Termination of employment pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 73

Termination of employment pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 73
Fallon v Triboro. Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 259 AD2d 377

An individual who is terminated pursuant to Section 71 or Section 73 of the Civil Service Law because of his or her absence caused by a disability may decide to sue the employer, claiming the termination was unlawful.* Such was the situation underlying the Fallon case.

The Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority terminated Gregory Fallon pursuant to Section 73 of the Civil Service Law after he had been continuously absent in excess of one year. Fallon sued, claiming various violations of his civil rights under federal and state law. The court found that Fallon had been absent on disability leave for 12 years and had never sought to return to work, with or without accommodation, even after he was denied ordinary disability retirement benefits.

The Authority had told Fallon that it would terminate him if he failed to qualify for ordinary disability retirement. This, said the Appellate Division, constituted “adequate pretermination notice,” commenting that “[i]n the context of Section 73 discharges, [due process] amounts to no more than an opportunity for the employee to present opposing views as to whether [he] has been absent for one year or more and whether [he] was able to return to [his] position.”

As to any post-termination rights, the Authority “in language tracking the provisions of Civil Service Law Section 73,” had written Fallon advising him of his termination and “that he could apply for a medical examination within a year of the termination of his disability, and if found fit, could apply for reinstatement.” This, said the court, was sufficient to meet due process requirements.

The Appellate Division also ruled that Fallon failed to make a prima facie case of disability-based discrimination under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act (29 USC Section 794) because the Authority “is not a recipient of federal funds.”

Fallon also contended that the Authority had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court determined that his ADA rights had not been violated “since he makes no allegation that he requested an accommodation for his alleged disability and was refused.”

In view of this, the court ruled, “there is no ground to conclude that [the Authority] violated the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law Section 296), prohibiting disability-based discrimination” and dismissed Fallon’s appeal.

* Section 71 provides for leave in connection with a work-connected injury or disease. Section 73 provides for the termination of an individual who is on leave pursuant to Section 72, which mandates leaves of absence in the event an employee is unable to work because of an injury or disease that did not result from a work-related incident.
NYPPL

Maryland Police may not claim a "privacy shield" when making a “traffic stop”

Maryland Police may not claim a "privacy shield" when making a "traffic stop”
Source: AELE Law Enforcement Legal Center, http://www.aele.org/, Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2010 AELE

”A motorist stopped by two Maryland state troopers recorded his interaction with the officers without informing them he was doing so. The recording included both video and audio. He later posted the recordings on the YouTube website. He was subsequently arrested and then indicted on charges that included, among other things, making the recordings of an oral private conversation.”

The trial judge ruled that the recorded audio exchange between the arrestee and the officers was not a private conversation as intended by the provisions of a state wiretap statute.*

In the words of the court: "There is no expectation of privacy concerning a traffic stop on a public street. The law is clearly established that a traffic stop is not a private encounter."

"Charges concerning making and disseminating the recording were dismissed, while charges concerning traffic violations arising from the same incident will go forward."

"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation." State of Maryland v. Graber, #12-K-10-647 (Circuit Court, Harford County, Md. 2010).”

* The relevant Maryland Statutes, Section 10-402(a)(1) and 10-402(a)(2) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, provide as follows:

1. Section 10-402(a)(1): Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to wilfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication."

2. Section 10-402(a)(2) defines oral communication as: "... any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation."
NYPPL

Unemployment Insurance claims

Unemployment Insurance claims
Prusch v Shenendehowa CSD, 259 AD2d 877, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 93 NY2d 816

As a general rule, criticism of an employee’s job performance by a supervisor or receipt of a negative performance evaluation does not necessarily constitute good cause for leaving employment for the purpose of establishing eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. The same is true with respect to an individual resigning in anticipation of his or her dismissal.

These are the lessons of the Prusch case.

John E. Prusch was employed by the Shenendehowa Central School District as a teacher of foreign languages. He resigned from his position effective April 25, 1997 and applied for unemployment insurance benefits. Prusch indicated that he resigned because he was “stressed out” and because he had received an unsatisfactory rating on a performance review, which recommended that he not be rehired for the upcoming school year.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board rejected Prusch’s claim, ruling that he was disqualified from receiving benefits because he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Prusch appealed only to have the Appellate Division affirm the board’s determination.

Although Prusch alleged that he resigned based upon advice from his psychologist that he quit as soon as possible because of stress caused by his negative evaluation, the court commented that the record indicated that he “nevertheless chose to remain, continuing his employment for another month, and his resignation letter contained no reference to a physician’s recommendation.”
NYPPL

Initiating disciplinary action based on anonymous allegations of wrongdoing

Initiating disciplinary action based on anonymous allegations of wrongdoing
Wilson v City of White Plains, 259 AD2d 756, reversed, 95 NY2d 783

Anonymous communications that allege improper conduct by an employee place the appointing authority on the horns of a dilemma. If the employer ignores the communication, it may later develop that there was some substance to the allegation, and the employer will be exposed to criticism (or liability) for failing to act “on the information.” On the other hand, if the appointing authority confronts the employee, relying solely on the information it received anonymously, it may be criticized for taking adverse action against the employee based on such information alone. Such was the situation that faced the appointing authority in the Wilson case.

White Plains firefighter Scott Wilson had been directed to submit to blood and urine tests based on what the Appellate Division characterized as “unsubstantiated information contained in an anonymous letter” that had been received by the department. Ultimately disciplinary charges were filed against Wilson. A hearing officer found Wilson guilty of six charges of misconduct. The Commissioner of Public Safety adopted the findings and recommendations of the hearing officer and dismissed Wilson from his position. Wilson appealed his termination and persuaded the court that his removal was arbitrary.

Noting that “there was no objective evidence which would have suggested that the [Wilson] was abusing alcohol or drugs,” the Appellate Division said that under these circumstances, ordering Wilson to undergo such testing “was arbitrary and without even a minimal basis of justification.” Finding that Wilson’s dismissal was improper under the circumstances, the court directed the department to reinstate him to his former position with back pay and benefits.

The key issue: Did the Department have “reasonable suspicion” to require Wilson to submit to blood and urine tests for alcohol or drugs? Finding that the order was based on “reasonable suspicion,” the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s ruling.

The court said that “Reversal is warranted because the [lower] Court erred in concluding that there was no objective evidence as to Wilson's substance abuse and overlooked the following findings of the Hearing Officer: In 1986, four years after joining the City of White Plains Fire Department, Wilson voluntarily sought treatment at a substance abuse facility.”

When he returned to duty, Wilson was told that he would be monitored for signs of recurring substance abuse and tested if he showed such signs.

Further, Wilson acknowledged that he understood that any repetition of his substance abuse would result in disciplinary charges.

In August 1996, the Fire Commissioner received an anonymous letter, indicating that Wilson had been reporting to work under the influence of alcohol. After reviewing the letter with other fire department officials, the Fire Commissioner decided to investigate the situation further. As a part of the investigation, fire department officials reviewed Wilson's personnel file, which revealed a history of chronic absenteeism.

In the words of the Court of Appeals: “A public agency may lawfully order an employee to submit to a drug test on reasonable suspicion of drug use.” The that this the Department had met this standard and, in addition, the Department’s “reasonable suspicion” was supported by far more than just the anonymous letter.

In addition to the letter, said the court, the City presented evidence of Wilson's physical manifestations of substance abuse the day he was tested, a long record of excessive absences, prior substance abuse problems, a reputation for showing up at work under the influence, as well as his understanding that he could be tested if he showed any signs of recurring substance abuse.
NYPPL

Extending an eligible list

Extending an eligible list
Doyle v NYC Dept. of Citywide Administrative Services, 261 A.D.2d 110

Thomas Doyle brought an Article 78 action to compel the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services to extend a civil service eligible list beyond its “maximum life.” The Appellate Division dismissed Doyle’s petition.

Noting that Doyle asked relief in the nature of mandamus (i.e., an order that a responsible official or agency perform a required duty), the Appellate Division said that mandamus is available only to compel a nondiscretionary governmental act, citing Matter of Altamore v Barrios-Paoli, 90 NY2d 378.

Here, said the court, Doyle is demanding that a civil service eligible list be extended. Because there is no question that the extension of a civil service eligible list is a discretionary act on the part of the administrator charged with maintaining such eligible lists, the court said it could not order the city to extend the list.

The Appellate Division said that there was no evidence that Department’s determination to let the list expire at the end of its maximum statutory term was arbitrary and capricious or made in bad faith.

As set out in Section 56 of the Civil Service Law, the duration of an eligible list shall be for at least one year but shall not extend beyond four years.

However, Section 56.3 provides that in the event an individual whose “disqualification has been reversed” or whose rank on the eligible list has been “adjusted by administrative or judicial action”, the candidate’s name is to be placed on the relevant eligible list[s] “for a period of time equal to the period of disqualification or for the period the application [sic] has been improperly ranked, up to a maximum period of one year or until the expiration of the eligibility list, whichever is longer.

If the list expires before the individual has had his or her name “restoration to the eligible list,” for at least one year, the individual’s name is to be placed on a “special list” for the period remaining; if the list expires before being “restored,” the individual’s name is to be placed on a special eligible list “for a length of time equal to the restored period of time not to exceed a maximum of one year.”
NYPPL

Transfer of employees

Transfer of employees
Allah v NYC Health and Hosp. Corp., 259 AD2d 409, Appeal dismissed, 93 NY2d 999

Section 45 of the Civil Service Law provides for the continuation of employment for eligible employees of a private entity when a public agency assumes the functions formerly performed by the private organization.

The Allah case concerns a variation of this: the “transfer” employees of a private employer to a public employer when (1) the private employer continues to provide services and (2) the public employer performs some of these functions as well. This was the situation when New York City’s Health and Hospital Corporation [HHC] decided to provide some of the services then being provided by the New York Medical College and Coney Island Medical Group as private entities. In other words, there was no Section 45 take-over of these two organizations.

HHC decided that it needed to transfer some of the College’s and the Group’s personnel to perform these “new” services.

To facilitate this “transfer,” the State Legislature enacted Unconsolidated Laws Section 7390(2)(b) exempting health care personnel formerly employed by the College and the Group transferred to HHC from having to take and pass a competitive examination as a condition of becoming civil service employees with permanent competitive status within the HHC system.

The Appellate Division ruled that this provision did not violate Article V, Section 6 of the State Constitution, which requires civil service appointments to be made according to merit and fitness and, as far as practicable, by competitive examination. The court said that the Legislature had expressly determined that “requiring a competitive examination as a condition of transferring the aforementioned personnel to HHC civil service employment with permanent competitive status would seriously interrupt the continuous provision of health and medical services.”

Another issue, however, concerned the “seniority” of individuals “transferred” to HHC.

Section 45 provides that employees in a “takeover” retain the seniority “as among themselves.” However, insofar as their seniority in the public service for the purposes of layoff and other statutory requirements is concerned, such individuals cannot claim seniority pre-dating the effective date of their permanent appointment in the public service with respect to the seniority of employees in the public service on or before the date of a takeover.

Allah and other individuals claimed that employees who had been transferred to HHC employment from New York Medical College and Coney Island Medical Group pursuant to the Unconsolidated Law had Section 45 seniority rights.

The Appellate Division disagreed, ruling that Section 45 is triggered only upon public acquisition of a private institution. Here, the Court decided, there was no takeover of a private entity but merely a transfer of employees to enable HHC to perform functions that New York Medical College and the Coney Island Medical Group continue to provide subsequent to their transfer. Accordingly, there was no acquisition within the meaning of Section 45 and therefore the statute is not applicable.
NYPPL

Accidental disability retirement

Accidental disability retirement
Tuper v McCall, App. Div., 259 AD2d 941

Establishing eligibility for accidental disability retirement is not easy in New York State, as the Tuper case illustrates. State corrections officer Toni Tuper slipped on a wet floor while supervising a prison inmate mopping. She also fell on a stairway located in a building to which she was assigned, and later fell again while running with a medical bag to a medical emergency.

Tuper applied for accidental disability retirement benefits based on the injuries she sustained in each of these slips and falls. The state Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) denied her application on the grounds that none of the incidents she cited constituted accidents within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law (RSSL) Section 507-a(b)(3).

An accident under RSSL is an unexpected and unforeseen event whose occurrence is not the result of the ordinary, predictable risks inherent in one’s duties. For instance, a police patrol officer who is shot by a robber and is incapacitated probably would not be awarded accidental disability retirement because being exposed to gunfire is inherent risk of a patrol officer’s duty.

After exhausting her administrative remedies, Tuper sued, challenging the ultimate denial of her application by the then State Comptroller, H. Carl McCall. The Appellate Division sustained the Comptroller’s determination, noting that Tuper had failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that her disability was the result of a work-related accident.

As the Appellate Division pointed out, not every event that results in a work-related injury is an “accident” for the purposes of establishing eligibility for an accidental disability retirement allowance. In Lichenstein v Board of Trustees, 57 NY2d 1010, the Court of Appeals said that “[A]n injury that occurs without an unexpected event, as the result of activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties (considered in view of the particular employment in question) is not an accidental injury....”

In other words, if an employee is injured while he or she is performing his or her duties and the cause of the injury was not an “unexpected event,” -- that is, the injury was the result of an incident that could reasonably be anticipated or expected, considering the work being performed -- it is not an accident for the purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law. In reviewing Tuper’s claims the Appellate Division addressed each of the events she claimed demonstrated her eligibility for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Tuper first contended that she was entitled to an accidental disability retirement allowance as the result of her slipping and falling on a wet floor while she was supervising a prison inmate mopping. The Appellate Division said that “inasmuch as a wet floor would ordinarily be anticipated in the context of [Tuper’s] supervision of the mopping detail, [the Comptroller] could rationally conclude that [Tuper’s] slip on the wet surface was not an accident ....”

Tuper fared no better with respect to her second basis for her claim. Here she contended that she had fallen on a stairway located in a building to which she was assigned. She alleged that the building had been condemned and the stairs moved up and down when in use. Tuper, however, was unable to attribute her fall to any of these defects and conceded that she was unsure of the exact cause of her fall. The court decided that under the circumstances, the Comptroller “could rationally conclude that [Tuper’s] petitioner’s fall was the result of her own misstep and did not constitute an accident....”

In her final effort, Tuper claimed that “while on light-duty status, [she] was directed to run with a medical bag to the scene of a medical emergency.” She fell while running. Again the Appellate Division sustained the Comptroller’s decision denying her accidental disability retirement benefits.

The court observed that the Comptroller “could rationally conclude that this third incident did not constitute an accident because the injury was the result of the risk of ‘exertional injury’ inherent in the activity which [Tuper] was expected to perform in the ordinary course of [Tuper’s] employment.”

As a correction officer member of the State’s Police and Firefighter Retirement System (PFRS), Tuper was eligible for disability retirement benefits pursuant to Section 507-a(b)(3). Other state and municipal employees are eligible for accidental disability retirement benefits under a different section -- Section 63 of the Retirement and Social Security Law. Section 63 provides for accidental disability retirement benefits for members of the State’s Employees’ Retirement System (ERS) who are disabled as a result of an “accidental injury” while performing official duties.

Section 363 provides similar benefits to police officers and firefighters who are members of the ERS.

Regardless of the statutory provision involved, courts use the same analysis to determine if a disability resulted from an accident for the purposes of determining eligibility for disability retirement.

============================================
If you are interested in learning more about General Municipal Law §207-a or §207-c disability benefits and procedures please click here:
http://section207.blogspot.com/2010/03/v-behaviorurldefaultvml-o.html ============================================
NYPPL

Displacement and layoff

Displacement and layoff
Yonkers Muni. Housing Auth. v Dugan, 261 AD2d 406

Typically when a position is abolished and this results in the layoff of a permanent employee, his or her name is placed on a preferred list in accordance with the provisions of Civil Service Law Section 80 [permanent employees in the competitive class] or Section 80-a [permanent employees in the noncompetitive class].

In some instances, however, the individual may be able to “displace” a less senior, lower grade employee in accordance with Section 80.6 of the Civil Service Law. Section 80.6 essentially allows a higher level, more senior individual whose position in the competitive class has been abolished to “displace” a less senior employee in a lower grade position “in the direct line of promotion” of the relevant job class.*

The Dugan case arose after the Yonkers Civil Service Commission ruled that Iliana Rodriguez, a Yonkers Housing Authority Field Representative had the right to “retreat” to another Housing Authority position -- Tenant Relations Aide -- when her position was abolished. The Commission’s decision was challenged by three Authority employees: Thomas E. Dugan, Mary E. Dorman, and Patricia Ortiz.

In the court proceeding that followed the Commission conceded that it was incorrect when it held that Rodriguez had the right to “retreat” to the title Tenant Relations Aide, and that it should have placed Rodriguez’s name a preferred list for the title of Field Representative as of the date of her termination.

The Commission then contended that the position of Tenant Relations Aide was “comparable” to the position formerly held by Rodriguez and thus her appointment from the Field Representative preferred list was authorized by Civil Service Law Section 81.

However, as the decision points out, the Commission’s initial determination contained no finding that the two titles were comparable. This was a fatal omission in the eyes of the Appellate Division. Nor could the court support the determination that Rodriguez had the right to ‘retreat’, because the Commission had admitted that it was in error with respect to that determination.


Accordingly, the matter had to be remanded [returned] to the Commission so that it could make express findings of fact, and to make whatever it deems the correct determination to be. The decision notes that “without such minimal findings, and without a concrete statement of exactly what it is the Commission intended to determine, intelligent judicial review is not possible.

Typically the price of making an incorrect personnel decision in a layoff situation is that the appointing authority must appoint or reinstate the individual who was entitled to the position with back salary and benefits as a matter of law.

* Section 80-a.6 provides displacement rights to employees in the noncompetitive class if specified conditions are satisfied.

============================================
If you are interested in learning more about layoff procedures involving employees in the public service in New York State please click here: http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/ ============================================
NYPPL