New York Governor Andrew Cuomo introduces pension reform legislation

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo introduces pension reform legislation

Source: Office of the Governor

On June 9, 2011 Governor Andrew M. Cuomo introduced pension reform legislation that would impose a new Tier VI for future employees of the State and its political subdivisions other than New York City. Estimated savings of $93 billion over the next 30 years.

The bill also includes, at the request of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a separate pension reform proposal for New York City and the uniformed services.

The new pension tier will increase the retirement age for new employees from 62 to 65, increase employee pension contributions and end so-called pension padding where employees accumulate substantial amounts of overtime in their final years of service to increase their pension.


Key elements of the proposed legislation:*

1. Raises the retirement age from 62 to 65

2. Ends early retirement

3. Requires employees to contribute six percent of their salary for the duration of their career

4. Provides 1.67 percent annual pension multiplier

5. Vests after 12 years instead of 10 years

6. Excludes overtime from final average salary

7. Uses a five-year final average salary calculation with an 8 percent anti-spiking cap

8. Excludes wages above the Governor's salary of $179,000 from the final average salary calculation

9. Eliminates lump sum payouts for unused vacation leave from the final average salary calculation

10. Prohibits the use of unused sick leave for additional service credit at retirement

The proposed reform of the state pension system would impact new hires by the state and local governments, including school districts.

The City of New York’s proposed pension reform plan would cover new employees of New York City, including the uniformed services.

The text of the proposed bill is available here. 

The text of the proposed bill memo is available here.

* Changes applicable to individuals eligible to elect to participate in the several optional retirement plans available to certain employees of the State Department of Education, the State University of New York and its community colleges and other entities are set out in Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the proposed legislation.

Policy limits on vacation travel during FMLA leave

Policy limits on vacation travel during FMLA leave

Source: The FMLA Blog - http://federalfmla.typepad.com/fmla_blog/

Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved by Carl C. Bosland, Esq. Reproduced with permission. Mr. Bosland is the author of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation.

A federal district court recently upheld an employer's policy requiring an employee to remain in the immediate vicinity of their home as a condition of receiving paid sick leave, including during periods when the employee is on FMLA leave.  In limited circumstances, the policy allowed an employee to travel outside of the immediate vicinity of their home for medial treatment, family needs, and with the prior consent of the employer.  Violation of the policy could result in termination of paid leave, as well as discipline. 

Denise Pellegrino was employed by the Communications Workers of AMerica (CWA) in a clerical capacity.  Pursuant to the CWA FMLA-Sick Leave Policy, Pellegrino notified the CWA that she needed leave for surgery.  The CWA approved Pellegrino's request for FMLA leave, and notified her that she would be required to substitute paid sick leave for the absence.  While on approved leave, Pellegrino traveled to Cancun, Mexico, where she stayed for a week.  There was no medical or family reason for the trip, nor had she secured the CWA's prior consent to travel outside of the immediate vicinity of her home during leave. The CWA terminated Pellegrino for violation of the CWA's leave policies. 

Pellegrino filed suit alleging that her termination violated the FMLA.  CWA moved for summary judgment alleging that the FMLA did not protect Pellegrino from termination for a reason unrelated to her FMLA leave- namely, violation of the CWA policy restricting unapproved travel for someone receiving paid sick leave benefits.  CWA argued that it would have terminated her irrespective of her status under the FMLA as it had the right to enforce its policies restricting unapproved travel where an employee is on paid sick leave.   The Court agreed with the CWA.

The Court confirmed that the FMLA does not shield an employee from termination if the employee was allegedly involved in misconduct related to the use of FMLA leave.  So long as employer policies do not conflict with or diminish an employee's FMLA rights, the FMLA, the Court found, "in no way prevent an employer from instituting policies to prevent the abuse of FMLA leave."  Here, CWA terminated Pellegrino because she violated CWA's Sickness and Absenteeism policy by leaving the immediate vicinity of her home without prior approval, or for any other permissible reason.  The Court reasoned that the policy served the legitimate purpose of ensuring that the privilege of paid sick leave is not abused. The Court also found that the policy does not discourage or prevent CWA employees from taking FMLA leave. 

The Court awarded summary judgment to the CWA for violation of the CWA travel restriction policy, a legitimate reason independent of her use of FMLA leave.

Mr. Bosland Comments: The FMLA does not prohibit an employer from enacting and enforcing leave and attendance policies to control leave abuse even where, as here, those policies may apply to FMLA leave.  Remember, under federal law, FMLA leave is always unpaid.  The only way an employee can get paid while on FMLA leave is pursuant to an employer's paid leave policy.  Employers are not required to offer paid sick or personal leave, but many do.  An employer's paid leave policy may not single out FMLA leave for special treatment.  Rather, as in Pellegrino, the paid leave policy should generally apply to all absences due to sickness or disability, which may also encompass FMLA leave.

In a fascinating footnote, the Court in dictum opined that, even if an employer did not have a formal policy restricting travel during FMLA leave, "no reasonable jury could find that an employer acts illegitimately or interferes with FMLA entitlements when that employer terminates an employee for taking a week-long vacation to Mexico without at least notifying the employer that her doctor had approved the travel or that she would be out of the country."  

I note that the FMLA generally does not require an employee on approved FMLA leave to notify an employer of their whereabouts during leave.  The Court's dictum would appear to impose such a requirement where none exists.  Absent a policy, I would not counsel employers to take adverse actions against employees for failure to provide notice of their intent to leave the vicinity of their homes during FMLA leave.    

The decision is consistent with a long line of cases allowing employers to impose and enforce neutral leave and attendance policies to curb leave abuse, even where the leave is covered by the FMLA.  

   

Pellegrino v. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Civil Action No. 10-0098 (W.D. Pa. May 18, 2011) http://op.bna.com/dlrcases.nsf/id/jaca-8h2m25/$File/Pellegrino.pdf

Former employee entitled to a name clearing hearing upon satisfying the “stigma plus” test

Former employee entitled to a name clearing hearing upon satisfying the “stigma plus” test

Knox v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 04735, Appellate Division, First Department

State Supreme Court, New York County rejected the New York City Department of Education’s motion to dismiss the petition filed by Dr. Tulsa Knox challenging the Department’s decisions that Dr. Knox was ineligible for re-employment, and granting Dr. Knox’s petition to the extent of remanding the matter for a name-clearing hearing.*

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The court said that Dr. Knox had demonstrated "stigma plus," i.e., defamation by the government, coupled with a likelihood of dissemination of the stigmatizing material that could significantly impair her ability to gain employment as a school psychologist in the future.

The Appellate Division said that the placement of Dr. Knox’s name on the Department’s  "Ineligible/Inquiry List" and certain adverse information concerning Dr. Know had been  disseminated “not only within the Department of Education, but also to the Bronx County District Attorney's Office and the State Department of Education.” This, said the court, satisfied Dr. Knox’s burden of showing “stigma plus”.

* N.B. Absent a violation of a constitutional or statutory provision, reinstatement is not an available remedy to an individual even if vindicated at a name clearing hearing.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_04735.htm

Refusal to answer questions during an administrative disciplinary investigation

Refusal to answer questions during an administrative disciplinary investigation

Matter of Eck v County of Delaware, 36 AD3d 1180

There were many issues considered by the Appellate Division in deciding Eck’s appeal of an adverse Section 75 Civil Service Law disciplinary determination.

One issue involved the law regarding compelling an employee to answer questions concerning his performance against his will in the course of a pre-disciplinary investigation that could result in administrative disciplinary action and, or, criminal action being taken against the individual.

Kenneth R. Eck, Jr., a deputy sheriff with the Delaware County Sheriff’s Department, was served with Section 75 disciplinary charges.

Charges filed against Eck included the allegation that he had conducted an unauthorized investigation of two Delaware County employees, one of whom was Eck’s former wife, because of Eck’s suspicion that the two were involved in a romantic relationship.

Among the several charges leveled against Eck was one that alleged that he refused to answer questions regarding his activities during the Sheriff’s investigation of incident.

The Section 75 Hearing Officer found Eck guilty of the charges filed against him. After reviewing Eck’s personnel file, the Hearing Officer recommended Eck be dismissed from his position. The County adopted the Hearing Officer’s findings and recommendation and terminated Eck.

In rejecting Eck’s appeal seeking reinstatement to his former position, the Appellate Divisions considered a number of elements raised by Eck in an effort to have the disciplinary decision vacated. One element concerned Eck’s argument that the disciplinary action was unlawful because it compromised his Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination.

In response to Eck’s claim that he could not be disciplined for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when he refused to answer certain questions posed by the attorney representing the County during the investigation of his “activities during off-duty hours,” the Appellate Division pointed out that:

1. It is understood that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects an individual not only in the context of a criminal trial, “but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.”

2. An individual’s “[a]nswers may be compelled regardless of the privilege if there is immunity from federal and state use of the compelled testimony or its fruits in connection with a criminal prosecution against the person testifying”.

3. In a situation where a public employee is compelled to answer questions or face dismissal, the individual’s responses are automatically cloaked with immunity.

Accordingly, said the court, “where a public servant . . . refuses ‘to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, without being required to waive his immunity, . . . the privilege against self-incrimination would not [be] a bar to his dismissal’”

In this instance the court found that “the questions were narrowly tailored to the matters under investigation and [Eck] was compelled to answer them on pain of termination, his answers would have been automatically cloaked by immunity.”* In view of this, the Appellate Division concluded that Eck’s “assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege did not bar disciplinary action against him.”

This, together with the Hearing Officer’s finding that Eck (1) used his position to obtain information about a co-workers whereabouts in furtherance of his own unauthorized investigation; (2) his surveillance endangered the co-worker, who often worked undercover; (3) he disparaged the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department in the presence of other officers and civilians; and (4) he disclosed information about his disciplinary hearing after being instructed not to discuss it, persuaded the Appellate Division that under the circumstances, “the penalty of termination is not disproportionate to these offenses.”

* This is often referred to as “use immunity.”