from the county of his [or her] residence at the time of his [or her] election or appointment....”

Burden of proof of the charges of alleged misconduct never shifts to the individual served with disciplinary charges

Burden of proof of the charges of alleged misconduct never shifts to the individual served with disciplinary charges
NYC Department of Sanitation v Torrence, OATH Index #2015/10

Leo Torrence, a New York Department of Sanitation, worker was required to possess a valid commercial driver's license. His commercial driver’s license was suspended for over one year while he was on a long-term line-of-duty injury leave.

The Department charged Torrence with violating its rule that all required licenses must be kept valid at all times based on its General Order 2008-14 which provides that a disciplinary complaint will be filed if, after ten calendar days from the date of notification that an individual’s license has been suspended, the employee “fails to restore it.”

Although Torrence testified that he was unaware that his license had been suspended while he was on leave and did not learn of the suspension until he applied to have it renewed, Sanitation contended that it is not required to prove that Torrence had received notice of the suspension his license to sustain the charges it had filed against him.

Rather, argued the Department, Torrence was required to prove that he did not receive any notice from Motor Vehicles that his license was suspended to rebut the charge. In other words, Sanitation contended that Torrence had the burden of "proving a negative."

Oath Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis disagreed, ruling that placing the burden of proof on Torrence in this instance would impermissibly shift the burden of proof in the disciplinary action to the accused in contrast to its being the burden of the charging party. Lewis said that Sanitation was required to show that Torrence had received appropriate notice from Motor Vehicles that his license was suspended and then did nothing within the time permitted to renew it.

Simply stated, the burden is always on the employer to prove the allegations set out in the disciplinary charges filed against the employee.

ALJ Lewis also rejected the Department’s argument that the valid license requirement is a strict liability rule as contrary to the basic precept that a finding of misconduct requires some showing of fault by the employee.

Lewis recommended that the charges filed against Torrence be dismissed.

The text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/10_Cases/10-2515.pdf

Retiree rights under an expired collective bargaining agreement

Retiree rights under an expired collective bargaining agreement
Myers v City of Schenectady, 244 A.D.2d 845, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 91 N.Y.2d 812

In Myers the Appellate Division ruled that under certain circumstances retirees may be entitled to benefits flowing from collective bargaining agreements that have expired.

The case arose after the City of Schenectady decided to change its reimbursement of Medicare premiums policy. For many years the city had encouraged its retirees to enroll in Medicare as their primary health insurance carrier upon attaining age 65. Part B of Medicare required enrollees to pay a premium for coverage.

The city promised in collective bargaining agreements to reimburse the retirees the full cost of any Medicare premium. If a retiree declined to enroll in Medicare, the city would provide him or her with “the same fully paid health insurance coverage as it provided its eligible employees.”

In March 1994 the city announced that it would only pay 50 percent of the cost of Medicare Part B to those who had enrolled in Medicare. Then the city advised retirees that effective June 1994 it would cease all reimbursements for Medicare.

A number of retirees sued, contending that they had a vested contract benefit to “fully paid health insurance” and the City could not unilaterally discontinue its reimbursement of their Medicare premiums. They contended that under the terms of the several collective bargaining agreements in effect when they retired, they were entitled to “the same fully paid Health Insurance coverage” as was available to “all eligible employees.”

The Appellate Division sustained a lower court’s ruling that the city had a contractual obligation to provide the retirees with fully paid health insurance, rejecting Schenectady’s argument that “the agreements themselves had very clear durational limits.”

The court gave considerable weight to “past practice” in determining the rights of individuals claiming benefits or rights flowing from an expired agreement. The city had continued to pay benefits under expired agreements for 19 years, the court noted.

This made it difficult for the city to argue it only intended to give retirees the Medicare benefit for the duration of the contract. “[T]here is no surer way to find out what parties meant than to see what they have done,” the court said.

Schenectady’s “own 19-year practice of continuing to provide fully paid health insurance coverage to [its retirees], even after the expiration of the various collective bargaining agreements ... [constitutes] very substantial evidence that the provisions [of the expired agreements] in question were intended to provide benefits to retirees for the entire period of their retirement,” the court said.

Pre-determination hearings not required unless a deprivation of a property or liberty interest is threatened

Pre-determination hearings not required unless a deprivation of a property or liberty interest is threatened
Taylor v NYS Dept. of Correctional Services, 248 A.D.2d 799

A psychologist advised a correctional facility’s superintendent that State Corrections Officer Mark Taylor “was dangerous and may lose impulse control at any time.” Taylor “became belligerent and abusive” when the psychologist refused to give him a copy of a report that he had prepared for Family Court. Taylor refused repeated requests to leave the psychologist’s office and ultimately police officers were called and escorted him from the office.

The superintendent then prohibited Taylor from carrying a concealed weapon while off-duty.*

Taylor complained that he was denied due process because he was not provided with a “predetermination hearing” before the superintendent prohibited him from carrying a weapon while he was off duty

The rules of the state Correctional Services Department allow it to prohibit an employee from carrying a weapon while off duty if it determines “the employee’s mental or emotional condition is such that his or her possession of a weapon represents a threat to the safety of the employee, the facility or the community.”

According to the Appellate Division’s ruling in the Taylor case, the right to a pre-determination hearing depends on whether or not the individual can demonstrate that administrative decision constituted involved some deprivation of a “property interest” or a “liberty interest.” The Appellate Division said the superintendent had not deprived Taylor of any such “liberty interest.”

The Court next addressed the “property interest” aspect of the case. How does an individual establish a property interest? By showing, said the Court, that he or she has a “legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”

The Appellate Division pointed out that it had previously ruled that the exemption set out in Section 265.20 “is not a vested right.” Accordingly, it did not constitute a property interest for the purposes of invoking claims to any right of due process.

Finding that the superintendent had a rational basis for the action and thus was neither arbitrary nor capricious, the Appellate Division dismissed Taylor’s appeal.

* Section 265.20 of the State Penal Law gives State correction officers a statutory exemption from prosecution for criminal possession of a weapon.

Correction officer charged with disobeying an order to take a post assignment

Correction officer charged with disobeying an order to take a post assignment
NYC Department of Corrections v Callabrass, OATH Index #1981/10

Regina Callabrass, a New York City correction officer, was served with a number of disciplinary charges alleging, among other things, that she was guilty of disobeying an order to take a post assignment.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Tynia Richard recommended that the charge that the Callabrass disobeyed an order to take an assignment be dismissed. ALJ explained that when Callabrass objected to the assignment, the supervisor did not repeat the directive but, instead, commenced looking for another correction officer to accept the assignment.

With respect to Callabrass’ threat “to call in sick” when she received the unwanted assignment, the ALJ said that this constituted “conduct unbecoming an officer.” In addition Judge Richard found that Callabrass had made a false or misleading logbook entry.

After considering Callabrass’ long service record with no prior discipline, ALJ Richard recommended the imposition of a 5-day suspension without pay as the penalty for these two acts of misconduct.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/10_Cases/10-1981.pdf

School board meetings are open to the public

School board meetings are open to the public
Goetschius v Greenburgh 11 UFSD, 244 A.D.2d 552

The school board of the Greenburgh 11 Union Free School District barred some of its educators from attending a board meeting at which it planned to consider the termination of certain teachers.

The educators sued, contending that the board’s action violated New York’s Open Meetings Law [Article 7, Public Officers Law]. The board, citing Sections 2801 and 3020-a of the Education Law, also argued that its action was lawful as those sections “supersede the Open Meetings Law.”

The Appellate Division rejected the board’s argument, pointing out that:

1. Sections 2801 and 3020-a “do not specifically allow the Board to exclude [the educators] from Board meetings” but, rather, allow boards of education to adopt rules and regulations for the maintenance of public order on school property;

2. Section 1708(3) specifically provides that “the meetings of all such boards [of education] shall be open to the public;”

3. Section 1708(3) overrides the general provisions of Sections 2801 and 3020-a; and

4. The State’s Open Meetings Law is not superseded by either Section 2801 or Section 3020-a.

The Appellate Division also observed that Section 110 of the Public Officers Law states that “any provision of a ... rule or regulation affecting a public body which is more restrictive with respect to public access shall be deemed superseded hereby to the extent that such provision is more restrictive than this article.”

The Appellate Division indicated that the Board “engaged in a persistent pattern of deliberate violations of the Open Meetings Law through insufficient notice, unreasonable starting times, improper convening of executive sessions, and improper exclusion of members of the public. It then upheld a Supreme Court justice’s ruling annulling certain of the board’s actions and awarding attorney fees to the educators.

The statute of limitations for litigating an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement is six years

The statute of limitations for litigating an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement is six years
Lagreca v City of Niagara Falls, 244 AD2d 862, leave to appeal denied, 91 NY2d 813.

The Lagreca decision points out that a law suit for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement must be brought within six years of the act or omission claimed to constitute the breach.

When does the statute of limitations for the alleged breach of contract begin to run? On the date when the alleged breach occurred.

Bernadette J. Lagreca, the widow of a deceased city of Niagara Falls employee, sued the city because it had terminated her late husband’s life insurance policy in June 1988.

Lagreca contended that the cancellation of the policy violated the collective bargaining agreement then in effect. Lagreca, however, did not file her lawsuit until seven years after the insurance had been terminated. The court said that statute of limitation for breach of contract was six-years and had expired by the time the suit was filed.

The appellate division affirmed the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Lagreca’s petition, commenting that “the cause of action for breach of contract occurred at the time of the breach when the [city] terminated life insurance coverage of [Lagreca deceased husband] ... allegedly in violation of the collective bargaining agreement.”

Union security

Union security
Local 1095, AFSCME and Erie Community College, 30 PERB 4707

How much does it take to show that negotiating unit employees did not have “work exclusivity” with respect to a particular work site? If there is a history of work assignments being frequently switched between unit members and non-unit workers, the work is non-exclusive according to a PERB Administrative Law Judge.

Administrative Law Judge Jean Doerr ruled that Local 1095 failed to demonstrate that the union had “exclusivity” with respect to “second shift” security work being performed at an off-campus site of the college because employees of a private security company, Pro Service, had alternated with union members in providing security services at that location for a number of years.

In such cases, said Doerr, the “essential questions to be resolved are (1) has the work been performed exclusively by unit employees? and (2) are the reassigned tasks substantially similar to those previously performed by unit members? One of the points made in the decision was that “the work at issue shifted back and forth between [Local 1095] and Pro Guard from September 1995 through January 1997,” when Pro Guard again took over the entire operation.

Doerr said that given the “ever changing nature of the assignment,” it is difficult to see that [Local 1095] had any expectation that, after again resuming the work in April of 1996, the last “switch,” it would have the second shift assignment for any extended period of time.

Failure to exhaust available administrative remedies fatal to seeking court review

Failure to exhaust available administrative remedies fatal to seeking court review
White v Pozzi, 72 AD3d 1106*

Employee’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies coupled with his failure to demonstrate an exception to the exhaustion requirement applied in his case requires the denial of his petition seeking judicial review of the disciplinary determination.

* Text of decision e-mailed to registered readers.

Disciplinary suspension without pay

Disciplinary suspension without pay
Empire Hook & Ladder Co. #1 v Nyack FD, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

It is not at all unusual for an employee to challenge his or her disciplinary suspension by filing an Article 78 petition with a court.

In contrast, an Article 78 petition challenging the disciplinary suspension of a volunteer organization is not at all common. Yet a disciplinary suspension was the basis for a lawsuit filed by the Empire Hook and Ladder Company #1, a volunteer fire department, against the Nyack Fire Department.

The genesis of the action was the Village of Upper Nyack’s approval of a request submitted by a member of Empire to purchase a vehicle to be used to transport Empire members to fires as well as certain non-fire details.

The Nyack Fire Department, however, said that the member who submitted the request to the village had violated Nyack’s rules because the member had appeared before the village board without first obtaining permission to do so from Nyack’s chief. The chief declared that unless Empire apologized within 10 days “the matter would be reopened and appropriate action would be taken.”

No apology was received and Nyack told Empire it was suspended from service for 30 days for violating the department’s rules. The suspension, however, “did not include fires, emergencies or funeral detail.”

Empire sued, contending that its suspension was arbitrary and capricious. It argued that (1) it was never presented with written charges specifying the Nyack rule or regulation which it allegedly violated and (2) the penalty imposed -- suspension for 30 days -- violated General Municipal Law Section 209-i because it had not been given a hearing on the charges.*

According to the ruling, Empire was a member of the Nyack Fire Department. One of Nyack’s rules prohibited “an individual or company ... from communicating or asking to go before any village body for any type of equipment or any other reason without obtaining permission from the Chief of the Nyack Fire Department.”

Based on this prohibition, Acting Justice Weiner dismissed Empire’s petition, ruling that:

1. GML Section 209-i did not apply in this situation and therefore no “pre-suspension” hearing was required; and

2. The discipline imposed on Empire was not so disproportionate to the offense committed as to shock one’s sense of fairness.

* GML 209-i authorizes fire departments to make regulations governing removal of volunteer officers and volunteer members of such departments and member companies for incompetence or misconduct. The Section also requires “notice and hearing” before a member may be removed from his or her position. In Armstrong v. Centerville Fire Company, 83 NY2d 937, however, the Court of Appeals decided that in adopting Section 209-i the legislature did not intend to interfere with discipline in connection with the conduct of the internal affairs of a fire department.

Employer’s good faith suspicion of employee’s stealing defeats FMLA claim

Employer’s good faith suspicion of employee’s stealing defeats FMLA claim
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.

Gwendolyn Donald worked for Arby's as an assistant manger. Shortly after being hired she suffered a series of medical problems causing intermittent periods of extreme pain. She was granted FMLA leave for related surgeries. While working the drive-through window, Donald’s cash register was over $4.00. Concerned that this might be evidence of employee theft, the company conducted an investigation, including video surveillance.

The surveillance suggested that Donald was ringing folks up at the full amount while recording the transaction in the register as discounted, and pocketing the difference. The suspicion could not be confirmed because the customers could have been handing coupons to Donald, which would explain the discrepancy. The company confronted Donald with its suspicions. When she refused to acknowledge in writing that she was stealing, she was fired.

Donald sued alleging that she was terminated in retaliation for taking FMLA leave in the past. She also claimed that her termination interferences with her right to return to work from intermittent FMLA leave in the future.

The Court initially noted that there were substantial questions regarding her FMLA retaliation/interference claims. Such questions would normally defeat the employer's motion for summary judgment. Because, however, the court found that the company established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to end Donald's employment, and that Donald had failed to establish that the reason was pretextual.

The court agreed that being $4.00 over may be evidence of theft. The court also credited the company's investigation, which confirmed the possibility of theft. The company's handbook cited theft as a reason for immediate termination. A demonstrable risk of theft, the court found, is a legitimate reason for an employer to end that person's employment.

The court rejected the non-theft explanations offered by Donald. The fact that the discrepancy could be explained because the customers could have presented discount coupons failed to diminish the legitimacy of the company's concerns. The court explained:

There may be other explanations for the discrepancies beyond the, but Plaintiff has offered no reason to believe Plum, Barocko, and Ballance fabricated their concern to cover up their unlawful discrimination. Indeed, whether Plaintiff was actually stealing or not is largely irrelevant, the relevant question is whether the evidence of theft was a sufficient reason and the actual reason for Plaintiff's termination. Plaintiff's evidence does not demonstrate that Defendant made up its reason for the termination, the stated reason was not the real reason, or that the stated reason is insufficient to justify the decision. Nor is there any evidence that the inconvenience associated with her requests for FMLA lave played any role in the decision to end Donald's employment.

Mr. Bosland Comments: So long as an employer can establish that it had a good faith belief that it took an adverse action against an employee for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, the employer will likely be successful in defeating an FMLA at the summary judgment phase. The employer does not have to prove that its suspicions were, in fact, correct. It need only prove that it held those suspicions in good faith, and acted on those suspicions when it decided to terminate the employee.

To show pretext, an employee will have to demonstrate that the employer did not have a good faith belief that the employee engaged in conduct that could get them terminated. This is not an easy burden. Simply offering innocent, alternative explanations won't do it. Stated differently, the fact that the employer may not be able to prove theft "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the standard. To defeat an FMLA claim, all the employer need prove is that it had a reasonable, good faith suspicion of theft.

Evidence of innocent, alternative explanations might, however, be used as evidence of a particularly substandard employer investigation. Coupled with some adverse comments incident to the use of FMLA leave in the past, and a short period of time between protected activity and the adverse action, and the employee can start to build a credible argument to survive the employer's inevitable summary judgment motion.

The case Donald v. Sybra Inc., No. 09-12252-BC (E.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2010).

The decisions is posted on the Internet on the “Leagle” law blog at:
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infdco20100811b16

Alleged violations of a "Memorandum of Understanding" to a Taylor Law agreement may not be subject to contract grievance procedures

Alleged violations of a "Memorandum of Understanding" to a Taylor Law agreement may not be subject to contract grievance procedures
Pine Plains CSD v Federation of Teachers, 248 A.D.2d 612

It is not unusual for parties to a collective bargaining agreement to agree to provisions set out in a “supplemental agreement” or to sign a “memorandum of understanding” in the course of collective bargaining pursuant to the Taylor Law.

Typically this device is used to set out provisions that although they have been agreed upon, for some reason, one or both of the parties do not wish to have the item set out in the collective bargaining agreement. In other instances, the supplemental agreement or memorandum of understanding is used to explain or modify a term or contract provision contained in the agreement or provide something after negotiations have been completed.

The Pine Plains Central School District case considers a significant issue: how does a party resolve a dispute concerning a provision contained in a supplemental agreement or in a memorandum of understanding?

The case arose when the Pine Plains Federation of Teachers demanded that its grievance concerning an alleged violation of a provision contained in a “supplemental memorandum of agreement” between the parties be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement in chief between the District and the Federation.

The District won a stay of arbitration of the alleged violation on the grounds that the supplement did not contain an arbitration clause nor was the contract grievance/arbitration procedure incorporated by reference into the supplement agreement.

According to the ruling by the Appellate Division, unless there is an arbitration process specifically set out in a supplement to a collective bargaining agreement or a memorandum of understanding, or the supplement or memorandum specifically states that the collective bargaining agreement in chief's arbitration procedure will be used to resolve disputes arising under it, a party cannot demand that the issue be submitted to arbitration as a matter of right.

Delay in issuing arbitration decision did not constitute misconduct by the arbitrator within the meaning of Article 75 of the CPLR

Delay in issuing arbitration decision did not constitute misconduct by the arbitrator within the meaning of Article 75 of the CPLR
Squillini v State of New York, App. Div., 248 A.D.2d 391

Michael A. Squillini, a maintenance supervisor, was served with disciplinary charges alleging “theft and deceit.” The arbitrator issued a decision on December 20, in which he found Squillini guilty of the charges and imposed the penalty of dismissal.

Squillini contended that he had agreed to an extension of time for issuing the arbitration award through November 17, but the award was issued more than a month after that. This delay, Squillini said, constituted misconduct by the arbitrator within the meaning of Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Squillini attempted to vacate the arbitration award alleging misconduct based on the arbitrator’s delay in his issuing the award.

The Appellate Division rejected Squillini’s petition to vacate the award, finding that “the arbitrator’s actions did not constitute misconduct.”

Further, said the court, “the arbitration award ... sustaining the penalty of dismissal from employment for theft and deceit, does not violate a strong public policy and is not irrational.”

New York Department of Correctional Services announces examination for Correction Officer

New York Department of Correctional Services announces examination for Correction Officer
Source: New York Department of Correctional Services - [Published by NYPPL as a public service].

A statewide competitive Civil Service exam for the position of correction officer trainee will be held on October 16, 2010. [Examination 25-431]

There are no minimum requirements for taking this written examination. However, at the time of appointment, applicants must have passed the written exam, must be 21 or older, a U.S. citizen and a resident of New York, and possess a high school diploma or GED. Appointees must also have passed medical and psychological screenings, as well as a background investigation.

Please note that although conviction for a felony automatically disqualifies anyone from becoming a correction officer, applicants having misdemeanor convictions are reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine eligibility.

Applications must be postmarked by September 13, 2010.

The starting annual salary for a trainee is $36,420 and $43,867 after the one-year traineeship, subject to potential increase through contract negotiations, with additional geographic pay Downstate. In addition to the base salary, appointees will receive 16 college credits, a comprehensive health insurance program, retirement benefits, and pre-shift briefing and expanded duty pay which amount to $3,344 annually.

Officers working at correctional facilities in the New York City area and select Mid-Hudson areas will receive an addition to their salary - $3,210 annually for working in New York City or Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland or Westchester counties, or $1,195 annually for working in Dutchess, Orange or Putnam counties. There are also evening and night shift inconvenience pay programs.

The exam is administered by the New York State Department of Civil Service. Additional information is available at:
http://www.cs.state.ny.us/examannouncements/announcements/oc/25-431.cfm,
or by telephone toll-free at (877) 697-5627, option 2.

Corrections Commissioner Brian Fischer said that “Corrections is a great career for the men and women of New York, and I encourage anyone looking for a challenging and rewarding job, especially women and minorities, to take this exam ... The important job of Correction Officer not only provides opportunities for career advancement but carries with it the honor of playing a critical role in keeping this State and its citizens safe and secure.”

To ensure a successful recruitment for October’s competitive exam, test announcements and applications will be distributed at multiple locations as well as the Department of Civil Service’s website (http://www.cs.state.ny.us/), its Albany location, its regional Civil Service offices, local New York State Employment Offices, and all State correctional facilities.

Examination announcements and applications can be obtained by contacting the Department of Correctional Services at NYSDOCS, Correction Officer Recruitment Unit, Building 2, The Harriman State Campus, 1220 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY, 12226 or by calling DOCS at (518) 457-8131, or via the internet at http://www.docs.state.ny.us/.

NOTE: Candidates for the County Correction Officer/Trainee examination held on April 10, 2010, may apply for the State examination but such individuals will not be admitted to the written test on October 16, 2010. However, the Correction Department advises that if you apply for the State Correction Officer Examination, your results from the County Correction Officer/Trainee examination will be used to calculate your final score for the State examination.

The names of candidates scoring 70 or higher on the April 10, 2010 County Correction Officer/Trainee examination will be included on the eligible list for appointment as a New York State Correction Officer ONLY if the County Correction Officer/Trainee examination candidate files an application for the State Correction Officer Examination and pays the required non-refundable processing fee for the State Examination .

State auditors find former Sodus Town Clerk embezzled town funds

State auditors find former Sodus Town Clerk embezzled town funds
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

An audit report released on August 10, 2010 by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli indicates that a former Sodus town clerk embezzled approximately $50,000 during the period January 1, 2008 to September 28, 2009.

The Comptroller’s audit was limited to a review of the clerk's monthly and annual reports and did not include an examination of the books, records, cancelled checks and check images.

The auditors found that when collecting taxes, water rents and clerk fees, the clerk took some of the cash payments and used the interest and penalties paid by others to cover the amounts taken.

In addition, the auditors noted that the board had not establish adequate policies and procedures to safeguard computerized data and assets.

The Comptroller's audit states that the objective of the audit was to determine if the former Town Clerk was properly recording, reporting and distributing all moneys received by her office for the period January 1, 2008 to September 28, 2009 and addressed the following related questions:

1. Did the former Town Clerk record, deposit, disburse and report all clerk fees, real property
taxes and water rents that she received in a timely and accurate manner?

2. Did the Board implement adequate internal control policies and procedures to protect and
account for Town assets?

The Auditors found that the former Town Clerk did not accurately record and deposit all moneys collected, resulting in a shortage of over $50,000 and has admitted that she embezzled Town funds for the last eight years.

Additionally, the reports states that the Board retained the responsibility for examining the Town Clerk’s books and records but did not perform an adequate examination of the former Town Clerk’s supporting books, records, receipts, canceled checks or check images. The Board’s examination consisted only of reviews of the former Town Clerk’s monthly and annual reports.

As a result, the Board was not aware that the former Town Clerk did not keep complete and accurate records and reports of receipts and disbursements, perform regular and competent reconciliations of those records to the bank accounts, and properly deposit moneys and issue payments in a timely manner.

DiNapoli recommended the board and incumbent Town Clerk:

1. Take appropriate action to recover town monies from the former town clerk;

2. Adequately support and deposit all monies received into the proper accounts intact and in a timely fashion;

3. Reconcile accounts on a monthly basis and analyze and reconcile available cash with liabilities;

4. Perform or contract for a thorough annual examination of the town clerk’s financial operations; and

5. Adopt information technology policies and procedures that address user access rights.

The Comptroller’s office said that Town officials generally agreed with these recommendations and plan to take corrective action.

The complete text of the Comptroller's report is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/towns/2010/sodus.pdf

Other recent reports issued by the Officer of the State Comptroller are listed below. Click on the highlighted caption to access the full report posted on the Internet.

Report: New York is "Nationwide Pension Leader" and CRF is "Highest Funded" in U.S. Comptroller DiNapoli released a statement on Wednesday in response to an article in Governing magazine that cites New York as the nationwide pension leader.

DiNapoli Shines a Light on Public Authorities Despite employing 159,000 people and spending $44 billion annually, New York's 1,100 state and local public authorities remain largely unknown and unrecognized entities, according to a report released by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. Recent legislative changes have begun to improve reporting by and oversight of these entities.

DiNapoli: Local Governments Need to do Better at Preventing Fraud and Abuse More than 51 fraud and abuse cases totaling approximately $10 million have been uncovered in local governments and school districts across New York since 2007, according to a report released on Tuesday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

DiNapoli's Office Completes Audit Of Nassau Health Care Corp. State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli on Thursday announced his office completed the audit report: Nassau Health Care Corporation (NuHealth) - Faculty Practice Plan (FPP).

DiNapoli: Town Of Wales' Property Tax Increases Were Unnecessary The Town of Wales failed to adopt realistic budgets and, over the past 10 years, continued to raise taxes despite excessive fund balances, according to an audit released on Wednesday by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

DiNapoli: Learning Center Collected Funds For Services Not Rendered An audit released by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli found that the Rainbow Rhymes Learning Center (Rainbow) of the Bronx spent nearly a half million dollars in reported expenses that were either not adequately supported, not program appropriate or were claimed for a period Rainbow was not entitled to reimbursement. Furthermore, auditors found Rainbow did not provide significant contract deliverables including no after school program for inner city children at one facility.
.

Failing to investigate without more is not an adverse employment action

Failing to investigate without more is not an adverse employment action
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2010, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., ____F.3d____ (2d Cir. May 14, 2010), is an important case, here. In this Title VII case, the 2d held that employer’s failure to investigate a complaint of alleged employment discrimination is not an adverse employment action taken in retaliation for the filing of the complaint. As the court states:

“We are of the view nonetheless that, at least in a run-of-the-mine case such as this one, an employer's failure to investigate a complaint of discrimination cannot be considered an adverse employment action taken in retaliation for the filing of the same discriminationcomplaint.

“We thus adopt the position previously taken by several district courts in this Circuit. See, e.g., Thomlison v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., No. 99 Civ. 9539, 2000 WL 1909774, at *4,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18979, at *12-13 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2000). "Affirmative efforts to punish a complaining employee are at the heart of any retaliation claim." Id., 2000 WL1909774, at *4, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18979, at *12.

“An employee whose complaint is not investigated cannot be said to have thereby suffered a punishment for bringing that same complaint: Her situation in the wake of her having made the complaint is the same as it would have been had she not brought the complaint or had the complaint been investigated but denied for good reason or for none at all. Put another way, an employee's knowledge that her employer has declined to investigate her complaint will not ordinarily constitute a threat of further harm, recognizing, of course, that it would hardly provide a positive incentive to lodge such a further challenge.

”We do not mean to suggest that failure to investigate a complaint cannot ever be considered an adverse employment action….”

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

The text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ac0eefa7-991f-4892-bce6-6153b07bd531/1/doc/08-5013-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ac0eefa7-991f-4892-bce6-6153b07bd531/1/hilite/

Claiming unemployment insurance benefits during the school's summer recess

Claiming unemployment insurance benefits during the school's summer recess
Huff v Sweeney, 222 A.D.2d 919

Teacher’s aides who are provided with a reasonable assurance of reemployment following a summer recess are ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits during the recess period.

Dennis Huff, challenged a denial of such benefits by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Huff, a teacher’s aide employed by the Buffalo City School District, was told that his employment would temporarily come to an end at the end of the school year and that his employment would resume in September.

Huff applied for unemployment insurance but his application was rejected on the grounds that “he had been given reasonable assurance that he would be rehired on the same terms in the fall.” The Appellate Division affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s decision disqualifying Huff for benefits.

County department’s refusal to implement County's grievance committee’s determination held contrary to the CBA's grievance

County department’s refusal to implement County's grievance committee’s determination held contrary to the CBA's grievance procedure
Vaillancourt v Putnam County, 250 A.D.2d 617

Grievance procedures typically provide for a series of steps ultimately leading to arbitration. Pre-arbitration determinations are made by the employer’s designated representative, which may be a hearing officer or a panel.

Typically the appointing authority accepts and implements the findings of its designated representative. But what happens if the employee’s grievance is sustained by the employer’s designated representative, but employer refuses to implement it? This somewhat unusual circumstance is examined in the Vaillancourt case.

Patricia Vaillancourt filed a grievance after her employer, Putnam County, refused to grant her a lateral transfer from the County Department of Mental Hygiene to the County Department of Social Services.

The County Grievance Committee ruled in her favor at Step III of a five-step grievance procedure. But the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services refused to implement the Committee’s decision. When the County Executive refused to take action implementing the decision, Vaillancourt’s union sued.

Initially, the union lost. A State Supreme Court justice dismissed the union’s petition, observing that the union never took advantage of the fifth step of the grievance procedure -- proceeding to arbitration. The Supreme Court found that this constituted a failure to exhaust the available “administrative remedy.”

On appeal the Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling. It said that the collective bargaining agreement provided for a “Step 4” appeal to the County Executive in the event the Grievance Committee dismissed the grievance. In contrast, the Court noted, “the agreement did not afford the County the same right in the event that the Committee sustained [Vaillancourt’s] grievance.”

Since the Grievance Committee sustained Vaillancourt’s grievance, the court concluded that this had been the final resolution of the grievance. The Appellate Division therefore held that Vaillancourt was entitled to have the decision in her favor enforced and that there was no need to go to arbitration.

There was a different outcome in a grievance case with similar procedural facts [Weed v Orange County, 209 A.D.2d 627; 209 A.D.2d 628].

Weed had been injured on the job and applied for leave with full pay, claiming he was eligible for such leave under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement then in effect. The Orange County Commissioner of Personnel disapproved Weed’s request. Weed filed a contract grievance and won at Step I, when his supervisor ruled in his favor. The Commissioner refused to implement the Step I decision and Weed sued.

The Appellate Division dismissed Weed’s petition, citing the language of the contract. Under the terms of the agreement “the Commissioner of Personnel is given sole discretion in granting paid leave.” Therefore, the issue was not grievable in the first place.

Presumably the Court would have enforced the decision by Weed’s immediate supervisor had the contract not reserved the authority to make paid leave decisions exclusively in the Commissioner.

Appointing an individual to serve as an election commissioner

Appointing an individual to serve as an election commissioner
Wood v County of Cortland, 72 AD3d 1447

County Legislature has the authority to appoint an Election Commissioner where the mechanism for making such an appointment set out in Election Law § 3-204 did not result in an appointment.

Freedom of information requests related to disciplinary actions

Freedom of information requests related to disciplinary actions
Western Suffolk BOCES v Bay Shore UFSD, 250 A.D.2d 772

After the Bay Shore Union Free School District refused to honor Western Suffolk BOCES’ Freedom of Information [Section 87, Public Officers Law] request for the employment history of a teacher, BOCES won an order in State Supreme Court directing the District to provide it with certain documents, including some, but not all, material demanded by BOCES. Apparently some of the material demanded concerned disciplinary matters while other papers dealt with a “stipulation of settlement.”

The district, the teacher and BOCES all appealed. Although the district subsequently withdrew its appeal, the teacher continued his objection to the release of the material in the “sealed record” while BOCES pressed for those documents in the “sealed record on appeal” that the Supreme Court declined to have the district provide.

The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order. It said that BOCES could not have certain pages in the “sealed record” that the lower court had ordered released and with respect to some other pages, the names of parents and students had to be redacted [obliterated] from the documents before BOCES could have them.

Specifically, the Appellate Division said that the lower court should not have directed the release of pages in the “sealed record” which recite or refer to unproven disciplinary charges. In contrast, the Appellate Division said that while BOCES was entitled to a copy of the “stipulation of settlement,” the names of the students and their parents mentioned in the stipulation should not be disclosed to BOCES.

Stipends that are not found to be “regular salary” or “summer session salary” excluded in determining educator’s final average salary

Stipends that are not found to be “regular salary” or “summer session salary” excluded in determining educator’s final average salary
O'Brien v New York State Teachers' Retirement System, 2010 NY Slip Op 51398(U), Decided on August 4, 2010, Supreme Court, Albany County, Judge Henry F. Zwack [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Typically a schoolteacher has a 10-month professional obligation and school districts generally permit the educator to elect to receive his or her annual compensation over ten months in 21 periods or over twelve months in 26 payroll periods. In the event the educator elects to receive his or her annual salary in 26 payroll periods, the school district usually commences the 26 biweekly payroll mode for a person having a ten-month professional obligation [typically September 1 to the June 30 next following] in September. The individual actually would be underpaid for the period September through the following June 30 and payments received during July and August would constitute payment for past services already performed.*

In this CPLR Article 78 proceeding New York State Teacher's Retirement System [TRS] retiree Florence O’Brien contended that TRS improperly calculated her final average salary. She claimed that that TRS should have included the payments she had received in the 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years -- $4,000.00, $5,000.00 and $6,000.00 respectively --pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.

The collective bargaining agreement provided for these stipends under what was called a "24-12" plan and O’Brien claimed that the stipends were for her work developing and teaching summer school programs.

TRS disagreed, arguing that "24-12" plan allows a teacher to receive his or her salary in 24 payments over 12 months, as opposed to only over the course of the academic year. In contrast, the collective bargaining agreement, said TRS, required participating teachers to "complete a total of 8 hours of work during each July and August." Accordingly, the System decided that such stipend payments “are not properly considered regular salary.”

TRS also noted that O’Brien’s work during the three relevant summers was not reported pursuant to the summer school salary schedule.**

Observing that “It is well established that when a court is reviewing an administrative determination, it ‘may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency making the determination but must determine whether the agency's decision has a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious,’” Judge Zwack ruled that the System’s determination that the stipends paid to O'Brien under the 24-12 plan was non-regular compensation was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Significantly, the court noted that:

1. The stipend was in addition to base salary;

2. The payments under the 24-12 plan were not based on performance of teaching service and were fixed based upon a teacher's length of service;

3. The main purpose of the 24-12 plan appears to be to offer teachers an option to receive salary over the entire calendar year; and

4. That there was a separate arrangement for summer school teaching and compensation.

5. Accordingly, Judge Zwack sustained the Retirement System’s determination.

* If, on the other had, the district commenced its payroll for such personnel in July, such employees would be receiving payments during July and August for work yet to be performed during the following academic year, i.e., the following September-June school year period. In Guilderland CSD v Trombetta [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports] the court said that "Where a school district employee is paid more than the per diem value of his or her annual salary, and thereafter fails to complete the temporal period of work he or she is obligated to perform, there must be a per diem adjustment of salary paid, so as to equate salary paid with work performed, and a return to the school district of any overpayment computed on such basis."

** TRS conceded that “summer school compensation constitutes regular salary,” but concluded that the stipend payments claimed by O’Brien for the purposes of determining her “final average salary” were payments separate and distinct from summer school compensation.

The text of the decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_51398.htm
.

Amending local civil service commission rules

Amending local civil service commission rules
Formal Opinion of the Attorney General, 98-F3

The New York City Council “jurisdictionally reclassified” a number of city positions without first holding a public hearing concerning the change. New York City’s Director of Personnel advised the State Civil Service Commission that under the circumstances he believed that the State Commission had “no authority to disapprove the proposed changes and should simply note them in its records.”

The State Commission asked the Attorney General for his views concerning the State Commission’s authority under the circumstances. The Attorney General began his analysis by noting that in such matters the courts “have required strict compliance with Section 20.2,” citing Joyce v Ortiz, 108 AD2d 158.

Section 20 of the Civil Service Law sets out the procedures to be followed by a local civil service commission or personnel officer wishing to amend its “personnel rules.” It provides that such rules may be amended only after a public hearing and requires the approval of the State Civil Service Commission. Finally, to have the “force and effect of law,” the amendment must be filed with the Secretary of State to complete the process. Such rules, including the Rules promulgated by the State Commission itself, also provide for the enumeration of positions placed in the exempt, noncompetitive or labor classes by the local commission. All positions in the classified service are automatically in the competitive class unless placed in a different jurisdictional classification by the State Legislature or the State Civil Service Commission.

The key to resolving the issue turned on whether a municipal legislative body was to be equated to the State Legislature for the purposes of Section 20.2, because that Section provides an exception for the Legislature. Section 20.2 specifically indicates that no public hearing is required upon the adoption or modification of a rule required “by reason of a change in any statute in order to confirm the rule to the statute.”

The Attorney General concluded that exception set out in Section 20.2 for conforming to a change in the law “is best given effect by reading ‘statute’ as a reference to a State law, rather than a local enactment.” Accordingly, he advised the State Commission that a political subdivision of the state must comply with the notice, hearing and approval procedures set out in Section 20 if it wishes to amend its personnel rules, including adopting amendments establishing new titles in other than the competitive class and jurisdictionally reclassifying existing positions.

A disciplinary hearing determination cannot be annulled by the court if the record supports the determination

A disciplinary hearing determination cannot be annulled by the court if the record supports the determination
Marden v Town of Bedford, 249 A.D.2d 547

The Town of Bedford Supervisor asked the Town’s Chief of Police, David M. Marden, to provide him with a copy of a report concerning alleged police misconduct. When the chief failed to comply with the directive, a number disciplinary charges were served on him. Among these were charges that alleged that Marden failed to comply with a lawful order to provide the report on five occasions: February 12, 16, 23, 27 and 28. Found guilty of misconduct, Marden was dismissed from his position.

Marden appealed. The Appellate Division said that Marden could not be guilty of insubordination on February 12 and 16, because the report in question had not been completed until February 21. Accordingly, the finding of guilt concerning charges involving these dates were not supported by substantial evidence.

The Appellate Division sustained the findings of misconduct with respect to Marden’s refusal to comply with the Supervisor’s directives on February 23, 27 and 28.

The court said an administrative determination made after a hearing cannot be annulled unless it is shown that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the determination. Here it was found that the hearing record supported the determination that Marden “willfully refused to comply with a proper directive to turn over the investigative report....”

As to the penalty imposed, dismissal, the Appellate Division held that the penalty satisfied the Pell standard [Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2 222] as Marden’s dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.

Public employees personal E-mails exempt from disclosure from FOIL

Public employees personal E-mails exempt from disclosure from FOIL
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2010, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District, 2010 WI 86 (July 16, 2010), that purely personal e-mails of public employees sent from workplace computers and e-mail accounts are protected from disclosure to a third party under the state Public Records Law. While the justices differed in whether such emails are even public records, a majority of the court determined that a public records custodian “should not release contents of emails that are purely personal and evince no violation of law or policy.”

This is a significant decision. Few businesses could operate today without the use of email. It is also likely that employees will sometimes use an employer's email system for personal use. Whether an email is “purely personal” will be based on a case-by-case determination, as the court makes clear that the contents of apparently personal e-mails could require disclosure if the email has some connection to a government function.

The decision involves only disclosure of personal email to third parties under the Public Records Law. The case does not involve the right of government employers to monitor, review or have access to the personal emails of public employees using the government email system.

Law review commentary on this important subject would be most welcome.

The Court’s complete opinion can be found at:
http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=52285
.

Confidentiality of police records

Confidentiality of police records
Baez v City of New York, NYS Supreme Court, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

A number of law enforcement agencies have procedures similar to those of the New York City Police Department Patrol Guide Section 118-9, which compels an officer to participate in an interview process coupled with the promise that the statement provided by the officer will not be used against him or her in any criminal proceeding. Characterized as GO-15 or IAD interviews, these NYPD statements are typically comprehensive and provide a substitute for a deposition.

In the Baez case New York State Supreme Court Justice McKeon set out the guidelines usually followed with respect to the release of such statements to the press and, or, to the public.

Justice McKeon said that the release of such records is governed by three statutes: Public Officers Law Section 87 (Freedom of Information Law or FOIL); Civil Rights Law Section 50-a (Right of Privacy for personnel records of police officers and others); and CPLR Section 3101 (Scope of Disclosure).

As to FOIL, Justice McKeon held that Section 87 allows access by any member of the public to governmental agency records, unless they are specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or constitute inter-agency or intra-agency materials, which are not inter alia final agency policy or determinations. He concluded that these types of records fall within that exemption from disclosure to the public under FOIL as predecisional interagency materials.

Civil Rights Law Section 50-a, said Justice McKeon, declares personnel records of police officers to be confidential material, not subject to disclosure without the express written consent of the officer or as mandated by lawful court order. It was noted, however, that the use of such records by a governmental entity, such as releasing summary of internal investigation of instances of police misconduct, is not precluded by Section 50-a because that use is unrelated to the purpose of the statute.

Justice McKeon next considered CPLR Section 3101, the discovery statute. This section, it was noted, provides that “[u]pon objection by a person entitled to assert the privilege, privileged matter shall not be obtainable.” The Court concluded that based on the protections provided by these statutes, “GO-15 statements and IAD records are considered confidential per statute unless they are released through consent or by lawful court order.” Justice McKeon also observed that “confidential” in Civil Rights Law Section 50-a is analogous to “privileged” within the meaning of CPLR Section 3101.

Justice McKeon also ruled that such statements are exempted from disclosure to the general public under the Freedom of Information Law, Public Officers’ Law Section 87.

The full opinion is available at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/

PERB may elect to defer its consideration of unfair labor practice charge

PERB may elect to defer its consideration of unfair labor practice charge
PBA and Village of Ossining, 30 PERB 4711

PERB sometimes elects to defer considering unfair labor practice charges filed by an individual or an organization. It typically does so when there is some other procedure available that could address and resolve the issues that motivated the filing of the charge in the first instance. The Ossining PBA case provides an example of such a situation.

Ossining Chief of Police Joseph Burton “unilaterally changed the work schedule” of PBA unit members in an apparent effort to avoid paying holiday pay. Had the “natural rotation” of the work chart had not been altered, certain officers would have earned holiday pay.

The PBA protested the change and filed an unfair labor practice charge with PERB. PERB discovered that the PBA had also filed contract grievance concerning the matter, however.

The parties agreed to defer pressing the issue before PERB pending the resolution of the grievance.

PERB Administrative Law Judge Sandra M. Nathan observed that “it is appropriate to defer deciding whether the [Taylor Law] precludes the exercise of jurisdiction by PERB, pending the outcome of the grievance which has been filed.” She “conditionally dismissed” the PBA complaint.

What would be the result if the PBA had not already filed a grievance?

Assuming (1) that a contract grievance procedure was available, (2) that the issue appeared appropriate for submission as a contract grievance, and (3) that these facts were disclosed to the administrative law judge, the ALJ probably would have conditionally dismissed the complaint and directed the parties to first submit the matter for resolution through the grievance procedure.

Final regulations for filing Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification to become effective August 23, 2010

Final regulations for filing Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification to become effective August 23, 2010
Source: 75 Federal Register 42575

Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (INA), see 8 U.S.C. 1324a, requires all U.S. employers, agricultural associations, agricultural employers, farm labor contractors, or persons or other entities that recruit or refer persons for employment for a fee, to verify the employment authorization and identity of all employees hired to work in the United States after November 6, 1986.

To comply with the law, an employer is responsible for the completion of a Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), for each new employee, including United States citizens.

The Department of Homeland Security has issued final regulations to provide that employers who are required to complete and retain the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification may sign the form electronically and retain the form in an electronic format.

The final rule is effective August 23, 2010 and essentially requires that employers complete the required Form I-9 within three business days. The employer may use paper, electronic systems, or a combination of paper and electronic systems for this purpose.

The Form I-9, available to the public in numerous paper and electronic forms, since 1986, is now available online at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Web site as a Portable Document Format (.pdf) fillable and printable form. The form is posted on the Internet at http://uscis.gov/files/form/i-9.pdf.

In addition, the Handbook for Employers published by the Department of Homeland Security setting out instructions for completing the Form I-9 (a.k.a. the Employment Eligibility Verification Form) is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.bipc.com/images/newsletters/M-274_I-9_Handbook.pdf

The text of the Department of Homeland Security's Final Regulation is posted on the Internet at: http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2010/07/22/2010-17806/electronic-signature-and-storage-of-form-i9-employment-eligibility-verification
.

U.S. Department of Labor expands definition of “son” or “daughter” for FMLA purposes

U.S. Department of Labor expands definition of “son” or “daughter” for FMLA purposes
Source: Roetzel & Andress , Douglas M. Kennedy, Esq.
[http://www.ralaw.com/about.cfm?sp=overview ]

An Administrator's Interpretation Letter on June 22, 2010 from the Department of Labor has clarified the definition of son or daughter as it applies to an employee taking FMLA leave to care for a newborn, newly placed or sick child. Using the portion of FMLA referring to the term "in loco parentis," the DOL's letter states that one does not have to have a biological or legal relationship with the child to be able to take FMLA leave. One must look at factors like the age of the child, the degree to which the child is dependent on the person providing care, the amount of support provided and the extent to which duties commonly associated with parenthood are exercised.

The letter specifically refers to an employee caring for his or her unmarried partner's child, as well as a grandparent, aunt or uncle, as examples of those who could stand "in loco parentis," and also says that an employee must only provide "a simple statement asserting that the requisite family relationship exists" in order to support a request for leave.

Security records were properly admitted into evidence by disciplinary hearing officer

Security records were properly admitted into evidence by disciplinary hearing officer
Peil v Beirne, 72 AD3d 1095*

In this appeal the Appellate Division held:

1. Security records were properly admitted into evidence by disciplinary hearing officer.

2. The existence of another, alternative rational conclusion does not warrant annulment of the appointing authority’s conclusion that Peil was guilty of the charges preferred against him, citing Incorporated Vill. of Lake Success v New York State Public Employment Relations Board, 41 AD3d 599.

* Text of decision e-mailed to registered readers.

The status of the individual performing services for a public employer may be critical in determining liability

The status of the individual performing services for a public employer may be critical in determining liability
Czark v Hauppauge UFSD, NYS Supreme Court, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

The Czark case illustrates that the status of the individual performing services for a public employer may be critical in determining whether or not the public employer will be held liable for an injury to an individual.

A Hauppauge Union Free School District student complained that in the course of a school sports physical examination the examining physician “touched and fondled her breast.” The student and her mother sued the district and the physician allegedly involved. Hauppauge asked State Supreme Court Justice Floyd to dismiss it from the law suit, contending that (a) the physician alleged to have touched the student was “an independent contractor and not an employee of the school district” and that (b) the district “had no knowledge of any prior sexual propensities” of the physician.

Justice Floyd said that a school district, like any other employer, may be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for a tort committed by an employee in the course of the performance of the employee’s duties. Here, however, Justice Floyd ruled that the record clearly establishes an independent contractor status between the school district and the physician.

The defendant physician was the associate of the physician that was under contract with the district to provide medical services to the school district and was paid a scheduled fee for services performed. Also noted was the fact that the contracting physician was not named as a party to the action.

Accordingly, Justice Floyd dismissed the claims against the District for negligent supervision, negligent hiring and vicarious liability because, he said, “[t]here are no terms and conditions contained within this contract that would permit this Court to conclude that an employer/employee relationship had been established.”

The Court, however, refused to dismiss the suit filed against the physician by the student for the alleged battery and by her parent for the alleged “loss of services.”

In a law enforcement environment, safety interests trump sincere religious beliefs

In a law enforcement environment, safety interests trump sincere religious beliefs
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v The GEO Group, Inc., USCA 3rd Circuit, No. 09-3093

GEO, a private company, contracted to run the George W. Hill Correctional Facility, the prison for Delaware County, Pennsylvania.

In April 2005, the Hill Facility instituted a dress policy that provided that “[n]o hats or caps will be permitted to be worn in the facility unless issued with the uniform.” The new policy also stated that “[s]carves and hooded jackets or sweatshirts will not be permitted past the Front Security Desk.”

These directives were interpreted to prohibit the wearing of a khimar, an “Islamic religious head scarf, designed to cover the hair, forehead, sides of the neck, shoulders, and chest,” which was until then worn by some female Muslim employees inside of the Hill Facility.

EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of a class of Muslim women employees against GEO, contending that GEO violated Title VII's prohibitions on religious discrimination when it failed to accommodate the Muslim female employees by providing them an exception to the prison's dress policy that prevented them from wearing khimars at work.

The Circuit Court affirmed the federal district court’s decision granting GEO's motion for summary judgment dismissing EEOC’s complaint.

The district court had cited Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256,* in support of its ruling.

In Webb the US Circuit Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, held that regardless of the sincere religious beliefs of certain police officer of the need to wear a khimar, their belief had to yield to the Philadelphia's police department's policy prohibiting the wearing of a khimar while on duty because "safety is undoubtedly an interest of the greatest importance."

* The Webb decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/073081p.pdf

The GEO decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/093093p.pdf
.

Determining the disciplinary penalty to be imposed following conviction of a crime underlying the disciplinary action taken against the employee

Determining the disciplinary penalty to be imposed following conviction of a crime underlying the disciplinary action taken against the employee
Garippa v New York City Bd. of Ed., NYS Supreme Court, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

A Section 3020-a arbitrator found Michael Garippa, a New York City school teacher, guilty of conduct unbecoming the profession and authorized his termination.

Garippa, a tenured English teacher at Franklin D. Roosevelt High School in Brooklyn, was arrested by federal authorities and charged with conspiracy to distribute steroids.

Garippa subsequently pleaded guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance and was sentenced to serve three years of probation and six months of home confinement; to perform 200 hours of community service by coaching children’s sports teams; and to continue drug counseling.

Section 3020-a Hearing Officer Jacquelin F. Drucker concluded that “... the question before this hearing officer relates not to guilt or innocence but to the proper level of discipline for the conduct at issue.”*

Drucker decided that Board was authorized to remove Garippa as a teacher because of two factors:

1. Newspaper reports identifying Garippa, his occupation and his employer, allegedly caused the board to suffer “unfortunate, unpleasant publicity”; and

2. The fact that “Respondent’s initial contact with the purchaser was made at a school function.”

Garippa appealed to the state Supreme Court and Justice H. Freedman granted Garippa’s petition and vacated the hearing officer’s decision. He then remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration.

Justice Freedman observed that the hearing officer did not suggest that Garippa could be trusted to work with children. The offense occurred off-duty and off-premises. The Court concluded that the hearing officer’s decision “was based on an assumption that Garippa’s guilty plea automatically constituted guilt of conduct unbecoming the profession,” rather than on an express finding to that effect.

This was improper, Justice Freedman said. Section 3020-a guarantees that the employee shall have full and fair disclosure of the nature of the case and evidence against him.

According to Justice Freedman, Garippa was neither told beforehand that the articles or the “bad publicity” would be the basis for either a finding of guilt or a determination of penalty nor was he ever shown copies of the articles, which were the subject of his cross-examination.

Since the newspaper articles were not submitted into evidence, Justice Freedman said that they were not part of the reviewable record before the court. In addition, Justice Freedman pointed out that “it is improper for an administrative agency [or an arbitrator] to base a decision of an adjudicatory nature upon evidence outside of the record.”

The court said the school board raised a legitimate issue regarding publicity because it has a right to protect the reputation of the institution. But since Garippa was denied an opportunity to address and rebut this allegation, the arbitrator’s determination was made without prior notice and lacked evidentiary basis.

The lesson here appears to be that an appointing authority cannot assume that a conviction of a crime will be sufficient to find an individual guilty of embarrassing it and justify its imposition of a penalty. Rather, the appointing authority must prove each and every element of it allegations, including those factors underlying the reason for bringing the disciplinary action in the first instance.

* N.B. In Kelly v. Levin, 440 NY2d 424, the Court of Appeals ruled that is a reversable error for an administrative disciplinary body to acquit an employee in a disciplinary action if the individual had earlier been found guilty of a criminal act involving the same allegations.

The full opinion is available at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/
[Registration required]

============================================
If you are interested in learning more about disciplinary actions please click here: http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/
============================================

Dismissal because of threatening behavior towards coworker held disqualifying misconduct for the purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits

Dismissal because of threatening behavior towards coworker held disqualifying misconduct for the purposes of receiving unemployment insurance benefits
Messado v City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 06343, Decided on August 5, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

Bernard R. Messado was employed as a clerical worker by a New York City agency. Believing that his coworkers were speaking about him behind his back in a derogatory fashion and also calling him names, Messado confronted one of his coworkers in a threatening manner and used profanity while the coworker was having lunch at a nearby restaurant with two other employees of the agency.

The incident was reported to a supervisor and as Messado had previously been warned not to engage in this type of behavior, he was terminated from his position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately denied Messado’s claim for unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that he was discharged from his employment because of his misconduct.

The Appellate Division dismissed Messado’s appeal seeking to overturn the Board’s decision. The court said that “Threatening behavior toward a coworker has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct,” citing Matter of Perkins [Commissioner of Labor], 16 AD3d 756 and other court decisions.

The court also noted that “To the extent that [Messado’s] testimony was in conflict with the testimony of the other witnesses, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve.”

Finding that “substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying misconduct,” the Appellate Division said that it found “no reason to disturb the Board's decision.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06343.htm

Settling disciplinary actions

Settling disciplinary actions
Wolfe v Jurczyski, 241 AD2d 88

In some disciplinary cases an employee is offered a settlement that typically provides for summary termination of the individual without a hearing if he or she violates any of the terms of the settlement. The Wolfe case explores the consequences of an employee’s failure to comply with the terms of a disciplinary settlement agreement.

James N. Wolfe, a Schenectady Police Lieutenant, was told that formal disciplinary charges would be filed against him in connection with an off-duty incident during which it was alleged that he had threatened a civilian with a gun.

The city subsequently agreed that it would not file formal disciplinary charges against Wolfe if he “enrolled and completed an established alcohol abuse treatment program, underwent a psychological evaluation, refrained from visiting certain establishments where liquor is served and divested himself of all off-duty weapons.”

The September 19, 1995 agreement also provided that Wolfe’s failure to comply with or satisfactorily complete any element of the agreement to Schenectady’s satisfaction “will be cause for [Wolfe’s] immediate dismissal without a hearing.”

On October 29, 1995 Wolfe told the Chief of Police that he had not yet begun a treatment program and was still drinking. He entered a program the following day. However the Chief subsequently learned that Wolfe, while intoxicated, had been involved in an incident on October 27, 1995.

After conducting an investigation of the October 27, 1995 incident, the Department told Wolfe that he could either resign or be terminated for violating the settlement agreement. After conferring with union representatives, Wolfe decided to submit a letter resigning from his position.

However, Wolfe apparently changed his mind about resigning and sued, seeking a court order reinstating him to his former position. He argued that he had resigned as a result of “duress, coercion and undue influence.” Wolfe’s theory was that under the circumstances his resignation was not voluntary and should be declared void. A New York State Supreme Court justice dismissed Wolfe’s Article 78 petition and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s action.

The Appellate Division pointed out that Wolfe’s resignation was not involuntary simply because he was told that if he did not resign he would be dismissed unless the employer did not have any right to terminate his employment. But here, said the Court, Wolfe had voluntarily entered into an agreement that expressly allowed the department to terminate him without a hearing if he failed to comply with its terms to the satisfaction of the Chief of Police.

The Appellate Division ruled that under the circumstances, offering to allow Wolfe to resign instead of being summarily dismissed “cannot be deemed improperly coercive.”

It should be remembered, however, that courts will usually give controlling weight to specific language contained in the settlement agreement.

This was demonstrated in the Appellate Division’s ruling in Taylor v Cass, 505 NYS2d 929. The key element in the Taylor case was a disciplinary settlement agreement that provided that the employee, Taylor, would be subject to termination without any hearing if, in the opinion of his superior, his job performance was adversely affected by Taylor’s consumption of alcohol.

Taylor, however, was subsequently given a “Notice of Infraction” charging him with failing to give a fair day’s work and sleeping during scheduled working hours. A few days later he was terminated without a hearing, purportedly as authorized by the disciplinary settlement agreement.

He sued, and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling reinstating Taylor to his position with the County “with full retroactive salary and contract benefits from March 30, 1984.” The problem, said the Court, was that Taylor had not been terminated for the sole reason specified in the settlement agreement: intoxication on the job.

On this point, the decision specifically took note of the fact that Taylor’s superior testified that Taylor “was terminated solely for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Infraction” sent to him -- sleeping on the job and failure to give a fair day’s work.

The Appellate Division concluded that under the circumstances Taylor was entitled to a disciplinary hearing on those charges because the settlement limited the basis for dismissing him without notice and hearing. Accordingly, Taylor could only be dismissed for being intoxicated on the job.

What if an employer tells an employee that he or she will be served with disciplinary charges if he or she does not immediately resign for his or her position? The courts have ruled that where the appointing authority may lawfully file disciplinary charges against an employee, demanding that the individual resign or face disciplinary action does not constitute coercion.

In Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643, a case involving a corrections officer, the Court of Appeals ruled out that threatening to do what the appointing authority has a right to do – in this instance file disciplinary charges against Rychlick if he refused to resign from his position -- did not constitute coercion so as to make Rychlick’s resignation involuntary.

According, if the employee resigns in response to such a demand, the courts deem his or her action to be a voluntary resignation rather than the product of unlawful duress.

Union awarded $165,000.50: fifty cents in damages plus $165,000 for attorney fees

Union awarded $165,000.50: fifty cents in damages plus $165,000 for attorney fees
Local 32B-32J, SEIU v Port Authority, USDC SDNY 96 CIV 1438

Although Locals 32B and 32J won only fifty cents in damages after refusing a settlement offer of $50,000, they were awarded attorney fees and court costs totaling more than $165,000.

Why? Because the unions were the “prevailing parties” in their challenge to picketing restrictions imposed on them by the New York-New Jersey Port Authority. The unions contended that these restrictions constituted unlawful restrictions on their right to free speech.

Superior reporting employee's misconduct had either absolute immunity or qualified immunity from liability

Superior reporting employee's misconduct had either absolute immunity or qualified immunity from liability
Taylor v Brentwood UFSD, CA2, 143 F.3d 679

A Brentwood school principal, Anne Rooney, alleged that district teacher, Charles B. Taylor, used corporal punishment in violation of district policy. After investigating the allegation, the district filed disciplinary charges against Taylor. The disciplinary panel found him guilty of the charges and he was suspended without pay for one year.

Taylor then filed a Section 1983 [Civil Rights] claim, naming Rooney and other district officials as defendants. He contended that his one-year suspension from teaching constituted race discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection). A federal district court jury agreed with Taylor’s arguments and said that Rooney was liable for over $185,000 in damages. Rooney appealed and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reversed the lower court’s decision.

The court cited with approval Rooney’s arguments that:

1. Her action [reporting the alleged use of corporal punishment] was not the proximate cause of any injury sustained by Taylor;

2. She had either absolute immunity or qualified immunity from liability because she acted pursuant to her official duty to report complaints regarding the use of corporal punishment by teachers to her superiors; and

3. Taylor, having been found guilty by the disciplinary panel, could not relitigate the issue of whether he was treated differently from similarly situated Caucasian teachers in his Section 1983 action.

The Circuit Court commented that “Taylor had a history of physical confrontations with students ...” occurring throughout the administrations of three different principals. It also took notice of the District’s “Corporal Punishment Policy” and evidence showing that Taylor had been “repeatedly reminded” of the policy over a fifteen-year period and had received several reprimands regarding the manner in which he disciplined students.

The Circuit Court ruled that Rooney could not be held liable because she was not proximately cause Taylor’s suspension. That, said the Court, action resulted following an investigation and a due process hearing in which Taylor was found guilty. It said that its decision in Jefferies v Harleston, 52 F3d 9, controlled the outcome of this case.

In Jefferies, the Circuit Court ruled that “although the actions of certain defendants were unconstitutional, liability under Section 1983 did not attach because such actions could not be considered the cause of any injury sustained by the plaintiff.”

The Court said that it believed that the independent investigations of the incidents by school officials, together with the school board’s filing charges culminating in the decision of the disciplinary hearing panel to suspend Taylor, constituted a superseding cause of Taylor’s injury, breaking the causal link between any racial animus Rooney may have had and Taylor’s suspension.

Concluding that no reasonable jury could find Rooney’s actions to be the cause of Taylor’s injury, the Court said that no new trial was necessary. Accordingly, all that was needed was for the Circuit Court to remand the case to the district court with instructions to enter judgment for Rooney.