Verizon FMLA settlement may exceed $6 million

Verizon FMLA settlement may exceed $6 million
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.

Verizon Communications, Inc. settled a class action lawsuit with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing for up to $6,011,190.00. The suit alleged that between 2007 and 2010 Verizon denied or failed to timely approve class members' requests for leave for their own serious health condition, to care for a family member with a serious health condition, or to bond with a child.

The suit was brought under California's version of the FMLA, which is very similar to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.

Verizon also agreed to review and revise its leave policies and procedures, and to train all California managers, supervisors and human resource personnel on legally compliant CFMLA procedures. Verizon did not admit to any wrongdoing in the settlement.

http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/templates/print.cfm?ID=16984

Mr. Bosland Comments: The settlement undoubtedly does not include Verizon's time and expense in defending the suit, which likely added another million dollars to the total tab.
Like the California FMLA, the federal FMLA allows aggrieved employees to file class action lawsuits for violation of their FMLA rights. Employers would be well-advised to continually monitor their leave policies to ensure they remain in compliance with ever-changing FMLA laws. As evidenced by Verizon, failure to do so may result in very expensive and time consuming litigation.

Collective bargaining agreement requires village to reimburse its retirees participating in its health insurance plan their Medicare premiums

Collective bargaining agreement requires village to reimburse its retirees participating in its health insurance plan their Medicare premiums
Millington v Village of S. Glens Falls, 30 Misc 3d 405

Marvin Millington and the class he represents are retired employees of Village of South Glens Falls and prior to their respective retirements, were members of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO.

Effective April 1, 2007 the Village terminated its practice of reimbursing all qualifying Village retirees the cost of their Medicaid Part B premium. Millington, contending that the Village’s action violated the collective bargaining agreements between the Village and CSEA, sued seeking a court order directing the Village reimburse all eligible retirees for such premiums in full.

The Village, on the other hand, contended that it is required to pay either a retiree's medical health insurance premium or Medicare Part B premium, but not both and that it neither violated the law nor the collective bargaining agreement when it terminated its prior practice of paying both premiums.

The Village's private medical insurance plan, Empire Blue Cross, requires every participant in the plan at age 65 to sign up for Medicare Part B as a condition to continued coverage. The Village directly paid the Empire Blue Cross premium while the Medicare Part B premium was deducted from the retiree's Social Security benefit and then the Village reimbursed the employee for that premium.*

Although the Village, said the court, was not required to provide health insurance benefits to a retired employee absent an enforceable contractual obligation to do so, here Judge Nolan said “the salient issue is whether the word "or" in the collective bargaining agreements supports, as a matter of law, the Village's interpretation.” He found that it did not, noting that “While the efforts of the Village to reduce costs are praiseworthy, its interpretation of the word "or" in its disjunctive sense does not square with the rest of the language of the most recent contract in force since 1995.”

The court found that when the medical insurance provisions in the agreements are read as a whole, the retirees were contractually entitled to receive continued coverage under the Village's medical insurance plan with the Village to pay 100% of the qualifying retiree's medical insurance premiums. Accordingly, said Judge Nolan, the Village was responsible to pay 100% of the cost of health insurance for any and all retired Village employees hired before June 1, 1995 including such retirees' Medicare Part B premium.

Further, said the court, Millington and all members of the class he represents were to be reimbursed by the Village “for any and all Medicare Part B premiums which they have individually paid since April 1, 2007, with statutory interest….”

* See Civil Service Law §167-a, reimbursement for Medicare premium charges, with respect to political subdivisions of the State that are “participating employers” in the New York State Health Insurance Program [NYSHIP].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_20470.htm
NYPPL

Termination pay and other compensation paid in anticipation of an employee’s retirement excluded in determining the individual’s final average salary

Termination pay and other compensation paid in anticipation of an employee’s retirement excluded in determining the individual’s final average salary
Matter of Thompson v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 2010 NY Slip Op 08670, November 24, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

James R. Thompson was employed as a principal in the LeRoy Central School District. In accordance with the relevant collective bargaining agreement between the school district and the LeRoy Administrators' Association, Thompson was to receive 3.5% annual pay increases through the 2005-2006 school year.

The CBA also offered a retirement incentive wherein an administrator who retired immediately after becoming eligible to do so without penalty would receive a lump-sum payment of $20,750.

Although Thompson would have qualified for the incentive had he retired during the 2004-2005 school year, continued in his position. However, the school district and association executed a memorandum of understanding in 2005 that granted large annual raises to Thompson and another administrator nearing retirement age in the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years.

When Thompson retired in 2007 retirement, the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System excluded his 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 salary increases when calculating his retirement benefit. Thompson sued but Supreme Court dismissed his petition.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling, holding that NYSTRS had “appropriately calculated his final average salary using ‘the average regular compensation earned . . . during the three years of actual service immediately preceding his date of retirement.’”

The court explained that in order to prevent the artificial inflation of a member’s final average salary in determining the individual’s retirement allowance, Education Law §501 [11] [b], (see also 21 NYCRR 5001.1 [d]; 5003.1 [a]) requires NYSTRS to exclude any form of termination pay or compensation otherwise paid in anticipation of retirement.

As the 2005 memorandum of understanding stated that it was intended to "provide administrators with an incentive to continue [working] beyond retirement eligibility," and granted exceptional salary increases to Thompson [and other school administrators], the Appellate Division held that NYSTRS “rationally concluded from the above evidence that the disproportionate increases in his salary were made in anticipation of retirement.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_08670.htm
NYPPL

Employee terminated after failing random drug test

Employee terminated after failing random drug test
Danese v NYC Transit Authority, App. Div., 256 AD2d 464, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 93 NY2d 811

In this appeal from administrative discipline cases involving a police officer’s failing a random drug test, the Appellate Division panels ruled that dismissal was not too harsh a penalty to impose after being found guilty of the offense.

New York City Transit Police Officer Salvatore Danese, tested positive for cocaine in a random drug test.

An administrative law judge found Danese guilty of “certain enumerated charges.” The penalty imposed by the Authority: termination.

Danese appealed, challenging the Authority’s determination and the penalty imposed. The Appellate Division said that dismissal under the circumstances “was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness,” applying the so-called Pell standard [Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2D 222].
NYPPL

Employment status as an employee determines an employer liability

Employment status as an employee determines an employer liability
Rudder v City of New York, Appellate Division, 254 AD2d 115

There is a saying that a police officer is “always on duty.” While there is a great deal of truth in that exaggeration, it does not follow that the police officer’s employer is liable for all off-duty acts or omissions by the officer. The Rudder case shows that the employer is liable only for off-duty acts involving the performance of official duties.

Rudder was involved in an automobile accident with Scott V. Thompson, an off-duty New York City police officer. Thompson had been driving to the office of the Police Surgeon “for an unscheduled visit” when the accident occurred.

Thompson was driving a vehicle owned by another officer, and that vehicle was uninsured, unregistered and uninspected at the time of the accident. In addition, Thompson’s driver’s license had been suspended.

Rudder sued the City of New York on the theory that the city was liable for Thompson’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior (“let the master answer”). Rudder argued that a police officer “is always on duty” and Thompson’s trip to the police surgeon’s office constituted “official business.”

After a State Supreme Court judge disagreed and dismissed the city as a party in the action, Rudder appealed to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division said that “given this set of circumstances ... Thompson had not during the relevant time frame been acting in the course of his employment” as a police officer. It sustained the lower court’s determination severing the City of New York as a respondent in the lawsuit.
If the court had declared that Thompson had been acting in the scope of his employment, the city would have faced significant legal bills. Typically, a public employer is required to provide for the defense and indemnification of its officers and employees held liable in lawsuits involving the performance of, or their failure to perform, their official duties.

A similar case was Sanchez v NYC Transit Authority, 254 AD2d 345. Christopher Huwer, an off-duty Transit Authority police officer, was involved in an altercation in the course of a traffic dispute. The Appellate Division rejected Huwer’s demand that the Transit Authority provide for his defense and indemnification as mandated by Section 18 of the Public Officers Law.

The Appellate Division said that the record supported the “corporation counsel’s conclusion that the altercation underlying [Sanchez’s] action was personal in nature, and that [Huwer] was not acting within the scope of his employment.”

It is worth noting that a different rationale is applied when considering off-duty misconduct by law enforcement personnel for the purposes of disciplinary action as opposed to employer liability.

Employers may discipline officers for off-duty misconduct, even if remote from their official duties, if the action brings disrepute upon the employer. For instance, a New York City firefighter was fired after he participated in a September 7, 1998 Labor Day parade was held in the Broad Channel neighborhood of Queens County. As part of the parade, a float appeared that was said to have been intended as a “parody” of African-Americans. Participants rode on a decorated flatbed truck wearing ‘black face’ and wigs.” Steiner unsuccessfully claimed he was unable to get a fair hearing because Mayor Rudy Guiliani had publicly vowed to fire any police or fire officers who were on the float. [Eagan v Von Essen, 260 AD2d 479].*

Similarly, the Appellate Division upheld the imposition of a 20-day suspension without pay when the police commissioner found that a police officer, while off-duty, “wrongfully and without just cause, harassed and threatened one of his neighbors” [Hogan v Bartton, Appellate Division, 254 AD2d 110].

Police officer Richard Hogan “warned the neighbor to ‘watch her back’ and [to have] used racial slurs while in a tirade....” The court said the penalty imposed did not “shock its sense of fairness,” and sustained the commissioner’s determination.

* See Von Essen v NYC Civil Service Commission, 3 A.D.3d 115 and Von Essen v. New York City Civil Service Com'n, 4 N.Y.3d 220, concerning other, jurisdictional, aspects of the underlying disciplinary action.
NYPPL

Employment status as an employee determines an employer liability

Employment status as an employee determines an employer liability
Rudder v City of New York, Appellate Division, 254 AD2d 115

There is a saying that a police officer is “always on duty.” While there is a great deal of truth in that exaggeration, it does not follow that the police officer’s employer is liable for all off-duty acts or omissions by the officer. The Rudder case shows that the employer is liable only for off-duty acts involving the performance of official duties.

Rudder was involved in an automobile accident with Scott V. Thompson, an off-duty New York City police officer. Thompson had been driving to the office of the Police Surgeon “for an unscheduled visit” when the accident occurred.

Thompson was driving a vehicle owned by another officer, and that vehicle was uninsured, unregistered and uninspected at the time of the accident. In addition, Thompson’s driver’s license had been suspended.

Rudder sued the City of New York on the theory that the city was liable for Thompson’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior (“let the master answer”). Rudder argued that a police officer “is always on duty” and Thompson’s trip to the police surgeon’s office constituted “official business.”

After a State Supreme Court judge disagreed and dismissed the city as a party in the action, Rudder appealed to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division said that “given this set of circumstances ... Thompson had not during the relevant time frame been acting in the course of his employment” as a police officer. It sustained the lower court’s determination severing the City of New York as a respondent in the lawsuit.
If the court had declared that Thompson had been acting in the scope of his employment, the city would have faced significant legal bills. Typically, a public employer is required to provide for the defense and indemnification of its officers and employees held liable in lawsuits involving the performance of, or their failure to perform, their official duties.

A similar case was Sanchez v NYC Transit Authority, 254 AD2d 345. Christopher Huwer, an off-duty Transit Authority police officer, was involved in an altercation in the course of a traffic dispute. The Appellate Division rejected Huwer’s demand that the Transit Authority provide for his defense and indemnification as mandated by Section 18 of the Public Officers Law.

The Appellate Division said that the record supported the “corporation counsel’s conclusion that the altercation underlying [Sanchez’s] action was personal in nature, and that [Huwer] was not acting within the scope of his employment.”

It is worth noting that a different rationale is applied when considering off-duty misconduct by law enforcement personnel for the purposes of disciplinary action as opposed to employer liability.

Employers may discipline officers for off-duty misconduct, even if remote from their official duties, if the action brings disrepute upon the employer. For instance, a New York City firefighter was fired after he participated in a September 7, 1998 Labor Day parade was held in the Broad Channel neighborhood of Queens County. As part of the parade, a float appeared that was said to have been intended as a “parody” of African-Americans. Participants rode on a decorated flatbed truck wearing ‘black face’ and wigs.” The firefighter unsuccessfully claimed he was unable to get a fair hearing because Mayor Rudy Guiliani had publicly vowed to fire any police or fire officers who were on the float..*

Similarly, the Appellate Division upheld the imposition of a 20-day suspension without pay when the police commissioner found that a police officer, while off-duty, “wrongfully and without just cause, harassed and threatened one of his neighbors” [Hogan v Bartton, Appellate Division, 254 AD2d 110].

Police officer Richard Hogan “warned the neighbor to ‘watch her back’ and [to have] used racial slurs while in a tirade....” The court said the penalty imposed did not “shock its sense of fairness,” and sustained the commissioner’s determination.

* See Von Essen v NYC Civil Service Commission, 3 A.D.3d 115 and Von Essen v. New York City Civil Service Com'n, 4 N.Y.3d 220, concerning other, jurisdictional, aspects of the underlying disciplinary action.
NYPPL