Eligibility for overtime

Eligibility for overtime

Spradling v City of Tulsa, CA10, 95 F.3d 1492

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has rejected a claim by district fire chiefs employed by Tulsa, Oklahoma, for overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA].

The district chiefs claimed that such payments were required by the FLSA. The circuit court disagreed, ruling that the chiefs were “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees” within the meaning of FLSA and therefore not subject to its overtime provisions. In other words, they were “exempt” employees.

In Alden v Maine, 527 U.S. 706, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars state employees suing their state employer in federal court without the state’s consent.

However, in Alden the court noted an “important limitation” to the principle of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment -- such immunity does not cover “lesser entities” such as political subdivisions of a state.

In the words of the Supreme Court, “[t]he immunity does not extend to suits prosecuted against a municipal corporation or other governmental entity that is not an arm of the State.”

The City of Tulsa case demonstrates that federal courts will continue to hear claims brought by public employees alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act involving a political subdivision of a state that is not an “arm of the state.”

However, it could be argued that because sworn officers serving with a municipal police department are exercising “the police powers of the state,” their employer is “an arm of the state” and thus the municipality has Eleventh Amendment immunity from law suits in federal court.
.

Individual’s “lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility” for misconduct considered by the court in affirming hearing officer’s disciplinary determination

Individual’s “lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility” for misconduct considered by the court in affirming hearing officer’s disciplinary determination

Cipollaro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 03131, Appellate Division, First Department

Barbara Cipollaro was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law by her employer, the New York City Department of Education, alleging that she had knowingly defrauded Department of $98,000 over a two-year period by enrolling two of her children in New York City public schools while she and her family lived in Westchester County.

The hearing officer found Cipollaro guilty of the charges and she was terminated from her position.

Cipollaro filed a petition pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules seeking a court order vacating hearing officer decision and the penalty imposed.

The Appellate Division ruled that there was no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's determination. Significantly the court said that in view of Cipollaro’s “lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility for [her] actions, as well as the harm caused by her actions, the penalty of dismissal, even if there was an otherwise adequate performance record, cannot be said to shock the conscience” [of the court].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_03131.htm

.

.

Independent Contractors vs. Employees

Independent Contractors vs. Employees

Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/

Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

The line between who is and who is not an employee is often a blur. However, it is an important line to draw as it can have consequences. Non-employees are not protected under our employment laws and are often not eligible for employee benefits.

IRS Gets Class Conscious is an interesting April 2011 article from the ABA Journal which addresses some of these issues. Of significant note is that both the IRS and the DOL are cracking down on employee misclassification. So, employers beware!

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Randall comments: The ABA Journal article refers to a “20-factor IRS” for guidance when classifying individuals as workers or independent contractors.

An employer must generally withhold income taxes; withhold and pay social security and Medicare taxes; and pay unemployment taxes on wages paid to an employee. An employer does not generally have to withhold or pay any taxes on payments to independent contractors.

To help determine whether an individual is an employee under the common-law rules, the IRS has identified the 20 factors set out below as guidelines in determining whether sufficient control is present to establish an employer-employee relationship.

These factors should be considered guidelines. Not every factor is applicable in every situation, and the degree of importance of each factor varies depending on the type of work and individual circumstances. However, all relevant factors are considered in making a determination, and no one factor is decisive.

The 20 factors indicating whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor are:

1. Instructions. An employee must comply with instructions about when, where, and how to work. Even if no instructions are given, the control factor is present if the employer has the right to control how the work results are achieved.

2. Training. An employee may be trained to perform services in a particular manner. Independent contractors ordinarily use their own methods and receive no training from the purchasers of their services.

3. Integration. An employee's services are usually integrated into the business operations because the services are important to the success or continuation of the business. This shows that the employee is subject to direction and control.

4. Services rendered personally. An employee renders services personally. This shows that the employer is interested in the methods as well as the results.

5. Hiring assistants. An employee works for an employer who hires, supervises, and pays workers. An independent contractor can hire, supervise, and pay assistants under a contract that requires him or her to provide materials and labor and to be responsible only for the result.

6. Continuing relationship. An employee generally has a continuing relationship with an employer. A continuing relationship may exist even if work is performed at recurring although irregular intervals.

7. Set hours of work. An employee usually has set hours of work established by an employer. An independent contractor generally can set his or her own work hours.

8. Full-time required. An employee may be required to work or be available full-time. This indicates control by the employer. An independent contractor can work when and for whom he or she chooses.

9. Work done on premises. An employee usually works on the premises of an employer, or works on a route or at a location designated by an employer.

10. Order or sequence set. An employee may be required to perform services in the order or sequence set by an employer. This shows that the employee is subject to direction and control.

11. Reports. An employee may be required to submit reports to an employer. This shows that the employer maintains a degree of control.

12. Payments. An employee is generally paid by the hour, week, or month. An independent contractor is usually paid by the job or on straight commission.

13. Expenses. An employee's business and travel expenses are generally paid by an employer. This shows that the employee is subject to regulation and control.

14. Tools and materials. An employee is normally furnished significant tools, materials, and other equipment by an employer.

15. Investment. An independent contractor has a significant investment in the facilities he or she uses in performing services for someone else.

16. Profit or loss. An independent contractor can make a profit or suffer a loss.

17. Works for more than one person or firm. An independent contractor is generally free to provide his or her services to two or more unrelated persons or firms at the same time.

18. Offers services to general public. An independent contractor makes his or her services available to the general public.

19. Right to fire. An employee can be fired by an employer. An independent contractor cannot be fire so long as he or she produces a result that meets the specifications of the contract.

20. Right to quit. An employee can quit his or her job at any time without incurring liability. An independent contractor usually agrees to complete a specific job and is responsible for its satisfactory completion, or is legally obligated to make good for failure to complete it.

.

Assignment of personnel

Assignment of personnel

Westchester Co. v Westchester Co. Correction Officers Benev. Asso., Inc., 269 AD2 528

Sometimes an arbitrator will make an award that sets out terms and conditions with respect to the assignment of personnel. In deciding Westchester, the Appellate Division identified some of the limitations on the authority of an arbitrator to require such placements or assignments.

A hearing was held to determine if Westchester County correction officer Elsie Vallespi should be reinstated from disability leave. Vallespi had been placed on such leave pursuant to Section 207-c of the General Municipal Law.

Vallespi was placed on Section 207-c leave after she alleged that she suffered “psychological ramifications” as a result of a “verbal assault” by a supervisor. She returned to her job a few months later but on the day she returned she “had incidental contact with the same supervisor” and, as a result, again went out on an extended disability leave.

The arbitrator decided that Vallespi could now be reinstated “without restriction”, provided that “she is assigned to (1) the Women’s Unit for the 3-11 pm shift; (2) [the supervisor] is assigned to another shift or to a different unit; and (3) for the first 30 days of [Vallespi’s] return, [the supervisor] is not to be assigned on overtime more than once to the same shift and unit as [Vallespi]”.

The county objected and filed an Article 75 petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award. The Appellate Division affirmed a lower court’s order modifying the arbitration award by striking the assignment limitations directed by the arbitrator.

Agreeing with the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division said that “the arbitrator lacked the authority to direct how and when the County could assign its correction officer personnel.” Imposing such conditions, said the court, violated a strong public policy.

The court held that the terms and conditions set by the arbitrator “usurped the authority of the Westchester Department of Correction to determine where and when to assign its correction officer personnel.”

Considering the need to manage and control of the County’s prison population, “it would be imprudent to allow a third-party such as an arbitrator to determine the placement of correction officers....”

Clearly here the court was influenced by the special and unique duties of correction officers and the responsibility of the county to maintain security of its prison population. In another situation, such as directing the assignment or placement of individuals not having such security responsibilities, the courts probably would confirm an arbitration award providing for the particular assignment of an individual.

The courts may apply the rationale set out in Westchester in cases involving arbitration awards affecting the assignment of teachers and other public employees having specializes duties or for which special qualifications have been established.

.

Employment at will

Employment at will
DiLacio v New York City District Council of United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 2011 NY Slip Op 00175, Appellate Division, Second Department

In this action George DiLacio, Jr. sued the District Council in an effort to recover damages for alleged wrongful termination of employment and defamation.

The Appellate Division ruled that both complaints should have been dismissed.

With respect to DiLacio allegations concerning “wrongful termination,” the court pointed out that he had served as “an employee at will.” Citing Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, the Appellate Division ruled that DiLacio’s allegation that the District Council had violated their duty to terminate his employment "only in good faith and with fair dealing" failed to state a recognized cause of action under New York law.

Under New York law, "absent a constitutionally impermissible purpose, a statutory proscription, or an express limitation in the individual contract of employment, an employer's right at any time to terminate an employment at will remains unimpaired."

Unless the individual has a statutory or contractual right to a pre-termination hearing he or she may be terminated at any time so long as the termination is not otherwise unlawful under State or federal law.

As to DiLacio’s defamation claim, the court said that although the termination letter containing the phrase "severe dereliction of duty," it had not been published to anyone other than DiLacio himself.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_00175.htm

Contracting out a negotiating unit's work

Contracting out a negotiating unit's work
Vestal Employees Asso., NEA/NY v Vestal CSD, 94 N.Y.2d 409

Management may attempt to “contract out” work claiming that to do so is more efficient or less expensive or because the tasks are “too technical” for its employees to perform. Unions typically object to contracting out, contending that its unit members can perform the tasks as well or better than “outsiders” and that it is more economical to use unit members than to go outside the organization for this purpose.

Suppose a school district asks a BOCES to enter into a contract to perform services that the school district’s employees are current performing. Is such “contracting out” of services a mandatory subject of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Taylor Law? This was the critical question in the Vestal Employees Association case. The ruling sets out the tests that the Court of Appeals said should be used in deciding such issues.

Typically the contracting out of exclusive unit work is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. Further, if the work to be contracted out is not “exclusive unit work,” the impact of such action of the collective bargaining unit may constitute a mandatory subject to negotiations under the Taylor Law.

In deciding the Vestal case, the Court of Appeals, following the rationale set out in its ruling in Webster Central School District v PERB, 75 NY2d 6, confirmed an exception this general rule -- where legislative scheme provides for such contracting out, as in the case of a school district-BOCES contract arrangement, the employer may unilaterally decide to “sub-contract” work to a BOCES.

In the Webster case the Court of Appeals held that Education Law Section 1950(4)(bb) allowed a school district to substitute BOCES summer school programs for its own summer school programs without first undertaking collective bargaining with its teachers’ unions.

In Vestal, the high court said that another provision set out in the same section, Section 1950(4)(d), allows a school district to contract with a BOCES to perform printing services then being performed by one of its own employees without first negotiating the change with the union.

The case began in September 1995, when the Vestal Central School District “contracted” for printing services with the Broome-Tioga BOCES. The decision indicates that the single Vestal district employee affected by the printing contract agreed to transfer to the BOCES and currently provides printing services for Vestal and a second school district.

The Vestal Employees Association filed an improper practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board [PERB]. PERB’s Administrative Law Judge ruled that the district’s action constituted an improper practice and that it could not unilaterally subcontract out printing services performed exclusively by a bargaining unit employee (Matter of Vestal Employees Association, 30 PERB 4514).

On appeal, PERB reversed the ALJ’s ruling (Matter of Vestal Employees Association, 30 PERB 3029), holding that Section 1950(4)(d) allows unilateral changes of shared noninstructional services. PERB relied on the Commissioner of Education’s approval of the contract as evidence that “the printing services in issue in this case fall within the ‘other services’ authorized by the statute.”

Although a state supreme court justice sustained PERB’s ruling, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that “the broad scope of the Commissioner’s authority to approve cooperative services contracts could not overcome the Taylor Law’s mandate for public sector employment collective bargaining [Matter of Vestal Employees Association, 260 AD2d 699]. The Court of Appeals overturned the Appellate Division’s holding, reinstating PERB’s determination.

The high court said that the answer turned on whether or not printing falls within the scope of Section 1950(4)(d)(1). If it does, the statute must be examined to determine if there is any indication of a legislative intent that a school district’s decision to subcontract printing services was to be a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

The Court of Appeals concluded that “[i]t is evident from the statute that the Legislature did not intend to limit the ‘available shared services’ to those enumerated in the statute” and delegated responsibility to the Commissioner of Education to identify the types of services that can be shared by school districts for the benefit of students. Accordingly, the statute does not limit contracts for “such other services as the commissioner may approve” to those that are “educational” or “nurturing” and therefore allows a school district to enter into a contract with a BOCES for such non-instructional services as printing.

In support of this view, the court noted that in 1996 the Legislature specifically limited the Commissioner’s discretion to approve school district/BOCES contracts in specified areas. Chapter 474 of the Laws of 1996 sets out the activities which “the commissioner shall not be authorized to approve as aidable shared services.”

Since printing does not fall within the list of prohibited “shared services,” and is a type of service that would promote the policy underlying the statute, the Court of Appeals concluded that “that printing falls within ... a service the Commissioner may approve to be offered on a cooperative basis by BOCES.”

The bottom line: the court decided that the statutory scheme embodies a legislative intent that a school district’s decision to subcontract printing services be exempt from collective bargaining.

This ruling has significant implications with respect to a school district’s plans to have a BOCES provide services that the district itself is then providing utilizing its own work force.

However, the court pointed out that Section 1950(4)(bb), which controlled in the Webster case, incorporated the job protection provisions. In contrast, the Court of Appeals noted that Section 1950(4)(d) “does not expressly refer to any job protection provisions for public employees whose jobs are transferred to a BOCES district as a result of a shared services contract.”

Here, however, the Vestal employee, an employee in the classified service, was “afforded certain protections upon the transfer of his functions as provided by Section 70.2 of the Civil Service Law. According, said the court, “[w]e need not explore the exact scope of the employee’s rights under Civil Service Law Section 70(2) because his Civil Service status has not been affected by the transfer and no allegation has been made to the contrary.”

This suggests that the courts might apply a stricter standard in situations where the contract has an adverse impact on the employment situations of the employees affected by the change.

A program takeover by BOCES pursuant to Education Law Section 3014-a involving classified service personnel is considered a transfer pursuant to Section 70 of the Civil Service Law. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals said that “the broad recognition that BOCES program takeovers are to be considered transfers under Section 70 implies that any action taken by BOCES pursuant to Section 1950 of the Education Law will not be subject to collective bargaining.” 

Filing of disciplinary charges against an employee must timely

Filing of disciplinary charges against an employee must timely

Transit Authority v Campbell, OATH Index No. 343/00

As a general rule, a statute of limitations continues to run with respect to the deadline for filing a timely action in the proper forum even if the complaint has been filed in a different, but incorrect, forum or notwithstanding the fact that another action is pending. This point was made clear to the Transit Authority when OATH Administrative Law Judge Ray Fleischhacker vacated Section 75 disciplinary charges it had filed against Colette Campbell as untimely.

In 1996 the New York City Transit Authority reassigned Campbell to a lower grade position. Campbell filed an Article 78 petition claiming the action constituted a disciplinary demotion, in violation of her Section 75 rights to due process. The court agreed, finding the Authority’s action constituted disciplinary action within the meaning of Civil Service Law Section 75.

It was conceded that on August 16, 1996, without a hearing, and as a result of the events which form the basis for the charges in this case, the Authority reassigned the respondent from a Level II supervisor to a Level I supervisor, with a significant cut in pay.

The Appellate Division rejected the Authority’s argument that “its action was a transfer permitted by Personnel Director rules without resort to a hearing” [Campbell v NYC Transit Authority, 253 AD2d 813], holding that Campbell was entitled to a Section 75 disciplinary hearing. The Court of Appeals denied the Authority’s petition to appeal on April 29, 1999 [93 N.Y.2d 805].

In July 1999 the Authority served Campbell with disciplinary charges setting out eight specifications of misconduct alleged to have occurred between May and August 1996. ALJ Fleischhacker, however, ruled that the agency’s delay in serving the charges until appeals related to the 1996 Article 78 action had been exhausted meant that they were filed too late.

Campbell contended that the statute of limitations in Section 75 began to run upon the commission of the alleged misconduct, was never tolled, and expired well before any charges were served. The Authority, on the other hand, argued that it was not until its effort to appeal the Appellate Division determination was denied by the Court of Appeals that it was obliged to serve charges.

Civil Service Law section 75(4) provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, no removal or disciplinary proceeding shall be commenced more than eighteen months after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct complained of and described in the charges . . ., provided, however, that such limitation shall not apply where the incompetency or misconduct complained of and described in the charges, would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime.”*

Pointing out that all the Authority had to do “to toll the statute of limitations was to draft and serve the revised charges” in 1996, Judge Fleischhacker found that the Authority was time-barred from proceeding against Campbell.

Judge Fleischhacker said that a number of action could toll the running of the statute of limitations set out in Section 75, including:

1. An employee may be estopped to plead the Statute of Limitations where the employer was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action;”

2. Where the misconduct constitutes “a continuing violation;” or

3. The parties can agree to extend limitations periods [but a court cannot, although a court order staying the disciplinary action tolls the running of the statute of limitations].

In contrast, the withdrawal of charges filed against an individual does not toll the statute of limitations insofar as “refilling such charges” at a later date is concerned.

* The statute of limitations for State employees designated “managerial or confidential” within the meaning of the Taylor Law is one year except where the charges, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime, in which case the one-year limitation would not apply.

Injury at the worksite

Injury at the worksite

Crockett v Safir, 269 AD2 227

Donna Crockett, a New York City police officer, was injured while on duty. She was “brushing her teeth in the ladies’ room of a police building.” A mirror dislodged and struck her.

Crockett’s asked that her injury be designated as “line-of-duty,” thereby entitling her reimbursement for her hospital bills. Her request was denied. The Commissioner ruled that Crockett was not “actually employed in discharging the orders of a superior officer at the time of the accident,” as required by the statute.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, holding that his interpreting the statute to exclude personal hygiene not undertaken at the direction of a superior officer was not irrational. If, said the court, benefits were to be provided for any accidental injuries sustained while on duty by police officers, the Administrative Code would have so provided or at least used language similar to the “city-service” language used in Section 13-252 of the city’s Administrative Code concerning accident disability retirement.

.

Negotiating paid religious holidays

Negotiating paid religious holidays

Port Washington UFSD v Port Washington TA, App. Div., 268 AD2d 523; motion to appeal dismissed, 95 NY2d 761, motion to appeal on Constitutional grounds dismissed 95 NY2d 790

According to the Appellate Division, Second Department’s ruling in the Port Washington Union Free School District case, a Taylor Law contract provision allowing an individual to be absent on a religious holiday with pay without charging his or her absence to leave credits violates the First Amendment.

In the course of collective bargaining under the Taylor Law, Port Washington agreed to include a “Religious Holiday” provision in the agreement.*

The contract clause allowed a teacher to be absent with pay on “any of the religious holidays designated by the New York State Commissioner of Education” without charging his or her absence to leave credits. To receive this benefit the teacher had to submit a written request to absent himself or herself for the holiday.

In September 1997, however, the district advised teachers who had requested paid days off for religious observance that the district would not implement the Religious Holidays provision in the contract “because it was unconstitutional.”

The district said that if a teacher wished to be absent for a religious observance, he or she would be required to charge the absence to his or her appropriate leave credits or request to be placed on a leave without pay for the duration of the absence.

Six teachers and the Port Washington Teachers Association filed a grievance and demanded that the district’s alleged violation of the agreement be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the Taylor Law contract’s grievance procedure.

The district objected and asked a State Supreme Court judge to stay the arbitration proceeding pursuant to Section 7503 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The district’s argument: the enforcement of the provision pursuant to an arbitration award would be unconstitutional.

The judge agreed with the district’s rational for refusing to implement the Religious Holidays provision -- the provision was unconstitutional -- and issued an order staying the arbitration. The teachers and the Association appealed.

The Appellate Division said that the first issue to be resolved in cases involving the granting of a stay of arbitration in a public sector dispute arising under a Taylor Law is whether the provision in question is, in fact, subject to arbitration. The court, referring to the Court of Appeals ruling in Matter of Blackburne, 87 NY2d 660, said:

If a statute, decisional law or public policy precludes the governmental employer and employee from referring the dispute to arbitration, then the answer to this inquiry is no and the claim is not arbitrable.

Citing Griffin v Coughlin, 88 NY2d 674, the Appellate Division pointed out that “[t]here is no firmer or more settled principle of Establishment Clause jurisprudence than that prohibiting the use of the State’s power to force one to profess a religious belief.” It affirmed the lower court’s order staying the arbitration on the grounds that the contract provision violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

The Appellate Division’s rationale:

The Religious Holidays provision in the Taylor Law agreement between the district and the association “rewarded members of the Association who claimed to be religiously observant with more paid days off than those afforded to agnostics, atheists, and members who were less observant.”

In contrast to the type of provision included in the Port Washington contract, many Taylor Law collective bargaining agreements provide for absences with pay charged to “personal leave.”

Typically, such leave may be used for any “personal business” including the observation of religious holidays. Presumably such provisions would pass the Second Department’s Constitutional test as they neither favor the “religiously observant” nor penalize “agnostics, atheists, and members who were less observant.”

* The New York State Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] has held that negotiating days off for religious observances was not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining [CSEA v Eastchester UFSD, 29 PERB 3041].
.

Disclosure of a public agency’s "policies, procedures, rules and regulations”

Disclosure of a public agency’s "policies, procedures, rules and regulations”

Sabilia v State of New York, 14 Misc.3d 1228(A)

Peter Sabilia and his wife, Stephanie, sued the State of New York after Peter was injured as a result of his being run over by a State motor vehicle sunbathing on the beach at Jones Beach State Park. The vehicle, a pick-up truck, was being driven by John J. Fitzwilliam, an employee of the New York State Park Police. Fitzwilliam allegedly drove over Sabilia while, according to Fitzwilliam, he was attempting to avoid a "large hole" during a routine beach patrol.

In the course of this litigation before Court of Claims Judge Milano, the Sabilias asked for copies of “policies, procedures, rules, regulations, and training manuals" concerning driving a vehicle on the beach that were applicable at the time. Judge Milano noted that:

“Importantly, the claimants' demand specifically stated that they did not seek "any police strategies regarding pursuit techniques/strategies of any kind whatsoever and is limited to those rules . . . dealing with driving on the beach (when not in pursuit)."

The State’s response:

"We will not be providing any training manuals, regulations, policies, procedures or other internal memorandums that pertain to driving a vehicle on the beach." The reasons for this advanced by the State: “its own policies and procedures have ‘little relevance to the legal standard of care’ and that the ‘standard of care in the operation of a police vehicle is controlled by the reckless disregard standard as defined in [Vehicle and Traffic Law] §1104(e) and relevant case law’"

The State also argued that materials requested by the Sailias are "privileged and confidential" and might have "a detrimental impact on the safety and security of the various officers, as well as the general public" and that the “disclosure of its policy as to non-emergency, routine operation of a pick-up truck on the beach will "limit the ability [of the officers] to successfully perform their duties and self evaluation and analysis."

Noting that the disclosure provisions of the Civil Practice Law and Rules are to be liberally construed the court said that "The party seeking to prevent disclosure has a heavy burden, especially where the materials sought are relevant” and that “It is the party opposing discovery who has the burden to prove that the particular items sought are exempt or immune from disclosure.”

Concluding that the State’s internally adopted standard of care, if any, for the routine, non-emergency operation of a motor vehicle on the beach, is relevant, Judge Milano said that a "failure to abide by its own rule is some evidence of negligence."*

As the State’s reliance on “the recklessness standard of care” set forth in Vehicle and Traffic Law §1104 (e), Judge Milano said that the Sailias “correctly state that the record is devoid of any evidence that Fitzwilliam was ‘involved in an emergency operation,’ which is a prerequisite for the statute to apply.”

Holding that “The conclusory assertions of privilege and confidentiality regarding [State’s] policy as to non-emergency, routine operation of a pick-up truck on the beach, set forth in the affirmation of [State’s] attorney, are unpersuasive and that the State failed to sustain its burden of showing that the disclosure of the requested materials would pose any danger to park police officers or the public,” Judge Milano ordered the State to provide the requested "policies, procedures, rules, regulations and/or training manuals regarding driving a vehicle on the beach which were applicable at the time" to the Court for an in camera** inspection by the court.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/disclosing-certain-policies-procedures.html

  

*  Citing Sherman v Robinson, 80 NY2d 483, Judge Milano said that the "[v]iolation of a company's internal rules is not negligence in and of itself, and where such rules require a standard that transcends reasonable care, breach cannot be considered evidence of negligence."

**  From the Latin “in chambers.” A review conducted by a judge in a court closed to the public or in the judge’s chambers rather than in open court.
,

Joint employers

Joint employers

Putnam County Sheriff’s OMA v Putnam County, 33 PERB 3001

Who is the employer of the personnel serving with the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department? Putnam County contended that the county is the sole employer of Sheriff’s Department personnel while the Sheriff argued that he and the county were “joint employers” of these employees.

The issue arose when the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office Managers Association [OMA] filed a petition seeking certification as the exclusive bargaining agent for a unit consisting of lieutenants, captains and a chief criminal investigator employed by the “Office of the Sheriff.”

The county filed a response claiming that it was the sole employer of these employees and that they were managerial employees and thus not entitled to representation rights under the Taylor Law.

The sheriff also filed an answer in which he said that he and the county were “joint employers” of these employees and that he believed that certifying OMA to represent a negotiating unit consisting of these employees was appropriate.

Reversing a determination by its administrative law judge [ALJ], PERB ruled that the sheriff and the county were “joint employers” for the purposes of the Taylor Law.

PERB’s rationale: holding that the county was the sole employer would “relieve elected sheriffs of their right and duty to negotiate under the Act and it could elicit petitions to consolidate some or all of the titles in existing sheriffs department units with county-wide units, often the very units from which they were fragmented in the first place.”

This is not a new concept: in County of Ulster v Ulster County Sheriff, 3 PERB 3032, a case decided in 1970, PERB ruled that the county and the sheriff were joint employers and separate bargaining units for the sheriff’s department were appropriate.

What distinguishes the Putnam County sheriffs from other Putnam county governmental unit heads? The sheriff is an elected official and can only be removed by the Governor while other county unit heads serve at the pleasure of the county executive.

In contrast to the status of an elective sheriff, whom PERB characterized as an “executive officer,” PERB said that an “appointed sheriff” is “essentially a department head.

Accordingly, the elected sheriff has independent status as a joint employer. PERB had addressed this difference in Nassau County v Nassau County Sheriff, 25 PERB 3036. This is consistent with the general rule that an appointing authority’s power to appoint implies the power to remove, while the elective sheriff is a Constitutional office and subject to different removal procedures.

Turning to the ALJ’s ruling that “the at-issue employees” are not managerial, PERB said that the employees are “high-level supervisors akin to the clerks of the Court of Appeals and the Appellate Divisions, First and Second Departments. PERB concluded that despite their role in personnel and policymaking determinations, the clerks were neither managerial nor confidential employees.

Out of title work and position classification determinations

Out of title work and position classification determinations

Curtiss v Angello, 269 AD2d 675

The Appellate Division recently considered a number of issues involving the classification and allocation of positions in the public service.

In Curtiss, the Appellate Division, Third Department addressed a rather unusual situation: an administrator’s reliance on new, but not yet official, job specifications rather than official but obsolete job descriptions in resolving an “out-of-title” work grievance.

John F. Curtiss, a Fish and Wildlife Technician II employed by the State Department of Environmental Conservation, filed a grievance claiming that he was working “out of title.”

Although Environmental Conservation sustained the grievance, the then State Director of the Governor’s Office Employee Relations [OER], Linda Angello, reversed the agency’s determination and denied Curtiss’ grievance. Curtiss sued, challenging Angello’s decision on the grounds that it was arbitrary and capricious.

Essentially, Curtiss wanted to be reclassified to Fish and Wildlife Technician III. Angello, in rejecting the grievance, determined that the duties of a Fish and Wildlife Technician III included region-wide coordination of programs and direct supervision of subordinate staff, duties that Curtiss did not perform.” Angello’s findings, however, were based on new, “tentative specifications” for the two positions rather than the then current “official” job descriptions for the two titles.

The Appellate Division sustained Angello’s determination, noting that the “relevant standard of review is whether the record as a whole provides a rational basis for the determination denying [Curtiss’] grievance.

Curtiss argued that Angello’s determination was arbitrary because it was not based exclusively on the “official” job classification specifications promulgated by the State’s Division of Classification and Compensation in effect when his grievance was actually filed.

Classification and Compensation’s “official” specifications referred to by Curtiss had been issued in 1970. Angello unquestionably had considered new and “tentative” job descriptions for the Fish and Wildlife Technician II and Fish and Wildlife Technician III titles in making her determination.

These “tentative” job descriptions for the two titles had been prepared by the State Department of Civil Service following its review of the duties being performed by incumbents of a number of positions in Environmental Conservation.

Civil Service found that the duties of the incumbents of the various titles in Environmental Conservation that it had reviewed “had changed over time, rendering the 1970 specifications obsolete.” In March 1998, after Curtiss had filed his grievance, new job descriptions for the Fish and Wildlife Technician II and III titles were promulgated and the positions were reallocated to higher salary grades.

The court held that it was neither arbitrary nor irrational for Angello to consider the results of the job audits prepared by Civil Service as they “disclosed the actual duties being performed by incumbents.”

As to title held by Curtiss in particular, the Appellate Division said that “in the 1970 specifications the principal distinction between the two titles was the greater supervisory and administrative responsibility of the higher grade title.” The audits, said the court, revealed that “although the duties of the incumbents had changed, the principal distinction continued to be the greater supervisory and administrative responsibility of the higher grade title.”

Curtiss had cited Rausch v Pellegrini, 237 AD2d 771, in support of his “out of title” work argument. The Appellate Division said that Rausch was not relevant in this case, noting that unlike Rausch, Curtiss “was not obligated to perform the duties of his supervisor.”

Further, said the court, the fact that there is some overlap of the duties performed by Curtiss and those performed by a Fish and Wildlife Technician III does not justify sustaining his grievance.

Finding that the record as a whole provides a rational basis for Angello’s conclusion that Curtiss was not performing out-of-title work, the Appellate Division sustained the lower courts dismissal of his petition.

Readers may have noted another interesting aspect of this case -- Curtiss had “won” his grievance at the departmental level. As the “employer” makes the determination in pre-arbitration steps of the grievance procedure, typically any appeal is filed by the grievant or his or her representative.

May the employer, in effect, “appeal” a grievance determination by an official at an earlier step in the grievance procedure and then reverse the earlier “lower level” grievance ruling favorable to the employee made by management?

This was the significant issue addressed in Weed v Orange County, a case decided by the Appellate Division in the early 1990’s.

Weed was injured on the job. The Orange County Commissioner of Personnel rejected Weed’s application for a one-year leave of absence with full pay. Weed claimed he was entitled to such leave under the terms of “Article 20” of the then controlling Taylor Law agreement.

After the Commissioner disapproved his application, Weed filed a “Step One” grievance with his immediate supervisor in accordance with the terms of the grievance procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement. The supervisor sustained the grievance. The Commissioner of Personnel, however, refused to implement the supervisor’s ruling.

Weed sued, only to have the Appellate Division dismiss his complaint. The court said that under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, “the Commissioner of Personnel is given sole discretion in granting paid leave.” According to the opinion, there was no evidence that the parties to the agreement “intended to limit the discretion of the Commissioner of Personnel.”

The Appellate Division said that in the absence of any such evidence, there was no rational basis for the supervisor’s “construing Article 20 as a mandatory requirement [to grant paid leave to Weed] on the part of the County.”

The bottom line: the County was not required to comply with the determination by Weed’s supervisor, who had initially sustained Weed’s grievance.

Finally, the decision reports that the two titles in question were “reallocated to a higher grade and, presumably, the incumbents were entitled to have their salaries adjusted accordingly. What happens if the titles are reallocated to a lower grade?

Typically, the permanent incumbents serving in the positions reallocated to a lower salary grade would be “grand fathered” to protect their salaries.* Any future salary increases would be subject to the maximum of the lower salary grade to which the titles were reallocated. The grand fathering of salaries to protect the income of incumbents of positions that have been reallocated to a lower salary grade is illustrated by the decision in the New York State Court Clerks Association case.

The Office of Court Administration [OCA] had decided that the salary grade of existing trial court clerk titles should remain unchanged, based upon “an extensive review of the trial and appellate-level court clerk titles for the purpose of establishing joint salary scales.” OCA also decided that some court clerk positions should be reallocated to a lower salary grade.

OCA protected the salaries of the permanent employees serving in appellate court clerk titles whose positions had been reallocated to a lower salary grade by “grand fathering” their salaries. The Appellate Division said that “grand fathering permanent incumbents in the context of a downward reclassification of their titles is an accepted practice that effectuates the mandate of Civil Service Law Section 121(2)(a)....”

Section 121(2)(a) provides that “the annual salary of any position ..., which is classified or reclassified, or which is allocated or reallocated to a salary grade pursuant to the provisions of this article shall not be reduced for the then permanent incumbent by reason of any provision of this article so long as such position is held by the then permanent incumbent”

The court said that “contrary to petitioner’s contention,” although grand fathering, results in some “transitional salary inequities,” it constitutes “a rationally justifiable means of facilitating the orderly implementation of [OCA’s] Classification Plan”. Accordingly, the Appellate Division, citing the Court of Appeals ruling in Tolub v Evans, 58 NY2d 1, held that OCA’s action “does not offend due process,” because in matters concerning the State’s budget, “equal protection does not require that all classifications be made with mathematical precision.”

Finally, the court said that “[a]dministrative determinations concerning position classifications ... will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that they are wholly arbitrary or without any rational basis”, citing Cove v Sise, 71 NY2d 910, 912.

* In such cases the position is typically “red-lined” or “earmarked” for allocation upon its becoming vacant.
.

E-mails between government workers are public documents

E-mails between government workers are public documents

Cowles Publishing Co. v Kootenai County Board of Supervisors, 2007 Opinion No. 74

The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that e-mail correspondence between government employees is public record. The e-mail correspondence at issue was between a supervisor and a subordinate, both of whom were employees of the county.

Essentially, the court held that “The emails exchanged by public employees are public records and are not exempt from disclosure under either [Idaho] statutory exemptions or constitutional law.”

The full text of the ruling is posted at:

http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/05/idaho-supreme-court-e-mails-between.html

Early intervention counseling

Early intervention counseling

Tatum v Horn, 37 AD3d 285

Wayne Tatum appealed his dismissal from his position as a New York City correction office after being found guilty of a number of allegations of misconduct.

The Appellate Division ruled that the New York City Department of Correction presented ample evidence at Tatum’s disciplinary hearing proving allegations that he had violated numerous departmental rules.

Tatum had been charged with being AWOL on multiple occasions, failing to sign-out of the correctional facility to which he was assigned, failing to contact his superiors when required, and insubordination by failing to obey a supervisor’s order. 

In response to Tatum’s argument that the Department had not sent him to an “early intervention counseling program”, the court said that “Correction was not obliged to send him to its early intervention counseling program, a program that is discretionary, not mandatory.” In addition, the Appellate Division commented that “the value of such counseling would have been questionable in light of [Tatum’s] long disciplinary history."

In a similar case, Carroll v Perkle, 296 AD2d 755,  Leave to appeal denied 98 NY2d 764, one of the issues considered by the court concerned “intervention counseling programs.” 

The Appellate Division ruled that Carroll had been denied administrative due process because the Education Law Section 3020-a Hearing Panel failed to consider “mitigating circumstances” in determining the penalty. 

The Appellate Division said that the Hearing Panel failed to honor Carroll’s request that the Board of Education’s “lack of effort to correct his behavior,” be considered by the panel in determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed. §3020-a(4) of the Education Law provides that “At the request of the employee, in determining what, if any, penalty or other action shall be imposed, the hearing officer shall consider the extent to which the employing board made efforts towards correcting the behavior of the employee which resulted in charges being brought under this section through means including, but not limited to, remediation, peer intervention or an employee assistance plan.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 

http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/

.

State Comptroller report concluded that the use of local development corporations out of control Source: Office of the State Comptroller

State Comptroller report concluded that the use of local development corporations out of control
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

Citing an on-going pattern of abuse, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli today proposed a package of reform proposals that would limit local governments’ use of local development corporations (LDCs) and other private entities such as limited liability companies (LLCs).

The suggested reforms would also give the State Comptroller direct audit authority over LDCs, LLCs and similar entities controlled by local governments.

LDCs were originally intended to allow New York's counties, cities, towns, and villages to utilize these entities for economic development purposes and to promote employment opportunities.  Because many activities undertaken by LDCs are exempt from taxation, they are used to construct or rehabilitate industrial or manufacturing plants or to    encourage such businesses to relocate or remain in a particular region.

However, said the Comptroller, current law includes loopholes that allow LDCs to be used for purposes beyond the original intention.

DiNapoli cited several instances in which the use of LDCs and LLCs unnecessarily drove up taxpayer costs, including the use of an LLC by the city of Rochester to purchase a ferry that ended up costing taxpayers nearly $20 million.

The Comptroller’s report, Municipal Use of Local Development Corporations and Other Private Entities is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/ldcreport.pdf

Other items from the Comptroller's press office available on the Internet include:

DiNapoli: 101 School Districts Request Surplus Certifications to Use Funds to Make Up State Aid Cuts

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli’s office today certified the amounts of excess Employee Benefits Accrued Liability Reserve funds (EBALR) held by 95 school districts across the state that can be used by the districts in the 2011-12 school year to make up for $190.6 million in state aid cuts. DiNapoli’s review found the districts’ excess EBALR funds total $148.2 million.


DiNapoli's Office Releases School Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli this week announced his office completed the following audits: the Auburn Enlarged City School District; the Malone Central School District; the Schalmont Central School District; and, the Waterloo Central School District.


DiNapoli's Office Releases Municipal Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli this week announced his office completed the following audits: Village of Akron; the Town of Malta; the Village of Endicott; the Town of Trenton; the Smithtown Special Library District; the Village of Lancaster; the Village of Irvington; the Village of Centre Island; the Bellona Fire District; and an audit on Saving Money on Nursing Home Drug Purchases for various counties.


DiNapoli's Office Releases State Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli this week announced his office completed the following audits: the Beacon City School District; Department of Health, Medicaid Payments for Diabetic Testing Supplies (Follow-Up) (2010-F-42) and, Department of Health, Inappropriate Payments for Vision Care Services Claimed by Dr. Horowitz (Follow-Up) (2010-F-47).
.

.

Unfair labor practices - protected activities

Unfair labor practices - protected activities

CSEA Local 1000 v PERB, 267 AD2d 935

CSEA appealed a determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] that the Holbrook Fire District did not commit an improper employer practice when it disciplined one of its employees, Jason Feinberg.

The district had filed eight charges against Feinberg, a firehouse attendant, alleging misconduct and, or, incompetence pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law.

Feinberg was alleged to have “permitted unauthorized personnel in his work area, participated in inappropriate activities during work hours, failed to timely complete certain work assignments and follow standard operating procedures in performing certain work-related activities.”

CSEA filed an improper employer practice charge against the district pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 209-a with PERB on behalf of Feinberg. CSEA contended that the district had filed disciplinary charges against Feinberg “in retaliation for his efforts at organizing a union.”

While CSEA’s charges were pending before PERB, the disciplinary hearing officer issued a report and recommendation finding Feinberg guilty of six of the charges. The penalty recommended by the hearing officer: Feinberg should be terminated from his employment. The District accepted the hearing officer’s findings and recommendations and dismissed Feinberg.

CSEA and the district stipulated that rather than holding a separate hearing, the record of the proceedings conducted in connection with the disciplinary charges would be used by PERB’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in resolving the improper practice charge. Finding that other employees who had engaged in similar misconduct had not been disciplined by the district, the ALJ ruled that the district “had committed an improper practice by discharging Feinberg in retaliation for protected union activities.” PERB reversed its ALJ’s ruling.

PERB said that “the ALJ should have deferred to the findings of the hearing officer that the charges against Feinberg were brought by the District for proper business reasons and not to retaliate against him for his organizing activities”.

The Appellate Division initiated its review of CSEA’s appeal from PERB’s ruling by noting that “the relevant inquiry in a proceeding pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 75 is very different than that in an improper practice proceeding under Civil Service Law Section 209-a.” The court, citing City of Albany v Public Employment Relations Board, 43 NY2d 954, said:

1. In considering an appeal involving Section 75, the focus is upon whether there was cause for the employee’s dismissal.

2. In considering an appeal involving Section 209-a, the focus it is whether the employer‘s action was motivated by anti-union animus and “it is irrelevant ... whether or not cause for the employer’s action in terminating [the employee] actually existed.”

The Appellate Division said that PERB relied upon its policy of deference and the disciplinary hearing officer’s determination when it reversed ALJ’s determination.

However, said the court, its review of the decision in the Section 75 proceeding indicates that the disciplinary hearing officer “did not fully consider the dispositive issue in the improper practice proceeding, i.e., whether Feinberg’s firing was improperly motivated.” Accordingly, the Appellate Division said that “PERB’s deference to the [Section 75] Hearing Officer’s findings as the sole basis in resolving the improper practice charge was inappropriate.”

The Appellate Division annulled PERB’s determination and remanded the case to PERB “for an independent review of the ALJ’s decision of [CSEA’s] improper practice charge in light of all the evidence contained in the record of the Civil Service Section 75 proceeding.”

Extending the probationary period of an individual

Extending the probationary period of an individual

Appeal of Anne M. Christiano, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Commissioner’s decision No. 16,217

A “Juul Agreement” between an educator and his or her appointing authority extends the educator’s probationary period rather than terminate the educator at the end of his or her probationary period for not completing his or her probationary period satisfactorily. This is typically done in an effort to provide the educator with an opportunity to improve his or her performance and thereby become eligible for tenure in the position. Such an agreement, when “open, knowing and voluntary,” waives the educator’s right to claim tenure by estoppel.* At the end of the extended probationary period the school district may grant or deny tenure [see Juul v. Board of Educ. of Hempstead UFSD, 76 AD2d 837, affirmed, 55 N.Y.2d 648].**

Anne M. Christiano, then serving as a probationary principal, and the Johnstown City School District had entered into a Juul Agreement. At the end of the extended period of Christiano’s probation the superintendent recommended Christiano for tenure.  The school board, however, voted to reject the superintendent’s recommendation and denied Christiano tenure with the district.

Christiano, alleging that the board acted in bad faith and was arbitrary and capricious in denying her tenure, appealed to the Commissioner, asking that he overturn the school board’s tenure determination and that he remove those members of the board “who voted against granting her tenure.”

After addressing a number of procedural issues, the Commissioner said that with respect to the merits of Christiano’s claim regarding the denial of tenure, Education Law §3012(1)(b) provides that the service of a principal “may be discontinued at any time during the probationary period on the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, by a majority vote of the board of education.”  Further, said the Commissioner, “… a board of education has the unfettered right to terminate a probationary principal’s employment for any reason, unless the employee establishes that he or she was terminated for a constitutionally impermissible reason or in violation of a statutory proscription.”

In any event, in an appeal to the Commissioner the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which petitioner seeks relief. In this instance the Commissioner ruled that while there were positive comments in the record about her administrative abilities, Christiano had not alleged or established that she was terminated for a constitutionally impermissible reason or in violation of a statutory proscription.

Accordingly, the Commissioner found that Christiano has failed to meet her burden of proof.

As to Christiano’s petition to remove certain members of the school board, the Commissioner said that she had failed to establish facts sufficient to warrant removal of the individually named board members pursuant to Education Law §306.  The Commissioner pointed out that “A member of the board of education or a school officer may be removed from office pursuant to Education Law §306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the board member or school officer has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule or regulation of the Board of Regents or Commissioner of Education.”

Finding that Christiano had failed to establish that the individual members of the school board named in her appeal “intentionally acted with a wrongful purpose to disregard a lawful duty or violate a legal requirement,” the Commissioner ruled that she had failed to establish any ground for their removal under Education Law §306.

* A probationary employee may attain tenure by estoppel [sometimes referred to as “tenure by acquiescence”] when the appointing authority accepts the continued services of the individual, but fails to take the action required by law to either grant or deny the individual tenure prior to the expiration of the employee’s probationary term, [see McManus v Hempstead Union Free School District, 87 NY2d 183]. Continuation on the payroll for a brief period after the expiration of a probationary period for administrative convenience, such as to coincide with the end of a payroll period, does not automatically result in the individual attaining tenure by estoppel [Mendez v Valenti, 101 AD2d 612].

** A procedure is available to the appointing authority with respect to probationers in the classified service of the State and public authorities, public benefit corporations and other agencies for which the Civil Service Law is administered by the State Department of Civil Service, provides:. 4 NYCRR 4.5(b) (5)(ii), in pertinent part, permits an appointing authority to offer a probationer deemed not to have satisfactorily completed his or her probationary period an opportunity to serve a second probationary term “in which case the appointment may be made permanent at any time after completion of 12 weeks of service, or the employment [may be] terminated at any time after the completion of 8 weeks of service and on or before the completion of 26 weeks of service.” A similar rule has been adopted by many local civil service commissions.

The Commissioner’s decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume50/d16217.htm

.

Petitioner alleging disparate treatment in violation of his or her Title VII civil rights has the initial burden of setting out a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination

Petitioner alleging disparate treatment in violation of his or her Title VII civil rights has the initial burden of setting out a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination

Wharff v State Univ. of New York, USCA, Second Circuit, 09-4534-cv

Wilfred Wharff alleged that SUNY refused to promote him from Lab Technologist to Assistant Supervisor because of his gender.

The Circuit Court said that Wharff’s disparate treatment claim pursuant to Title VII [42 USC § 2000e et seq.] was to be analyzed under the tripartite burden shifting framework laid out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, whereby Wharff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination.

Citing Malave v. Potter, 320 F.3d 321, the Circuit Court said that “To make out a prima facie case of disparate impact, a plaintiff must ‘(1) identify a policy or practice, (2) demonstrate that a disparity exists, and (3) establish a causal relationship between the two.’

If he is able to do so, the burden shifts to the employer "to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason" for its actions.”

Finding that Wharff offered no evidence that SUNY applied its promotion procedures unfairly, that the collective bargaining agreement's sanctioning of the alternate hiring process was negotiated as a pretext for sex discrimination, or that the selection of alternatives was intentionally manipulated to accomplish such discrimination, the Court dismissed his appeal.

Further, said the court, “Even assuming that this establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, SUNY has offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its promotion decisions that Wharff has failed to rebut.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8255044e-0961-4619-a312-4a2d3aa9000d/1/doc/
. 

Denying employee sick leave bank benefits results in charges of unlawful discrimination

Denying employee sick leave bank benefits results in charges of unlawful discrimination

Cheektowaga CSD v Graziadei, 267 AD2d 985, motion for leave to appeal denied, 95 NY2d 756

A sick leave bank was created by the Cheektowaga Central School District as required by the collective bargaining agreement between district and the Teachers’ Association. Under the terms of the agreement, sick leave bank time was available only to employees incapacitated by severe sickness or injury.

Kathryn A. O. Graziadei, a guidance counselor, had used up all of her sick leave credits after being absent for four weeks and two days following the birth of her child.

Graziadei requested approval to draw three days of sick leave from the sick leave bank. Her request was disapproved by the district because it found that Graziadei did not demonstrate that she was incapacitated by a severe sickness or injury.

Graziadei filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights alleging that the district had unlawfully discriminated against her because of her gender and a pregnancy-related disability. The district appealed the Division’s ruling that it had unlawfully discriminated against Graziadei.

In reviewing the district’s appeal, the Appellate Division found that Graziadei was entitled to take advantage of the sick leave bank to the same extent as employees who are incapacitated by a medical condition other than pregnancy and recovery from childbirth.

According to the decision, Graziadei failed to present any proof that she was incapacitated by severe sickness or injury, or that her request for leave bank time was treated in a manner less liberal than those applications from employees with conditions unrelated to pregnancy and recovery from childbirth. This omission proved fatal to the Division’s determination.

The Appellate Division annulled the Division’s determination that the district had unlawfully discriminated against Graziadei on the basis of sex and a pregnancy-related disability, holding that the Division’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

.

Penalties imposed on police officers founds guilty of charges alleging wrongful arrest

Penalties imposed on police officers founds guilty of charges alleging wrongful arrest

Police Department v Popovic, NYC Office of Admin. Trials and Hearings, OATH Index No. 544/00

Administrative disciplinary charges may be filed against a police officer alleging that he or she made an arrest in bad faith. The Popovic decision lists some of the penalties recommended by New York City’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings where a police officer is found guilty of such charges.

Penalties for bad faith or retaliatory arrests range from 10 to 30 days, depending upon the degree of infringement of the civilian’s rights. Some examples follow:

1. Loss of 25 vacation days for bad faith arrest in retaliation for complainant’s vulgar retorts to the officers’ provocative behavior;

2. 30 days’ suspension and disciplinary probation for bad faith arrest and strip-search of a civilian;

3. Loss of 10 vacation days for bad faith arrest in retaliation for past incident of arrogance to officers and displaying a falsified license;

4. Loss of 15 vacation days for bad faith arrest following argument about a police report;

5. Loss of 13 vacation days for bad faith arrest after civilian attempted to record the police officer’s badge number.
.

A school board member seeking the removal of another member must demonstrate willful misconduct or neglect of duty of the part of the member

A school board member seeking the removal of another member must demonstrate willful misconduct or neglect of duty of the part of the member

Matter of Powell and Elliott, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision 16,216

Willa Powell, a member of the Board of Education of the Rochester City School District asked the Commissioner to remove another member of the board, Cynthia Elliott, alleging that Elliott had “willful and substantive disclosure of confidential information” acquired in the course of her official duties to a newspaper.

The Commissioner denied Powell’s application.

The Commissioner explained that a member of the board of education or a school officer may be removed from office pursuant to Education Law §306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the board member or school officer has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule or regulation of the Board of Regents or Commissioner of Education.

To be considered willful, the actions of the individual must have been intentional and with a wrongful purpose.

Here, said the Commissioner, Powell had not met her burden of proving that Elliott had engaged in behavior constituting a willful violation or neglect of duty requiring her removal from office to his satisfaction. As to the evidence advanced by Powell, the Commissioner ruled that the fact that the draft report released to the media “contains a code linked back to the copy intended for [Elliott], does not in itself prove that [Elliott] released it, much less that she intentionally released it.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume50/d16216.htm

The party alleging that an individual has changed his domicile has the burden of proving such a change of the individual’s “permanent place of abode”

The party alleging that an individual has changed his domicile has the burden of proving such a change of the individual’s “permanent place of abode”
Matter of Gigliotti v Bianco, 2011 NY Slip Op 02206, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The City of Niagara Falls School District terminated the employment of Vincent F. Gigliotti on the grounds that he failed to comply with the District's residency policy, which requires District employees to be domiciliaries of the City of Niagara Falls. Supreme Court properly granted the petition.

It is well established that "domicile means living in [a] locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home." As the Court of Appeals said in Matter of Newcomb, 192 NY 238, "For a change to a new domicile to be effected, there must be a union of residence in fact and an absolute and fixed intention to abandon the former and make the new locality a fixed and permanent home."

An individual may have but one domicile at time, i.e., his or her permanent place of abode, which continues until he or she has acquired a new one and any party alleging a change in an individual’s domicile “has the burden to prove the change by clear and convincing evidence."

In contrast, an individual may have multiple places of residence simultaneously, i.e., two or more residences in the same or at different geographical locations in which he or she may, from time to time, live, but only one such residence is his or her domicile.

According to the decision, the Gigliotti, a lifelong resident of Niagara Falls, divorced and while he was temporarily laid off from his position, remarried. Gigliotti and his wife, who owned a home in Ransomville New York, agreed that Gigliotti would continue to live in Niagara Falls with his ailing mother while his spouse would continue to live in her home in Ransomville.

The evidence considered by the Appellate Division in determining Gigliotti’s domicile included Gigliotti’s listing his Niagara Falls address on his federal income tax return forms, his New York State driver's license, his marriage certificate, and his bank and credit statements. In addition, the court noted that Gigliotti’s personal belonging remained at his residence in Niagara Falls, “although he keeps a set of golf clubs and some clothing at his wife's residence in Ransomville.”

The Appellate Division, after considering the evidence, determined that the District’s conclusion that Gigliotti had changed his domicile from Niagara Falls to Ransomville was arbitrary and capricious.

Significantly, the court commented that although the District did not conduct a hearing before terminating Gigliotti’s employment, such a hearing was not "required by statute or law," citing Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322 Assuming that the District had provided Gigliotti with an opportunity to show that he or she satisfied the District’s requirement regarding domicile, the problem here was that the court disagreed with the District’s conclusion that Gigliotti was not domiciled in Niagara Falls.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02206.htm
.

Protected speech vs. whistle blowing

Protected speech vs. whistle blowing

Ringle v Onondaga County, 267 AD2d 1088

The Ringle decision by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, addresses a number of important issues concerning the limits, if any, on the right of a public employee to publicly “to blow the whistle” on his or her employer.

The court’s conclusion: a public employee’s right to “blow the whistle” on his or her employer of his or her superiors is not absolute.

David Ringle and William R. Sawyer sued Onondaga County, contending that the county had retaliated against them for “whistle blowing” in violation of (1) their Constitutional right to free speech and (2) Section 75-b of the Civil Service Law.

Both Ringle and Sawyer alleged that they were unlawfully dismissed or constructively discharged from their positions as a result of their communicating with other government agencies and the media concerning alleged inappropriate activities in the Onondaga County Laboratory (OCL) and Medical Examiner’s Office (MEO) and inappropriate conduct by their supervisor, the Onondaga County Medical Examiner.

Constitutionally protected rights

The Appellate Division first considered the Constitutional free speech and civil rights claims under 42 US 1983 advanced by Ringle and Sawyer.

After noting that “it is well established that a governmental entity may not discharge or retaliate against an employee based on that employee’s exercise of the right of free speech,” the Appellate Division pointed out that:

1. The “Pickering test” [Pickering v Board of Education, 391 US 563] is used to determine if a public employee has been unlawfully dismissed from his or her employment for “engaging in speech.” This test balances the interests of the employee, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in providing efficient service to the public.

2. Consideration must be given to whether the speech to which the employer objects “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the enterprise”

3. The greater a “confidential relationship” and the “policymaking function” of the speaker, the greater the State’s interest in terminating the employee for expressions against the employer’s interests and the lesser the employee’s First Amendment rights.

According to the decision, Ringle’s and Sawyer’s comments concerning “mismanagement by the Medical Examiner and inappropriate activities in the OCL and MEO may fairly be categorized as a matter of public concern.”

The Appellate Division, however, found that both Ringle and Sawyer held positions requiring confidentiality and which involved policymaking and public contact, elements that the court determined to be mitigating factors insofar as their free speech rights were concerned.

The court concluded that given their job responsibilities, “[c]ommon sense tells us that the expressive activities of [such] highly placed supervisory, confidential, policymaking, or advisory employee[s] will be more disruptive to the operation of the workplace than similar activity by a low level employee with little authority or discretion.”

The Appellate Division held that the record established that the comments made by Ringle and Sawyer were disruptive to the operation of the workplace, created disharmony among co-workers, interfered with their working relationships with their supervisor, and affected the performance of their duties.

Given these circumstances, the court said that it concluded that terminating Ringle and Sawyer, even in retaliation for their comments to the media and other government agencies concerning the operation of the OCL and MEO, did not violate their First Amendment rights or their civil rights under 42 USC 1983.

Civil Service Law Section 75-b whistle blowing claims

In determining Ringle’s and Sawyer’s rights under Section 75-b of the Civil Service Law, different considerations were found to be controlling.

First, the Appellate Division said that lawsuits under Section 75-b sought to vindicate personal rights in contrast to efforts to vindicate a public interest.

Section 75-b prohibits a public employer from retaliating against a public employee who “blows the whistle.” Subdivision 2(a) states that a public employer shall not dismiss or take other disciplinary or other adverse personnel action involving an individual’s public employment who discloses information to a governmental body involving a threat to public health or constitutes improper governmental action.

Alleged violations of Section 75-b are typically challenged by the individual bringing an Article 78 action [Article 78, Civil Practice Law and Rules.]. In filing such a petition, said Appellate Division, the individual seeks to vindicate a private rather than a public right. What private right? The right not to be dismissed or otherwise subjected to reprisals because of his or her disclosures to other governmental agencies of the media.

This conclusion meant that both Ringle and Sawyer had fallen into a procedural trap.

The Appellate Division said that because the “Civil Service Law Section 75-b causes of action they brought sought to vindicate only the individual interests of Ringle and Sawyer, ... they were properly dismissed by the lower court because Ringle and Sawyer failed to file a notice of claim as required by Section 50-a of the General Municipal Law Section and Section 52 of the County Law.*

In addition, the court pointed out that Section 75-b does not serve as a shield against disciplinary action being taken against an employee where there is a “separate and independent basis” for discipline the individual.

Finally, the Appellate Division observed that “by commencing actions pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 75-b, Ringle and Sawyer are barred from asserting any other State law cause of action related to the alleged retaliatory discharges.”

* This ruling implies that where an individual sues a school district or BOCES claiming he or she was dismissed or subjected to punitive action in violation of Section 75-b, he or she must file a notice of claim in accordance with Section 3813(1) of the Education Law.