Temporary appointees not entitled to a pretermination due process hearing

Temporary appointees not entitled to a pretermination due process hearing

Sanni v NYS Office of Mental Health, USDC, EDNY, 2/15/2000

Frequently a public employee holding a temporary appointment will challenge his or her termination from the position claiming that he or she is entitled to a pretermination due process hearing. This was one of the issues considered by Federal District Court Judge Gleeson in the course of his deciding the Sanni case.

Thomas Sanni, then employed in a grade 27 project director position at Kings Park Psychiatric Center, was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Simultaneously, he was reinstated to his permanent grade 18 position and transferred to Queens Children Psychiatric Center.

Ultimately, arbitrator Howard A. Rubenstein found Sanni guilty of 11 of the 14 charges filed against him. Among the charges for which Sanni was found guilty were the following:

1. Improperly participating in and supporting the decision to employ the minister of [Sanni’s] church to exorcise a patient possessed by spirits;

2. Transporting a patient in his car when he did not hold a valid driver’s license;

3. Claiming overtime for work he did not perform;

4. Having his personal automobile repaired by Kingsboro and billing the facility for personal items he shipped overseas via international Federal Express; and

5. Lying under oath in the course of being interviewed concerning the charges.

The department accepted Rubenstein’s findings and his recommendation that Sanni be terminated. Sanni sued, contending that the Office of Mental Health’s disciplinary action against him (1) violated his civil rights, (2) constituted retaliation for his filing a Title VII complaint against it and (3) it terminated him from the grade 27 position in violation of Section 75.

As to Sanni’s due process claims, Judge Gleeson pointed out that a public employee who has a property interest or right in his or her position is entitled to a pretermination hearing before he or she may be removed from the position. By logical extension, said the court, an employee covered by Section 75 has a property interest in his or her civil service grade since one of the penalties that may be imposed under Section 75 is demotion in grade and title.

The problem with Sanni’s argument, however, was that temporary employees in New York have no property interest in their jobs. Accordingly, Judge Gleeson, citing the Appellate Division’s ruling in Jones v Westchester County, 644 NY2d 640, granted the State’s motion to summarily dismiss this branch of Sanni’s complaint.

Sanni’s civil rights and retaliation claims based on his demotion and transfer to another department facility survived, however.

This suggests that in such situations the State may attempt to have the case dismissed on the grounds that it immune from suit in federal court for alleged violations of Title VII in view of the rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States in Kimel v Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 and Alden v Maine, 527 U.S. 706, cases involving employees suing their state employer in federal court for alleged violations of, respectively, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

.

Civil Service Commission's refusal to extend an eligible list challenged

Civil Service Commission's refusal to extend an eligible list challenged

Matter of Kapetanos v City of New York,  37 AD3d 279

Christopher Kapetanos challenged the New York City Civil Service Commission’s decision not to extend the duration of a 2000 eligible list for the civil service position of Associate Fraud Investigator. The decision notes that Kapetanos did not plead, even in conclusory fashion, that the restriction triggering the Commission’s ability to exercise its Civil Service Law Section 56.1 discretion to extend the eligible list was attributable to a financial emergency.

Section 56.1 addresses extending eligible lists in situations involving restriction against the filling of vacancies. It provides that:

The duration of an eligible list shall be fixed at not less than one nor more than four years; provided that, except for lists promulgated for police officer positions in jurisdictions other than the city of New York, in the event that a restriction against the filling of vacancies exists in any jurisdiction, the state civil service department or municipal commission having jurisdiction shall, in the discretion of the department or commission, extend the duration of any eligible list for a period equal to the length of such restriction against the filling of vacancies.

Restriction against the filling of vacancies shall mean any policy, whether by executive order or otherwise, which, because of a financial emergency, prevents or limits the filling of vacancies in a title for which a list has been promulgated. An eligible list that has been in existence for one year or more shall terminate upon the establishment of an appropriate new list, unless otherwise prescribed by the state civil service department or municipal commission having jurisdiction.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/extension-of-eligible-list.html

.

Work related investigations

Work related investigations

Cerrone v Cahill, USDC, NDNY, 84 F. Supp. 2d 330

An investigation is being conducted by the appointing authority concerning alleged misconduct by an employee.

1. Do the same rules that apply when the appointing authority conducts an investigation involving alleged work-related misconduct control when the appointing authority is investigating alleged off-duty misconduct?

2. Is there any difference between an investigation by an appointing authority for the purpose of filing administrative disciplinary charges against an employee and its investigation directed towards bringing criminal charges against the individual?

As the Cerrone case demonstrates, if the focus of the investigation is criminal rather than administrative, different rules and safeguards control.

State Police Sergeant Thomas Cerrone filed a law suit in federal district court contending that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated in the course of his being investigated concerning “some sort of cover-up” related to his role in an investigation of a hit and run accident that occurred on April 3, 1993.

According to the decision, Cerrone reviewed and signed an accident report prepared by Trooper Robert Gregory that was alleged to be facially insufficient and contained false information. Sometime later, a letter signed by Ed Scott stating that Rory Knapp, the brother of State Trooper Timothy Knapp, left the scene of an accident on April 3, 1993 was received by the Division of State Police. Ed Scott denied writing the letter and the letter writer was never positively identified.

On January 19, 1995, Cerrone was stopped by investigators, placed in an unmarked police car and taken to a hotel for questioning about the hit and run incident.

Cerrone was given a Miranda warning and advised that he was the target of a criminal investigation. The investigators did not have a warrant for their action. After being questioned for six hours, Cerrone was permitted to leave when he agreed to take a polygraph test.

One of the recognized exceptions to the prohibition against warrant less searches and seizures is work-related investigations. Cerrone argued that in this case, the investigation was criminal rather than work related and thus he was entitled to the protections of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Noting that the procedures governing administrative investigations set out in the applicable Taylor Law agreement were not implemented in the course of Cerrone’s interrogation, Judge Thomas J. McAvoy agreed that the basic purpose of the investigation was criminal rather than administrative in nature.

The court said that the distinction between searches and seizures for the purpose of criminal prosecution and those undertaken for work related or administrative purposes is critical and many courts upholding a standard lower than probable cause [in work related investigations] have recognized that the lower standard is not appropriate in the criminal arena.

Thus, observed Judge McAvoy, if Cerrone was seized or arrested without probable cause, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The court also noted that the available evidence prior to Cerrone’s being questioned revealed little linking him, as opposed to other officers, to the alleged cover-up.

The decision sets out the following basic principles to be followed in investigation of employee misconduct:

1. Where a search or seizure is conducted by a government employer to further a criminal investigation, the traditional requirement of probable cause is necessary and the individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

2. Government employers cannot avoid the traditional Fourth Amendment safeguards applicable in the context of criminal investigations simply by labeling a criminal search work-related.

Law enforcement agencies may have greater difficulty here than other government employers. Typically, a non-law enforcement agency’s investigation of alleged misconduct looks towards filing administrative disciplinary charges against an individual. As the court ruled in Biehunik v Felicetta, 441 F.2d 228, Fourth Amendment rights do not apply in investigations of work-related misconduct.

In contrast, the very nature of investigations by law enforcement agencies of its personnel often tends to blur the line between administrative investigation for the purpose of initiating administrative disciplinary action and an investigation of the same or a related incident for the purpose of bring criminal charges against the individual. Accordingly, the distinctions identified by Judge McAvoy in the Cerrone case should be kept in mind when investigations into alleged employee misconduct are initiated by a law enforcement agency.

However, in Dombrowski v Safir, decided by the Appellate Division, First Department, 269 AD2d 161, the court upheld the termination of New York City police officer Kenneth J. Dombrowski as a result of his refusal to answer questions directly and narrowly relating to his official duties.

==========================

The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State is a 1272 page e-book available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/ for additional information concerning this electronic reference manual.

 =======================
.

New York State's Banking and Insurance Departments to be consolidated into a new Department of Financial Services effective October 3, 2011

New York State's Banking and Insurance Departments to be consolidated into a new Department of Financial Services effective October 3, 2011

Source: Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLPC

As part of the approval of the budget bill on March 31, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed into law Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2011 which consolidates the Banking Department and the Insurance Department into a new Department of Financial Services*.

BSK reports that:

“The new law consolidates the Banking and Insurance Departments to establish the Department of Financial Services, which will have a Banking Division and an Insurance Division.

"There will be a Superintendent of Financial Services appointed by the Governor, by and with the consent of the Senate, and who shall hold office at the pleasure of the Governor. The Superintendent of Financial Services is granted enforcement and regulatory authority over financial products and services. The Superintendent of Financial Services shall appoint a Deputy Superintendent who shall be the head of the Banking Division and a Deputy Superintendent who shall be the head of the Insurance Division.

"The Superintendent of Financial Services may remove at will any Deputy Superintendent, except as may be otherwise provided by the New York Civil Service Law.”

* Article V,  §2 of the State's Constitution provides that "There shall be not more than twenty civil departments in the state government, including those referred to in this constitution. The legislature may by law change the names of the departments referred to in this constitution." §3 of Article V of the Constitution provides that." Subject to the limitations contained in this constitution, the legislature may from time to time assign by law new powers and functions to departments, officers, boards, commissions or executive offices of the governor, and increase, modify or diminish their powers and functions. Nothing contained in this article shall prevent the legislature from creating temporary commissions for special purposes or executive offices of the governor and from reducing the number of departments as provided for in this article, by consolidation or otherwise."

Bond, Schoeneck & King’s report concerning this change is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.bsk.com/archives/detail.cfm?archive=publication&ID=1286
.

Eligibility for General Municipal Law §207-a benefits and for Workers’ Compensation Benefits are not linked and are to be determined on their own merits

Eligibility for General Municipal Law §207-a benefits and for Workers’ Compensation Benefits are not linked and are to be determined on their own merits
Matter of Davidson v LaGrange Fire District, 2011 NY Slip Op 02666, Appellate Division, Second Department

Deborah A. Davidson filed and Article 78 action “in the nature of mandamus,” seeking an order to compel the LaGrange Fire District to make a final determination regarding her application for medical benefits under General Municipal Law §207-a.

Davidson has sustained an injury on a fire call and the Fire District awarded her salary benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a. However, Davidson had also asked for certain medical benefits related to her work-connected injury that had been denied by the New York State Insurance Fund, the Fire Districts workers' compensation insurance carrier.

An administrative law judge for the Workers’ Compensation Board had ruled that the State Insurance Fund was liable for the full cost of the Davidson’s surgery but the Fund had filed an application seeking a review by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.

Before a decision was issued by the Board, Davidson filed her CPLR Article 78 petition. The petition, among other things, sought an order in the nature of mandamus, in effect, to compel the respondents to issue a final determination as to the her request for medical benefits under General Municipal Law §207-a.

Supreme Court denied Davidson’s petition ruling that it was premature as she had not exhausted her administrative remedies before the New York State Workers' Compensation Board concerning her claims. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling.

The Appellate Division explained that in the event an officer or agency fails or refuses to conduct a hearing or decide a particular matter where there was a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to do so, mandamus is appropriate to compel performance of the required duty.

Davidson argued that although the Fire District had made a determination that she is entitled to receive benefits under General Municipal Law §207-a, had not made a determination regarding coverage under General Municipal Law §207-a for her medical expenses.

As a determination by the WCB regarding workers' compensation benefits, and a determination by a municipal employer regarding statutory benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a, are separate and distinct matters, which the Court of Appeals had made clear in Matter of Balcerak v County of Nassau (94 NY2d 253), “[a] municipality's obligation to pay wages and medical costs under General Municipal Law §207-a or § 207-c is in no way dependent upon any determination made by the WCB.”

In the words of the Appellate Division, quoting Balcerak, "the eligibility determinations for these distinct types of statutory benefits" must "stand and be resolved essentially on their own merits."*

Here, any workers' compensation remedies that may have been available to Davidson were separate from and independent of her request that Fire District provide coverage for the full cost of medial expenses pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a. Accordingly, said the court, she was not required to exhaust her administrative remedies in the workers' compensation proceeding before pursuing this CPLR Article 78 proceeding against the Fire District.

The matter was remanded to Supreme Court for further proceedings on Davidson’s petition, “and a new determination thereafter.”

* In Balcerak the Court of Appeals held that a determination by the WCB that an injury is work-related does not, by operation of collateral estoppel, automatically entitle an injured employee to benefits under General Municipal Law §207-c [which applies to law enforcement personnel], which ruling presumably would be controlling in a GML §207-a case [which applies to firefighting personnel].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02666.htm
.

Where a collective bargaining agreement sets out a “board agreement to arbitrate,” the arbitrator, rather than the court, is to determine if the grievance is subject to arbitration

Where a collective bargaining agreement sets out a “board agreement to arbitrate,” the arbitrator, rather than the court, is to determine if the grievance is subject to arbitration

Matter of City of Binghamton v Binghamton Police Benevolent Assn., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 02109, Appellate Division, Third Department

When the Binghamton chief of police instituted new rules concerning the use of sick leave and subsequently counseled a police officer about an alleged pattern of suspected sick leave abuse and the need to provide a physician’s notes for all future sick leave absences, the Police Benevolent Association filed a grievance alleging a violation of the collective bargaining agreement between the Association and the City. In addition, the Association contended that the new policy constituted “departure from past practices.”

The grievance was denied by both the police chief and a representative of the mayor. The City, in response to the Association demand to submit the grievance to arbitration, filed a petition pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR seeking a stay of arbitration. Supreme Court denied the petition and the City appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s determination, noting that the sole issue to be resolved was whether the parties to the CBA agreed to refer disputes in this specific area to arbitration.

In such situation, said the Appellate Division, courts "should merely determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA."

As the parties' broad agreement to arbitrate provided that "[a]ny grievance or dispute which may arise between the parties involving the application, meaning, or interpretation of this [a]greement," the Appellate Division ruled that the subject matter of the dispute bears a reasonable relationship to the articulated contract provisions and, therefore, it is for an arbitrator to decide in the first instance whether the precise scope of those provisions covers the issues presented in the Association’s grievance.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02109.htm

.

Ordering a correction officer to submit to a drug test, without more, does not violate the officer’s rights under the Constitution or §75 of the Civil Service Law

Ordering a correction officer to submit to a drug test, without more, does not violate the officer’s rights under the Constitution or §75 of the Civil Service Law

Department of Corrections v Johnson, OATH Index #1303/11

A New York City correction officer who tested positive for illegal drugs argued that the results were obtained in violation of her union and privacy rights. In essence, the officer challenged the legality of a second drug test administered to her after she tested positive in an earlier test on the grounds that the test violated the office’s right to union representation under §75 of the Civil Service Law and her right to be free from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment.

OATH Administrative Law Judge John Spooner rejected the correction officer’s theory and found that the tests had been properly conducted.

Significantly, Judge Spooner found that the procedure did not involve questioning of the officer by a supervisor or anyone else. Rather Johnson was ordered by a captain to report to the toxicology unit and there was directed to provide a hair sample by a civilian staff member. Because the test did not involve questioning, no written notice of a right to union representation was required under Civil Service Law §75(2).

The ALJ recommended that Johnson’s employment be terminated.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-1303.pdf

.

Disqualification of candidates for employment as police officers

Disqualification of candidates for employment as police officers

Needleman v Rockland County, 270 A.D.2d 423

The Rockland County Commissioner of Personnel disqualified Seth Needleman, David Oliver and Donna Russo for appointment as patrol officers in the Rockland County Sheriff’s Department. The three applicants sued in an effort to overturn the commissioner’s determination.*

Russo complained that the personnel commissioner had improperly disqualified her from appointment as a patrol officer.

The Appellate Division disagreed, commenting that the commissioner did not act irrationally or arbitrarily in relying upon “the evaluations of two independent psychologists, who used objective tests, to determine that [Russo] was not qualified for the position of patrol officer.”

The standards applied by the court in resolving Russo’s appeal:

1. An appointing authority has wide discretion in determining the fitness of candidates.

2. Such discretion is particularly broad in the hiring of persons for positions in law enforcement, to whom high standards may be applied.

3. The courts will not interfere with the discretion of the appointing authority to determine the qualifications of candidates unless the determination warrants judicial intervention because it is irrational and arbitrary.

Finding that Russo’s disqualification was not an abuse of discretion, the Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court’s dismissal of her petition.

Section 50.4 of the Civil Service Law provides for the disqualification of applicants or appointees by the state civil service department or the municipal commission having jurisdiction. Among the reasons set out in Section 50.4 for disqualifying an applicant: the applicant lacks any of the established requirements for admission to the examination or for appointment to the position.**

However, in such cases the applicant must be provided with a pre-disqualification opportunity to object to his or proposed disqualification. In the words of Section 50.4:

No person shall be disqualified pursuant to this subdivision unless he [or she] has been given a written statement of the reasons therefore and afforded an opportunity to make an explanation and to submit facts in opposition to such disqualification.

Although a full and formal pre-disqualification hearing is not required, the individual must be advised of his or her right to file a written objection to the disqualification and given a reasonable opportunity to submit the objection to the municipal commission or the state department.

Further, as a general rule, only the responsible municipal civil service commission, or in the case of employment by the State, the State Department of Civil Service may disqualify an applicant for employment in the public service.

Typically, the appointing authority does not have any independent authority to disqualify an individual in contrast to declining to appoint an individual certified for permanent appointment to a position in the competitive class consistent with the so-called Rule of Three [Section 61.1, Civil Service Law.***
 

However, the appointing authority may request a municipal commission or the State Department of Civil Service to initiate action that could lead to the disqualification of the applicant by the commission or by the State Department of Civil Service.

* The court dismissed both Needleman’s and Oliver’s appeals as abandoned and only considered Russo’s challenge her disqualification.

** Section 50.4 permits the disqualification of an applicant or an appointee (a) who is found to lack any of the established requirements for admission to the examination or for appointment to the position for which he applies; or (b) who is found to have a disability which renders him or her unfit to perform in a reasonable manner the duties of the position in which he or she seeks employment, or which may reasonably be expected to render him or her unfit to continue to perform in a reasonable manner the duties of such position; or (d) who has been guilty of a crime; or (e) who has been dismissed from a permanent position in the public service upon stated written charges of incompetency or misconduct, after an opportunity to answer such charges in writing, or who has resigned from, or whose service has otherwise been terminated in, a permanent or temporary position in the public service, where it is found after appropriate investigation or inquiry that such resignation or termination resulted from his incompetency or misconduct, provided, that in cases of dismissal, resignation or termination after written charges of incompetency, the examination or certification in question be for a position that requires the performance of a duty or duties which are the same as or similar to the duty or duties of the position from which the applicant has been dismissed, resigned or terminated on account of incompetency; or (f) who has intentionally made a false statement of any material fact in his application; or (g) who has practiced, or attempted to practice, any deception or fraud in his application, in his examination, or in securing his eligibility or appointment; or (h) who has been dismissed from private employments because of habitually poor performance.

*** Section 61.1, in pertinent part, provides: Appointment and promotion. 1. Appointment or promotion from eligible lists. Appointment or promotion from an eligible list to a position in the competitive class shall be made by the selection of one of the three persons certified by the appropriate civil service commission as standing highest on such eligible list who are willing to accept such appointment or promotion.
.

The party objecting to an arbitration award has a heavy burden to meet to prevail

The party objecting to an arbitration award has a heavy burden to meet to prevail
Matter of Cherry v New York State Ins. Fund, 2011 NY Slip Op 02797, Appellate Division, First Department

Supreme Court denied Stephanie Cherry’s Article 75 petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award upholding State Insurance Fund’s determination to terminate her employment based on violations of its zero-tolerance workplace violence policy.

Cherry appealed but the Appellate Division ruled that Cherry failed to meet her heavy burden of establishing that the arbitration award was irrational, or in violation of any of the grounds enumerated in CPLR 7511(b).*

Further, said the court, “There exists no basis to disturb an arbitrator's finding because ‘unless there is no proof whatever to justify the award so as to render it entirely irrational . . .the arbitrator's finding is not subject to judicial oversight.’”

Addressing another argument raised by Cherry, -- the award should be vacated due to [the State Insurance Fund’s] non-compliance with the procedures of CPLR Article 75 – the Appellate Division said that she had waived such a basis for challenging the award because she had continued participating in the arbitration proceeding “without objection."

* In addition to the grounds for vacating an arbitration award set out in CPLR Article 75, awards have been vacated by the courts based on a finding that the award violated a strong public policy.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02797.htm
.

Parties directed to proceed to arbitration based on the court finding that its decision could not be made “without extensive fact-finding or legal analysis”

Parties directed to proceed to arbitration based on the court finding that its decision could not be made “without extensive fact-finding or legal analysis”
Matter of Newburgh v McGrane, 2011 NY Slip Op 02665, Appellate Division, Second Department

The City Council of the City of Newburgh passed a resolution reappointing Jean-Ann McGrane to the position of City Manager for the City of Newburgh for a three year period ending May 31, 2009. Subsequently the City and McGrane entered into an employment agreement consistent with that resolution passed by the City Council which provided that McGrane was entitled to severance pay and other benefits if the City terminated her employment.


In addition, the agreement set out a broad arbitration provision applicable to "[a]ll claims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof."
When the City Council passed a resolution dated January 12, 2009 terminating McGrane's employment as City Manager "effective immediately," McGrane filed a demand for arbitration seeking an award of her salary and all benefits pursuant to the employment agreement.

The City filed a petition seeking to vacate the demand for arbitration and permanently stay arbitration on the ground that the employment agreement was void as against public policy. The City contended that the agreement violated the “term limits rule” by binding the successor members of the City Council to a contract relating to the area of governance entered into by members of the predecessor City Council.

The Supreme Court denied the City’s petition, dismissed the proceeding, and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling, explaining tha:

Arbitration is favored in the State of New York as a means of resolving disputes, and courts interfere as little as possible with agreements to arbitrate.

1. "The courts may intervene in a dispute which the parties had agreed to arbitrate where the arbitrators could not grant any relief without violating public policy."

2. Where a court examines an arbitration agreement ". . . on its face and concludes that the granting of any relief would violate public policy without extensive fact-finding or legal analysis, [it] may then intervene and stay arbitration.";

3. Citing Matter of Karedes v Colella, 100 NY2d 45, the Appellate Division noted that "The term limits rule prohibits one municipal body from contractually binding its successors in areas relating to governance unless specifically authorized by statute or charter provisions to do so"; and

4. "An agreement that violates the term limits rule is against public policy (see Matter of City of Utica Urban Renewal Agency v Doyle, 66 AD3d 1495; Karedes v Village of Endicott, 297 AD2d 413, 415)."

In this instance the Appellate Division found that any determination as to whether an arbitrator could not grant any relief without violating public policy on the ground that the employment agreement violated the term limits rule could not be made at this stage in the proceeding without extensive fact-finding or legal analysis.

Accordingly, said the court, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, directing the parties to proceed to arbitration.

The Appellate Division noted that in the event that the arbitrator's award violates public policy, the Supreme Court retained the power to vacate the award."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02665.htm
.

Collateral Estoppel may bar a lawsuit involving essentially the same issues earlier adjudicated in a quasi-judicial administrative hearing

Collateral Estoppel may bar a lawsuit involving essentially the same issues earlier adjudicated in a quasi-judicial administrative hearing
Pisano v NYC Board of Education, 2002 WL 484305, [not selected for publication in the Official reports ], Affd. 303 A.D.2d 735

Sometimes an individual, unsuccessful in one lawsuit, will commence another legal action involving essentially the same issues and parties. However, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents a party from relitigating an issue which has already been decided by the courts involving the same parties and issues. The Pisano case involves such multiple litigations and illustrates how the court will apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel in case the subsequent litigation involves a challenge to an administrative determination.

In Abiele Contracting, Inc. v New York City School Construction Authority, 91 NY2d 1, the court held that the doctrine may apply to bar relitigating issues decided by administrative agencies if those decisions are "quasi-judicial" in nature. According to the ruling, an administrative agency is quasi-judicial in nature if it is given express statutory authority to act adjudicatively.

In contrast, if an agency only invokes its executive powers under the governing statute in making its determination, it is not exercising "quasi-judicial powers." In Venes v Community School Board, 43 NY2d 520, the Court of Appeals indicated that challenging the administrative agency's decision in court in situations where the agency did not arrive at its decision as a result of its acting in an adjudicative or judicial capacity would not be barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

In this case, a State Supreme Court judge decided the doctrine prevented Sheila Pisano from pursuing this lawsuit against the New York City Board of Education.

This action arose after a medical arbitrator sustained the New York City Board of Education Medical Board's ruling that Pisano's absence from work did not result from her job-related injury. According to the record, Pisano had fallen at work on October 18, 1996. As a result of injuries she alleged she suffered because of her fall, Pisano did not return to work.

After receiving the Medical Board's determination, Pisano asked for, and was granted, an independent evaluation by a medical arbitrator accordance with the provision of the collective bargaining agreement between the United Federation of Teachers and the Board. She also authorized the Board of Education Medical Board to release her entire medical file to the medical arbitrator.

Dr. David Kaufman, the medical arbitrator, sustained the Medical Board's decision based on his medical examination of Pisano as well as a review of her available medical records and his conversations with Pisano's personal physician. Dr. Kaufman noted in his report that he had not reviewed all of Pisano's medical records because Pisano "failed to provide the Medical Board with this essential material." His conclusion: the Medical Board therefore acted correctly in not accepting the accident as being the cause of [Pisano's] absence from October 18, 1996 until the present" on the basis of the record before it.

Pisano challenged the arbitrator's determination pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Her argument: the arbitrator's determination "was the result of misconduct by the Board and that the arbitrator failed to examine all of [her] medical records and thus did not conduct a thorough and exhaustive record."

A State Supreme Court justice dismissed Pisano's petition, ruling that the arbitration award was proper notwithstanding her allegations, as the award was "rational and unambiguous."

When Pisano filed second lawsuit based on the Medical Board's determination, the City asked the court to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel and dismiss her petition. The court granted the City's motion, noting that the Medical Board is an agency within the meaning of 2 NYCRR 353, which provides for medical examinations, the creation of a medical board and the right to a hearing to challenge any adverse findings adopted by the Board.

The court said that "[t]hese procedures demonstrate that the determinations of these agencies are not merely the exercise of any rule-making or policy-making resolutions but are adjudications pursuant to their specific authority to actually decide cases. The court's conclusion: the Medical Board acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and its rulings bar any subsequent proceedings pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

In addition, the court rejected Pisano's argument that "the arbitration award should be vacated since [she] was denied her Due Process at the arbitration hearing," noting that a Justice of the Supreme Court already ruled on "the propriety and manner of the arbitration proceeding and found that it fully conformed with the law." Thus, said the court, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel in this action is appropriate.

The court also commented that "while the [Pisano] apparently did not appear with an attorney when she underwent her medical examinations, she was represented by the Union, which under a collective bargaining agreement with the Board, represents the interests of its members." In addition, said the court, "a party's election to appear without counsel will not invalidate the award of any part of the proceeding in which the right to counsel was not exercised."

New parking placard policies for the executive branch and Legislature

New parking placard policies for the executive branch and Legislature
Source: Office of the Governor

In response to State Inspector General Ellen Biben finding systemic problems with how parking placards were distributed and how they were used by some state employees, Governor Cuomo set new rigorous new policies for state issued parking placards.

Currently, the state distributes two types of parking placards. One says "police" in all capital letters, the other says "official business."

The new parking placard policies for the executive branch and Legislature provide that:

1. State officials are required to fill out a form before receiving the placard indicating why the placard is needed and what vehicle it will be used in.


2. State officials are required to sign a certification acknowledging the proper use of a placard.

3. The Executive Chamber is recalling all outstanding "Police" placards so they can be redistributed to police personnel only.

4. State officials without police powers will be issued "Official Business" placards.

5.The State Police will review and distribute all "Police" placards.

6. The Governor's Office of Public Safety will review and distribute all "Official Business" placards.

7. Agencies will review requests by employees to ensure that their duties and responsibilities would require the use of a placard.

8. Complaints of improper use of "Police" placards will be handled by State Police.

9. Complaints of improper use of "Official Business" placards will be handled by the Inspector General's office. 

10. An employee who misuses the placard could face disciplinary action.

.

.

A statutory general power of appointment implies a power to terminate the services of the appointee

A statutory general power of appointment implies a power to terminate the services of the appointee
Matter of City Council of City of Mount Vernon v Batra, 2011 NY Slip Op 02664, Appellate Division, Second Department

Ravi Batra, former counsel to the Office of the Mayor of the City of Mount Vernon, contended that he was unlawfully terminated from his position, arguing that his appointment pursuant to Section 66 of the Mount Vernon City Charter was irrevocable and not at the pleasure of the mayor.

The Appellate Division, sustaining Supreme Court’s dismissal of Barta’s petition, held that “Where, as here, the power of appointment is conferred in general terms and without restriction, the right to remove the appointee is within the discretion or at the pleasure of the appointing power.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02664.htm
.

Arbitrating an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement

Arbitrating an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement

Albala v Nassau County, 270 AD2d 482

The Albala case illustrates the general rule that the employee organization, rather than an individual unit member, is the party that must prosecute any alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement negotiated under the Taylor Law to arbitration.

The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Albala’s petition, pointing out that a union member has no individual rights under a collective bargaining agreement, which he or she can enforce against his or her employer. In other words, the agreement is the property of the union.

Another factor mentioned in the court’s ruling: CSEA did not avail itself of the remedy provided by the collective bargaining agreement to press Albala’s complaint. This, said the Appellate Division, meant that the basic rule requiring that a party exhaust the administrative remedies otherwise available was not honored, thus precluding any judicial review of the matter.

The court also commented that determination of the Nassau County Office of Labor Relations was not arbitrary or capricious since it was rationally based on the facts before it.

One exception to the general rule that the union “owns the contract” for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the agreement: an individual may bring an action on his or her own behalf if he or she can demonstrate that the union had violated its duty of fair representation with respect to the rights of the unit member in the matter.

However, a claim that an employee organization violated its duty of fair representation cannot be argued in an Article 75 action to vacate the arbitration award.

Two rulings by state courts illustrate this point, Croman v City University of New York, 277 AD2d 185, and Parisi v NYC Housing Authority, Appellate Division, First Department, 269 AD2d 210.


Croman involved a disciplinary action. Croman, a member of the faculty at Borough of Manhattan Community College [BMCC], had been found guilty of taking a paid sabbatical leave of absence based on misrepresentations. The penalty imposed by the arbitrator: an unpaid suspension for one-half year, to reimburse the employer for the expenses it incurred during her sabbatical leave. BMCC had asked the arbitrator to terminate Croman.

Croman’s Article 75 petition asked the court to vacate the arbitration award because, among other things, her union representative did not fairly and adequately represent her in the disciplinary action. Justice York’s response:

Fair representation claims should be asserted in plenary [full and unlimited] actions in which the court is asked to determine [1] whether the union breached its duty was and [2] whether or not the collective bargaining agreement was violated.

Justice York’s conclusion: even assuming that Croman ha[s] a viable fair representation claim under New York State law ... a proceeding to vacate the arbitration award [is] not the proper forum for asserting it. Justice York cited Obot v NYS Department of Correctional Services, 89 NY2d 883 in support of his decision.

In sustaining Justice York’s determination, the Appellate Division said:

Absent clear language in Education Law §6212 (9) prohibiting arbitration of disciplinary matters involving tenured faculty, we reject petitioner's argument that, since that section vests the power to remove tenured faculty solely in respondent's Board of Trustees, public policy is violated by a collective bargaining agreement delegating the authority to discipline to an arbitrator at the employee's option. “It is well settled that a contract provision in a collective bargaining agreement may modify, supplement, or replace the more traditional forms of protection afforded public employees.” (Dye v New York City Tr. Auth., 88 AD2d 899, affd 57 NY2d 917.) Here, the collective bargaining agreement that governed petitioner's employment gave her the option to either accept the penalty recommended by respondent's designee or take the matter to arbitration. Petitioner elected arbitration. Public policy does not nullify the choice she made (cf., Matter of Abramovich v Board of Educ., 46 NY2d 450, cert denied 444 US 845).

In the Parisi case, the Appellate Division ruled that Katherine Parisi, a former employee of the New York City Housing Authority had no right to sue the Authority under the collective bargaining agreement.

Here, said the court, her remedies for challenging alleged breaches of the agreement were limited to filing a complaint under the grievance procedure set forth in the contract.

 Parisi had claimed that she was entitled to certain payments under the terms of the agreement. The court said that Parisi did not gain a right to sue by reason of her union’s refusal to take up her grievance, unless such refusal amounted to a breach by the union of its duty of fair representation. Dismissing Parisi’s petition, the court said that she had not shown that the union had breach this duty.

.

Liquidation of sick leave benefits upon retirement

Liquidation of sick leave benefits upon retirement

O’Brien v Deer Park UFSD, 127 F. Supp.2d 342

Federal District Court Judge Denis R. Hurley ruled that paying teachers who retire after age 55 less for their unused sick leave than that paid to teachers who retire before attaining age 56 as provided by the terms of an agreement negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law violated the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA] and the Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act [OWBPA].

The collective bargaining agreement provided that teachers who retired during the first year after reaching age 55 would be paid in full for all of their accumulated sick leave; those who retired later, i.e. at age 56 or older, would per paid a decreasing percentage of the full value of their sick leave credits.

The court said that under ADEA and Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, employment benefits must be equally available regardless of age.

.

A party seeking a writ of prohibition barring a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal from acting on a matter before it has the burden of persuasion

A party seeking a writ of prohibition barring a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal from acting on a matter before it has the burden of persuasion
Matter of North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2011 NY Slip Op 02604, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The significant issue in this action: Should Supreme Court have granted North Syracuse Central School District’s petition seeking a “writ of prohibition” barring the New York State Division of Human Rights from taking further action on a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination filed with it.*

The Appellate Division decided that Supreme Court should not have issued such a writ, explaining that "[t]he Court of Appeals has held that a writ of prohibition is not an appropriate vehicle to be used to bar [respondent] from conducting an investigation because the [r]emedy for asserted error of law in the exercise of [respondent's] jurisdiction or authority lies first in administrative review' " [Matter of Tessy Plastics Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 47 NY2d 789].

As the Division "has jurisdiction to investigate complaints of discrimination and any error of law in the exercise of that jurisdiction must first be challenged by administrative review before judicial review pursuant to §298 of the Executive Law is available . . . The extraordinary writ of prohibition does not lie to challenge [respondent's] initial acceptance of jurisdiction over a complaint of discrimination.”

Finding that North Syracuse had not established the "futility of the administrative remedy; irreparable harm in the absence of prompt judicial intervention; or a claim of unconstitutional action," the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court “erred in prohibiting [the Division] from taking further action on the complaint.

* The writ of prohibition is one of number of the ancient “common law” writs and is issued by a higher tribunal to a lower tribunal to "prohibit" the adjudication of a matter then pending before the lower tribunal on the grounds that the lower tribunal "lacked jurisdiction."  Other such ancients writs include a writ a writ of mandamus, granted by a court to compel an official to perform "acts that officials are duty-bound to perform;" the writ of injunction - a judicial order preventing a public official from performing an act; the writ of "certiorari," compelling a lower court to send it record of a case to the higher tribunal for review by the higher tribunal; and the writ of “quo warranto” [by what authority]. The Civil Practice Law and Rules sets out the modern equivalents of the surviving ancient writs.


The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02604.htm
.

A party seeking a writ of prohibition barring a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal from acting on a matter before it has the burden of persuasion

A party seeking a writ of prohibition barring a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal from acting on a matter before it has the burden of persuasion
Matter of North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2011 NY Slip Op 02604, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The significant issue in this action: Should Supreme Court have granted North Syracuse Central School District’s petition seeking a “writ of prohibition” barring the New York State Division of Human Rights from taking further action on a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination filed with it.*

The Appellate Division decided that Supreme Court should not have issued such a writ, explaining that "[t]he Court of Appeals has held that a writ of prohibition is not an appropriate vehicle to be used to bar [respondent] from conducting an investigation because the [r]emedy for asserted error of law in the exercise of [respondent's] jurisdiction or authority lies first in administrative review' " [Matter of Tessy Plastics Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 47 NY2d 789].

As the Division "has jurisdiction to investigate complaints of discrimination and any error of law in the exercise of that jurisdiction must first be challenged by administrative review before judicial review pursuant to §298 of the Executive Law is available . . . The extraordinary writ of prohibition does not lie to challenge [respondent's] initial acceptance of jurisdiction over a complaint of discrimination.”

Finding that North Syracuse had not established the "futility of the administrative remedy; irreparable harm in the absence of prompt judicial intervention; or a claim of unconstitutional action," the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court “erred in prohibiting [the Division] from taking further action on the complaint.

* The writ of prohibition is one of number of the ancient “common law” writs and is issued by a higher tribunal to a lower tribunal to "prohibit" the adjudication of a matter then pending before the lower tribunal on the grounds that the lower tribunal "lacked jurisdiction."  Other such ancients writs include a writ a writ of mandamus, granted by a court to compel an official to perform "acts that officials are duty-bound to perform;" the writ of injunction - a judicial order preventing a public official from performing an act; the writ of "certiorari," compelling a lower court to send its record of a case to the higher tribunal for review by the higher tribunal; and the writ of “quo warranto” [by what authority]. The Civil Practice Law and Rules sets out the modern equivalents of the surviving ancient writs.


The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02604.htm
.

Challenging a Section 3020-a disciplinary decision

Challenging a Section 3020-a disciplinary decision
Great Neck UFSD v Brandman, Appellate Division, 286 AD2d 735 

It is not a simple task to overturn an arbitration award as the Great Neck decision demonstrates.

The Great Neck Union Free School District attempted to vacate or modify a Section 3020-a disciplinary arbitration award by filing a petition pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules [CPLR]. Its efforts were rebuffed by Nassau Supreme Court Justice Ralph Franco.

The Appellate Division sustained Justice Franco’s ruling, holding:

The Supreme Court properly confirmed the Hearing Officer's determination since the petitioner did not demonstrate any basis for vacating it under CPLR 7511 (see, Education Law § 3020-a [5]; Matter of Board of Educ. v Ziparo, 275 AD2d 411; cf., Matter of Board of Educ. v Yusko, 269 AD2d 445, 446). The Hearing Officer's determination has a rational basis and is supported by the record (see, CPLR 7801; Matter of Fischer v Smithtown Cent. School Dist., 262 AD2d 560).

The district had filed Section 3020-a charges against school psychologist Edward Brandman. The charges included allegations that Brandman:

1. Had an intimate sexual relationship with the mother of students under his care;

2. Failed to disclose this relationship to his supervisors;

3. Discouraged the mother from terminating her relationship with him; and

4. Discouraged the mother from reconciling with the natural father of the children.

Arbitrator Joseph P. Sireman had found Brandman guilty of professional misconduct. The penalty imposed: a two-year suspension without pay. The hearing officer said that the penalty imposed reflected Brandman’s otherwise [22 year] unblemished employment record with the district.

In response, the district filed a petition pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, contending that as a matter of public policy, the award be vacated and [Brandman] terminated.

Justice Franco dismissed the district’s petition seeking to vacate the award for a number of reasons.

He first noted that Section 3020-a(5) provides that appeals from such determinations must be filed within ten days of its receipt pursuant to Article 75, Section 7511 of the CPLR rather than pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR.*

The court also pointed out that the basis for challenging an arbitration award under Article 75 is very limited. Among the reasons for asking a court vacate such an award are the following:

1. The award resulted from corruption, fraud or misconduct in procuring the award; or

2. Partiality on the part of the arbitrator; or

3. The arbitrator exceeded his or her authority or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

The court found nothing in the record to suggest any such basis for overturning the arbitrator’s award existed.

Justice Franco concluded that [g]iven the charges and [Brandman’s] otherwise unblemished record, the hearing officer’s determination imposing a two year suspension without pay is a significant financial penalty, reflects the seriousness of the charges offered as proven by the district and cannot be construed by this Court as irrational or against public policy.

Justice Franco also commented that his analysis cannot change because the facts or implications of a case might be disturbing, or because an employee’s conduct is particularly reprehensible.

As to the district’s public policy argument, the court said that an alleged violation of public policy is not one of the justifications set out in Article 75 for vacating an arbitrator’s determination.

In certain cases, however, the courts have adopted a violation of a strong public policy standard when considering petitions to vacate an arbitrator’s award.

For example, in Matter of the Town of Callicoon, 79 NY2d 907, the Court of Appeals has ruled that a court could vacate an arbitrator’s award if it determines that the award violated a strong public policy.

More recently, noted Justice Franco, the Court of Appeals addressed the public policy exception as justification for overturning an arbitrator’s award. In State Correctional Offices [Kuhnel] and Police Benevolent Association v State, 94 NY2d 321, it said that:

The public policy exception has its roots in common law, where it is well settled that a court will not enforce a contract that violates public policy. A court, however, may not vacate an award on public policy grounds when vague or attenuated considerations of a general public interest are at stake.

The Kuhnel case involved a State corrections officer, Edward Kuhnel, who was suspended from duty and served with disciplinary charges after the Department of Correctional Services learned that he flew a Nazi flag from the front porch of his home on December 10, 1996 -- the 55th anniversary of Hitler’s declaration of war on the United States.

The arbitrator dismissed the charges and the department sought to vacate the award on the theory the arbitrator’s ruling concerning Kuhnel’s off-duty activities violated a strong public policy. The Court of Appeals sustained the arbitrator’s determination, holding:

… looking at the only prong of the public policy exception argued before this Court, we conclude that the award does not violate a well-defined constitutional, statutory or common law of this State.

In another Section 3020-a disciplinary action that involved considering public policy with respect to the penalty imposed, the Appellate Division, Second Department, found that a disciplinary penalty consisting of counseling, remediation, and a 60-day suspension, violated a strong public policy.

East Hampton Union Free School District teacher Jeffrey Yusko was found guilty of unwanted and inappropriate physical contact and verbal conduct ... with the students entrusted to his care over the course of three school years.

East Hampton filed an Article 75 petition seeking to vacate the penalty imposed by the hearing officer. A State Supreme Court judge granted the district’s petition and directed it to terminate Yusko.

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s granting the district’s petition as far as it vacated the penalty imposed by the hearing officer but held that the Supreme Court had exceeded its authority when it substituted the penalty of dismissal.

The court said the lower court should have remanded the matter for a rehearing before a different hearing officer and that a new determination on the issue of the penalty to be imposed should be made by the new hearing officer [East Hampton Union Free School District v Jeffrey Yusko, 269 AD2d 445]. 

* Section 3020-a.5 provides: Appeal. Not later than ten days after receipt of the hearing officer's decision, the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York state supreme court to vacate or modify the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to section seven thousand five hundred eleven of the civil practice law and rules.
.

Workers found guilty of a “slow-down” in completing their assigned tasks based on circumstantial evidence

Workers found guilty of a “slow-down” in completing their assigned tasks based on circumstantial evidence

Department of Sanitation v Venning, OATH Index #763/11 and Index #764/11

Two New York City sanitation workers were charged with willfully failing to complete their route.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Tynia Richard found that circumstantial evidence supported the inference that the workers intentionally slowed their pace, and recommended a five-day penalty as to each worker for that charge.

One employee was also charged with disobeying an order from a supervisor, directing profanity at her, and recklessly driving away while she was stepping away from the truck, all of which charges were sustained.

ALJ Richard recommended a 30-day suspension without pay for that incident.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-763.pdf

 .

Employee claims coercion in his agreeing to a demotion in lieu of disciplinary action

Employee claims coercion in his agreeing to a demotion in lieu of disciplinary action
Pagano v Port Authority, 270 AD2d 206

The Employment Relations Panel of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey affirmed Authority Police Sergeant Frank Pagano agreement to accept a demotion to patrol officer.

Pagano sued, seeking reinstatement to his former position. Pagano claimed that his agreement to the demotion was coerced. The Appellate Division rejected his petition. The court decided that the Panel’s determination may not be disturbed since substantial evidence supports the Panel’s decision that “the Port Authority did not unduly influence or coerce petitioner’s request for demotion from the rank of sergeant to that of police officer.”

Coercion is an issue that sometimes emerges in the course of a disciplinary settlement. An individual may claim that he or she was threaten with disciplinary action if he or she declined to resign or refused to agree to some personnel change demanded by the appointing authority.

The Court of Appeals addressed this question in Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643.

Rychlick, a state correction officer, was told that unless he immediately submitted his resignation, formal disciplinary charges would be filed against him. He submitted his resignation.


A few days later, claiming that he had been forced to submit his resignation, Rychlick attempted to withdraw it. The department refused to allow him to withdraw the resignation and Rychlick sued on the grounds that it had been obtained under duress and thus was void.

The general rule is that a resignation must be in writing and once submitted, its withdrawal or recession requires the approval of the appointing authority.

The Court of Appeals, upholding Corrections’ refusal to allow Rychlick to withdraw the resignation, said that threatening an employee with disciplinary action if he or she did not resign did not constitute duress since the appointing authority had the legal right to file such charges.

The basic principle: threatening to do what one had the legal right to do does not constitute duress.

Another aspect of demanding that an individual submit his or her resignation or face disciplinary charges: such a resignation may be considered in determining the individual’s eligibility for public employment in the future.

Civil Service Law Section 50.4(e) authorizes the State Department of Civil Service or a civil service commission to disqualify an applicant or employee “who has been dismissed from a permanent position in the public service upon stated written charges of incompetence or misconduct, after an opportunity to answer such charges in writing, or who has resigned from, or whose service has otherwise been terminated in, a permanent or temporary position in the public service, where it is found after appropriate investigation or inquiry that such resignation or termination resulted from his incompetency or misconduct, provided, that in cases of dismissal, resignation or termination after written charges of incompetency, the examination or certification in question be for a position that requires the performance of a duty or duties which are the same as or similar to the duty or duties of the position from which the applicant has been dismissed, resigned or terminated on account of incompetency”.
.

Public policy exception to compelling arbitration

Public policy exception to compelling arbitration

Matter of Mineola Union Free School Dist. v Mineola Teachers' Assn., 37 AD3d 605

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court ruling dismissing a motion for a preliminary injunction staying arbitration filed by the Mineola Union Free School District and granting the Mineola Teachers’ Association’s motion to compel arbitration.

After holding that “the subject of the claim sought to be arbitrated is the type authorized by the Taylor Law,” the Appellate Division explained:

Contrary to the District's contention, an arbitrator's award in favor of the Association would not violate public policy.

The court noted that “The public policy exception to parties' power to agree to arbitrate disputes, and an arbitrator's power to resolve disputes, is a narrow one,” applying only in situations where “the award itself [would] violate a well-defined constitutional, statutory or common law of this State.”

In this instance, the Appellate Division concluded that “no law prohibits an award validating the procedures enumerated” in an article set out in the collective bargaining agreement between the parties.

The public policy exception in arbitration was considered by the Court of Appeals in NYC Transit Authority v Transport Workers Union of America, 99 NY2d 1

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/public-policy-exception-to-arbitration.html
. 

The date of the certification of the candidate for appointment rather than the date a candidate's name is reachable for appointment controls

The date of the certification of the candidate for appointment rather than the date a candidate's name is reachable for appointment controls
Matter of Woods v New York City Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs., 2011 NY Slip Op 02719, Court of Appeals

Among the qualifications for appointment as New York City firefighter was that the candidate, by the date of appointment, have “successfully completed 30 semester credits from an accredited college or university or obtained a four-year high school diploma and completed two years of honorable full-time U.S. military service.”

Robert Thomas Woods passed a civil service examination and his name was placed on a list of eligibles to be appointed as a New York City firefighter.

Woods did not meet these requirements at the time he sat for the examination nor did he meet them at the time his name was initially reached for appointment as a firefighter. However, Woods was on active military duty when his name was initially reached on the list.

When Wood was discharged from military service he filed an "Application Under State Military Law for Determination of Rights on Eligible List" with the New York City Department of City-wide Administrative Services [DCAS] for “a determination of his rights under Military Law §243.” §243, in pertinent part, provides that any person whose name is on an eligible list and comes up for certification while on duty, shall have his or her name placed on a special eligible list if a request is made within 90 days of his or discharge from active duty.

DCAS decided that Woods’ name could not be placed on a special eligible list because on the date when his name initially had been reached for appointment from the list, he was not qualified for appointment on that date.

The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that Military Law §243(7) required DCAS to place petitioner on a "special eligible list", from which he could be certified for appointment after his military duty ended. The court explained that so long as Woods met the qualifications for appointment when the time to certify him for appointment arrived, it did not matter that he did not satisfy them when his name was first reached for certification for appointment from the list, at which time he was on military duty.

DCAS, said the court, “misconceived the statutory scheme,” pointing out that §243(7), by using the word "shall" rather than "may" gives DCAS no discretion to refuse to put names on a special eligible list.

Although Civil Service Law §50.4 allows DCAS to exercise its discretion not to certify names of people who do not meet the required qualifications, that discretion, said the Court of Appeals, may be exercisable at the time when the decision about such certification is made — here when Woods’ name “was or should have been reached on the special list” and certified for appointment.

Accordingly, said the court, Supreme Court and the Appellate Division determinations that Woods’ name should not be placed on a special military eligible list were incorrect and must be vacated.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02719.htm
.

If substantial evidence supports the appointing authority’s denial of GML §207-a benefits, it must be sustained

If substantial evidence supports the appointing authority’s denial of GML §207-a benefits, it must be sustained
Matter of Ridge Rd. Fire Dist. v Schiano, 2011 NY Slip Op 02720, Court of Appeals

Kevin Nowack, a firefighter employed by the Ridge Road Fire District, claimed to have sustained a back injury while on duty.

Ultimately the arbitrator concluded that the District's denial of Nowack's §207-a benefits was not supported by substantial evidence.

The District appealed the arbitrator's determination and Supreme Court granted the District's petition, vacated the arbitrator’s decision and reinstated the District's original decision denying Nowack application for §207-a benefits.

Supreme Court held that the hearing officer's decision was arbitrary and capricious, and noted that the District's determination denying benefits "was supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole despite the fact that there was conflicting medical evidence to support a contrary result."

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s determination and dismissed the Fire District’s petition, holding that the District's "denial of benefits, which was based on the determination that the disability was solely related to a prior non-work-related injury, [was] not supported by substantial evidence."

The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision.

The court said that the parties here agree that under the relevant statute and collective bargaining agreement, the District's denial of benefits had to be upheld if substantial evidence* supported it. Accordingly, said the Court of Appeals, “the independent hearing officer was required to give deference to the District's decision and Nowack bore the burden of establishing that the District's denial determination had not been supported by substantial evidence.”

Viewing this record as a whole, the Court of Appeals held that “Supreme Court correctly held that the hearing officer's decision, i.e. that the District's denial of section 207-a benefits was not based on substantial evidence, was arbitrary and capricious.”

Further, said the court, “It is of no consequence that the record also indicates that there was evidence supporting Nowack's contention.” While frequently there is substantial evidence on both sides, the Court of Appeals explained that the applicable standard here was whether the District's denial of benefits was supported by substantial evidence.

In this instance, said the court, there is unquestionably substantial evidence supporting both sides' positions. Accordingly “the hearing officer acted arbitrarily in deciding that none supported the District's” position.

* Court of Appeals noted that it had defined "substantial evidence" as such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact, and "is less than a preponderance of the evidence, overwhelming evidence or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02720.htm

.

Concerning disciplinary probation

Concerning disciplinary probation
Gonzalez v Safir, App. Div., 270 AD2d 52
Dillon v Safir, App. Div., 270 AD2d 116

The Gonzalez case deals with the imposition of probation as a disciplinary penalty; the Dillon decision indicates the potential impact that a disciplinary probation may have on an individual.

The bottom line: an individual serving in disciplinary probationary status may be dismissed without notice or hearing if his or her service during the probationary period is found to be unsatisfactory.

The Gonzalez case

Eduardo A. Gonzalez, a New York City police officer, was found guilty of having wrongfully struck another person. The penalty imposed by the disciplinary hearing officer: disciplinary probation for one year and a 30-day suspension without pay.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the findings of the hearing officer and the penalty given to Gonzalez as a result of his having been found guilty of the charges filed against him. The court said that it found the penalty imposed was appropriate in light of Gonzalez’s’s violent behavior and poor judgment when he struck his girlfriend.

The Appellate Division also commented on Gonzalez’s evident lack of candor when he testified about the incident.

The Dillion Case

Bradly Dillion, another New York City police officer, was terminated from his employment as a probationary employee without notice or hearing. Dillion had been serving a one-year disciplinary probation imposed pursuant to an earlier disciplinary action at the time he was dismissed.

Dillon had been found guilty of charges alleging excessive use of force.

Dillion challenged his termination, contending that under Section 891 of the Unconsolidated Law, police officers can be terminated only for incompetence or misconduct shown after a hearing.

The Appellate Division rejected Dillion’s arguments for two reasons. The court said that:

1. In Williams v Safir, 696 NY2d 139, Dillion’s theory that Section 891 applies to probationary as well as tenured police officers was specifically rejected; and

2. Unless it is shown that the termination of an individual on disciplinary probation was made in bad faith, police officers on disciplinary probation, like those on ordinary probation, can be terminated for any or no reason.

The court said that evidence in the record of disciplinary problems other than that underlying the probation that would support the conclusion that [Dillion’s] termination was made in good faith.

However, there may be limitations to dismissing an individual serving a disciplinary probation without first providing the employee with a pre-termination notice and a hearing.

If the individual is placed on disciplinary probation subject to specific terms and conditions set out in the disciplinary settlement or award, he or she may not be summarily terminated as a probationer unless he or she violates the specific terms of the disciplinary probation.

This point is illustrated in ruling by the Appellate Division in Taylor v Cass, 505 NY2d 929.

Under the terms of a disciplinary settlement, Taylor could be terminated without any hearing if, in the opinion of his superior, his job performance was adversely affected by his consumption of alcohol. Taylor was subsequently terminated from his position for sleeping on the job.

Although the employer claimed that the termination without a hearing was permitted under the terms of the disciplinary settlement agreement, the Appellate Division disagreed and directed the agency to reinstate Taylor to his position with back pay and benefits.

The court pointed out that the reason given for summarily terminating Taylor -- sleeping on the job -- was not authorized by the settlement agreement. The court ruled that Taylor could only be terminated without a hearing if he was found to have violated the specific reason set out in the settlement agreement: the performance of his duties were unsatisfactory because of his consumption of alcohol.

The Dillion and Taylor decisions illustrate two basic formulas followed in imposing disciplinary probation as a penalty:

1. The Dillion formula: You should be terminated but you’re getting another chance: any kind of misperformance, malperformance or nonperformance and you will be dismissed!

2. The Taylor formula: You should be terminated based on specific misconduct, but you’re getting another chance: if you do it again, you will be dismissed!

In effect, an individual serving a Dillion formula disciplinary probationary period is treated as though he or she is serving a Civil Service Law Section 63 probationary period.

In contrast, an individual serving a Taylor formula disciplinary probation period continues to hold status as a tenured employee but he or she may be summarily terminated if he or she commits a specified type offense.
There are other potential impacts resulting from disciplinary probationary status to be considered as well. For example, assume there is a layoff. Sections 80 and 80-a of the Civil Service Law provide that probationary employees are to be laid off before less senior tenured employees.

An individual serving a Dillion type disciplinary probation presumably would be treated in the same manner as any other probationer with respect to suspension or demotion in a layoff situation. In contrast, the Taylor type disciplinary probationer presumably would retain all of his or her tenured seniority rights without regard to his or her disciplinary probation status.

=================

The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State is a 1272 page e-book available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/ for additional information concerning this electronic reference manual.

=======================

Certification of the payroll critical to lawfully paying an individual in the classified service

Certification of the payroll critical to lawfully paying an individual in the classified service

Eldridge v Carmel Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 02620, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Personnel Officer of Putnam County, who also serves as the Personnel Director for the Putnam County Personnel Department, Paul Eldridge, sued the Carmel Central School District’s Board of Education and a number of employees of the District pursuant to Civil Service Law §102(2) to recover certain sums that were allegedly illegally paid by the School District to an individual in the classified service that had been employed by the District without the certification required by the Civil Service Law §100.*

Eldridge contended that the School District “illegally paid or authorized payment of salary or compensation to nonparty Joseph Gramando, totaling approximately $233,245” during the period February 10, 2006 through October 15, 2008, which payments Eldridge alleged were not properly certified as required by Civil Service Law §100(1)(a).

In response to a number of technical objections to the parties named as defendants in Eldridge’s petition, the Appellate Division, noting that the Board of Education was not an officer within the meaning of CSL §100(1)(a), said that Supreme Court should have dismissed Eldridge’s complaint with respect to the Board as an entity being named a defendant but that the complaint sufficiently alleged that School Board members “Kreps, Riley, Dougherty, MacDonald, Nesheiwat, Port, and Shilling,” as individual members of the Board of Education, were "officers by whom [nonparty Joseph Gramando] w[as] appointed in violation of the provisions of law and of the rules made in pursuance of law."

Further, said the court, Eldridge’s complaint sufficiently alleged that the officers of the District that he named in his petition, Terranova, Wilson, Stark, and Haywood, were "officer[s] signing or countersigning or authorizing the signing or countersigning of any warrant for the payment of" salary or compensation distributed to nonparty Joseph Gramando contrary to the provisions of Civil Service Law §100.

Among the defenses raised by the board members and district officers were the following:

1.      Eldridge failed to notify "the appropriate disbursing and auditing officers" that Gramando was being employed in violation of the law. 

 
The Appellate Division rejected the argument, holding that such notice that a person has been "promoted, transferred, assigned, reinstated or otherwise employed" in violation of the law is not a condition precedent to an action to recover sums illegally paid under Civil Service Law §102(2). Further, said the court, the “defendants failed to submit documentary evidence conclusively establishing that the salary and compensation allegedly paid to Gramando in violation of the law was properly certified by the civil service department or municipal commission having jurisdiction, as required by Civil Service Law § 100(1)(a).”

2.      Eldridge failed to serve a timely serve a notice of claim as required by Education Law § 3813(1). 

  
Citing Union Free School Dist. No. 6 of Towns of Islip & Smithtown v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 NY2d 371, the Appellate Division rejected this defense as well, commenting that “Contrary to the defendants' contention, an action commenced pursuant to Civil Service Law §102(2) is an action ‘to vindicate a public interest’ to which the notice of claim requirement in Education Law §3813(1) does not apply.”

 

3.      The action brought was untimely as barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Education Law §3813(2-b). 

  
The court said that "All of the public policy considerations for finding that Education Law §3813's notice of claim requirement is inapplicable to [this action] are equally valid with respect to the Statute of Limitations set forth in [Section 3813(2-b)]" and since the action is to recover upon “a liability, penalty or forfeiture created or imposed by statute" a three-year statute of limitations is applicable. Accordingly, Eldridge’ action to recover sums allegedly illegally paid said the Appellate Division, ‘should be limited to the money paid to Gramando on or after June 2, 2006, citing General Construction Law §20.

In response to another argument advanced by the defendants, the court commented that Eldridge was not required, nor does he have the authority, to extend or terminate provisional appointments. It is the obligation of the appointing authority to terminate all provisional appointments "within two months following the establishment of an appropriate eligible list for filling vacancies" (Civil Service Law §65[3]).

The court explained that power of the civil service department and municipal commission lies in their ability to withhold certification "from an entire payroll or from any item or items therein." (Civil Service Law § 100[1][a]).

The Appellate Division said that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to establish that the individual defendants “continued to pay and approve salary and compensation to Gramando after the expiration of his provisional appointment and without proper certification of the payroll

* Subdivision 1(a) of Civil Service Law §100, Certification of payrolls, in pertinent part, provides that certification of the payroll is required and that “no disbursing or auditing officer of the state or of any civil division thereof shall approve or pay or take any part in approving or paying any salary or compensation for personal service to any person holding an office or position in the classified service unless the voucher or payroll therefor bears the certificate of the civil service department or  municipal commission having jurisdiction that the persons named therein  are employed in their respective positions in accordance with law and  rules made pursuant to law. The certificate of municipal commissions shall also include a statement of membership in an appropriate retirement system where such membership is mandatory.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02620.htm
.