Using the agency's equipment for non-official purposes

Using the agency's equipment for non-official purposes

Ekpecham v Ross, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education No. 14,651

Priscilla A. Ekpecham asked the Commissioner of Education to remove Superintendent of the City School District of Mt. Vernon Ronald O. Ross from his position because that Ross allowed the school district's postage machine to be used for a mass mailing of a letter being mailed by a not-for-profit organization called “Saving Our Children Through Prayer Power.” The envelopes and stationary used in the mailing displayed the organization's name, and listed its address as “c/o Grace Baptist Church” in Mount Vernon.

According to Ekpecham, the letter was an invitation to a public meeting allegedly to exhort public support for Ross and the Mount Vernon school system, and to support the use of school uniforms in the public schools.

Ross, in rebuttal, said that the Church reimbursed the district in the amount of $1,092.46 for the cost of postage for the mailing. Accordingly, Ross argued, because no district funds were used for the mailing, there was no need to obtain authorization from the board of education, and any claims regarding that mailing are now moot.

Although the Commissioner dismissed Ekpecham's appeal as untimely, he said that:

I am compelled to comment on the use of school district postage equipment for private purposes, irrespective of whether the cost of the actual postage is reimbursed. The school district should be mindful that the United States Constitution prohibits government action that tends to support or sponsor a particular faith or religious group. Similarly, a school may not offer a particular religious group or faith privileges or access to school property that is not generally available to the public.

The problem, said the Commissioner, was that “the use of the district's equipment, and the identification of the district's postal meter number on envelopes displaying the name and address of an organization linked to a particular religious denomination and church, creates the appearance of sponsorship by the school district of this particular religious organization, and its activities and messages.”

Without ruling on the propriety of such use, the Commissioner said that “granting unique rights to one organization creates at the very least an appearance of impropriety.” In addition, “the use of district resources, equipment, etc., also raises the specter of an illegal use of public funds for private purposes.”

Standing to appeal an arbitration award

Standing to appeal an arbitration award

Moreira-Brown v New York City Bd. of Education, 288 AD2d 21

Herbert Moreira-Brown had filed a grievance, which was pursued through arbitration. Acting pro se [on his own behalf], he then attempted to (1) confirm an arbitration award pursuant to Section 7510 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules [CPLR] and (2) vacate a second arbitration award pursuant to Section 7511 of the CPLR. The Supreme Court dismissed both of his petitions and Moreira-Brown appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's determination, holding that Moreira-Brown did not have standing to seek either the confirmation of the first arbitration award or the vacating of the second award.

The court pointed out that the collective bargaining agreement between Board of Education and the Union provided that an employee's grievance could be submitted to arbitration by the union. As Moreira-Brown was represented by the union at the arbitration and he failed to show that the union breached its duty of fair representation, the court found that he did not have any standing to file these Article 75 petitions. The Appellate Division commented that “[t]he record establishes that the union vigorously represented [Moreira-Brown] and there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the union” that would justify allowing him to maintain his action against the Board of Education and his union.

Suspension of employee without pay recommended as the disciplinary penalty for insubordination.

Suspension of employee without pay recommended as the disciplinary penalty for insubordination.

New York City Dept. of Correction v Fernandez, OATH Index #1219/11

After being given an assignment by an assistant deputy warden, a correction captain went to the deputy warden’s office to angrily confront him about the assignment. The two men fought and both were injured. 

OATH Administrative Law Judge John Spooner found the captain was insubordinate in not performing the assignment as ordered and in arguing with his supervisor about the order. 

Judge Spooner also found that the captain also made false written and interview statements about the incident.

The ALJ recommended that the captain be suspended without pay for 40 days.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-1219.pdf

Constructive notice of potential acts of misconduct provided by an Internet posting

Constructive notice of potential acts of misconduct provided by an Internet posting

Salamino v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 05408, Appellate Division, First Department

In this action, the Appellate Division concluded that a teacher served with disciplinary charges alleging that she had engaged in sexual misconduct with a "student" had constructive notice* that such behavior constituted misconduct in violation of the relevant collective bargaining agreement.

As the collective bargaining agreement [CBA] did not define the term “student” for the purposes contract disciplinary procedure, the arbitrator relied Regulation A-101, to determine if the individual with whom the teacher had allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct was a “student” and so found.

The Appellate Division, noting that Regulation A-101 did not purport to state a definition of the term “student," decided this did not mean that the arbitrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously in using Regulation A-101 to determine if the individual involved with the teacher in alleged sexual misconduct was a student

Turning to the teacher’s argument that she was disciplined without just cause within the meaning of Education Law §3020[1] because the CBA did not indicate that Regulation A-101 could be used to determine the meaning of the term "student" for the purposes of the CBA, the Appellate Division pointed out that the Chancellor's Regulations were “posted on the Board of Education website, and thus the teacher was on reasonable notice, under the objective circumstances, of a potential sexual misconduct charge.”

The court then held that the penalty of terminating the teacher from her position “could not be construed as disproportionate to the challenged conduct, inasmuch as CBA Article 21(G)(6) explicitly called for "mandatory" termination in cases of sexual misconduct.”

* Constructive notice is a “legal fiction” that deems that a person has notice even though actual notice was not personally delivered to the individual.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_05408.htm

The difference between excusable neglect and stupidity

 

The difference between excusable neglect and stupidity

Source: Administrative Law Professor Blog. Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, All rights reserved http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adminlaw/

On Above the Law, Christopher Danzig illustrates the difference between excusable neglect and a "bonehead mistake" in "How to Lose a Case With Simple Computer Cluelessness".

For attorneys, missing deadlines is a big no-no. BIG no-no. A Goodyear blimp-sized no-no. People have literally died because of blown deadlines. Cases worth millions of dollars get tossed out because of missed deadlines, even if someone has a decent excuse.

That being so, I do not envy the lawyer who had to tell his client that the 4th Circuit shut down their lawsuit because he didn’t know how to use his Microsoft calendar. ...

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled on a breach of contract and fiduciary duty dispute between Symbionics Inc. and its former president, Christopher J. Ortlieb, in December 4, 2009.

Symbionics planned to file an appeal on the last day of the standard 30-day window. But, uh oh, the company missed the deadline by a day, due to what the 4th Circuit later — and generously — called a computer “quirk” and “glitch”:

The alleged glitch occurred when, after counting twenty-seven days through December 31, 2009, counsel changed the month on the calendar display to January in order to continue the computation. Counsel failed to notice that the calendar did not automatically advance to January 2010 but instead reverted to January 2009.

Consequently, counsel mistakenly referenced the January 2009 calendar when he completed the calculation of the thirty-day window to appeal, which resulted in counsel’s erroneous determination that the deadline was January 5.

... The company apologized to the court, District Judge Anthony Trenga ruled the mistake was “excusable neglect,” and he gave Symbionics an extension. ...

In late May, the 4th Circuit benchslapped Symbionics in an unpublished, per curiam opinion [PDF] that basically states the obvious: Learn how to use a freakin’ computer.

We find nothing extraordinary or unusual about counsel’s calendaring error that should relieve Symbionics of its duty to comply with the time limit of Rule 4(a)(1). Counsel’s total dependence on a computer application—the operation of which counsel did not completely comprehend—to determine the filing deadline for a notice of appeal is neither “extraneous” to nor “independent” of counsel’s negligence…

[T]his neglect is precisely the sort of “run-of-the-mill inattentiveness by counsel” that we have consistently declined to excuse in the past.

If you want a technical look at the Circuit’s analysis of what exactly “excusable neglect” means, check out this Law Technology News story.

More broadly though, it’s 2011. Not knowing how to use Outlook isn’t and shouldn’t be an excuse for anything. It’s a disability.

And somehow, there are attorneys (often senior-level ones) who still don’t think they need to learn this basic stuff. We’re not even talking about more complex e-discovery processes. It’s just scheduling your day! (If counting the days yourself is too hard, there are websites that do it for you.) A speaker at a conference I recently attended said the best thing attorneys with this mindset can do… is retire.

This kind of ignorance loses cases, makes routine office work less efficient and could even lead to malpractice claims. ...

Agencies are often even more strict on deadlines, either because of specific statutory direction or just wanting to close matters out quickly. Don't miss deadlines, and don't wait until the last day to file.

Request for reconsideration of an administrative determination does not toll the running of the statute of limitation

Request for reconsideration of an administrative determination does not toll the running of the statute of limitation

Matter of Bahr v MTA N.Y. City Transit Authority, Supreme Court, Kings County, 14 Misc.3d 1215(A)

The decision by Supreme Court Justice Francois A. Rivera in the Bahr case again points out that:

1. A proceeding pursuant to the statute of limitations set out in Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR §217[1]) must be commenced within four months of the date that the decision complained of became final and binding; and

2. An administrative determination is considered final and binding for purposes of CPLR §217[1] when it has an impact on the aggrieved party and when the aggrieved party knows of the determination; and

3. An aggrieved party's requests for reconsideration of the administrative decision neither extends the statute of limitations nor tolls the statute of limitations from running.

Richard Bahr, Tier 4 member of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System [CERS] resigned from his position with the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) in August 2000. CERS advised Bahr that he could vest his membership in the Retirement System if he had five years of credited member service and was within five years of normal retirement age when he left employment. Bahr qualified for vesting by purchasing enough service credit to meet the five years of member service requirement to be eligible to vest his retirement benefits..

New York City Transit Authority [NYCTA] provided employees such as Bahr with health insurance coverage through the New York State Health Insurance Program (NYSHIP). NYCTA also provided Tier 4 retirees with health insurance coverage upon retirement if the individual had at least ten years of service in NYCERS and was 62 years old or had five years of service in NYCERS and was 70 years old.

In August 2000, Bahr was not eligible to retire and resigned instead. He “vested” his eligibility for a retirement allowance upon attaining the minimum age for retirement.

When Bahr retired a few years later, the Employee Benefits Division of the New York State Department of Civil Service, which administers NYSHIP, wrote Bahr to advise him that he was eligible to continue his health insurance coverage with NYSHIP during his retirement. NYSHIP also told Bahr that he had been enrolled in the Empire Plan with dependent coverage. The cost Bahr’s health insurance coverage was paid by the participating employer, NYCTA.

As it turned out, the information NYSHIP sent to Bahr was incorrect.

NYCTA wrote to Bahr and told him that his post employment health benefits were granted in error. NYCTA explained that although Bahr qualified for a retirement allowance, having had five years of credited member service in CERS, he was ineligible for “retiree health insurance coverage” because his did not have at least ten years of credited service in the System. NYCTA then terminated Bahr’s health coverage with NYSHIP..

Supreme Court dismissed Bahr’s Article 78 petition as untimely.

According to the decision, in a letter dated July 23, 2004, NYCTA informed Bahr that his health coverage would end on August 1, 2004. The court pointed out that Bahr’s unsuccessful attempts to have NYCTA reconsider its decision did not extend or toll the four-month statute of limitations to commence an Article 78 proceeding.

The court said that although Bahr knew of NYCTA’s final determination on July 29, 2004, his petition challenging that decision served and filed more than four months after he knew of the final administrative determination. Accordingly, it was untimely.

Employee having a disability that poses a danger to co-workers is not “qualified” within the meaning of the ADA

Employee having a disability that poses a danger to co-workers is not “qualified” within the meaning of the ADA

Hutton v Elf Atochem North America, Inc., 273 F.3d. 884

According to the Hutton decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, an individual with a disability who is shown to pose a danger to co-workers and others is not a “qualified individual” within the meaning of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Norman Hutton, a diabetic, complained that Elf Atochem discriminated against him because of his disability in violation of the ADA and Oregon's disability discrimination law, [Oregon Revised Statutes, Sections 659.405 and 659.436 (1999).

Elf manufactures chlorine and related chemical products and had hired Hutton in 1986 with the knowledge that he had been diagnosed as a Type I diabetic. During his employment at Elf Hutton had a number of diabetic episodes. On one occasion he went into insulin shock while he was pumping chlorine from the storage tanks and had difficulty communicating with his co-workers.

Elf attempted to resolve the situation by having Hutton agree to meet specified conditions in order to continue his employment. These included his remaining under the care of a physician, providing evidence of a medical examination and laboratory blood assessment to Elf on a periodic basis; maintain a daily log related to his diet, his insulin intake, and certain other activities; monitor his blood sugar levels and to regulate his insulin intake in accordance the recommendations of a physician.

Hutton did not fully cooperate and ultimately he was suspended subject to his complying with the elements set out in the agreement. He sued, only to have a federal district court find that he was not a “qualified person with a disability” under the ADA. The court said that Hutton had failed to produced evidence demonstrating that he was able, with or without an accommodation, to perform the essential functions of his position -- chlorine finishing operator position.

In making its determination the court found that Hutton's diabetes created a risk of significant harm to himself and others, thereby disqualifying him from the position.

The Circuit Court agreed in part, holding that Elf's “direct threat” defense was valid insofar as his posing a threat to co-workers was concerned. It said that such a defense is permitted under the ADA, citing the “Defenses” section of the law.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] sets out the following guidelines concerning “direct threat” for the purposes of the ADA: Direct Threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

The court rejected EEOC's view that the direct threat defense is available to an employer with respect to its contention that the individual poses a safety risk to himself or herself. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit said that where, as in Hutton's situation, there is no dispute that a significant physical or mental lapse by Hutton as a result of a diabetic episode could result in substantial harm to his co-workers and others, the direct threat defense was available to Elf.

Whether or not an individual poses a “direct threat” to others is to be determined on the basis of an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job supported by a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.

Among the factors to be considered in making such a determination:

1. The duration of the risk;

2. The nature and severity of the potential harm;

3. The likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and

4. The imminence of the potential harm.

Since a claim of “direct threat” is an affirmative defense, the employer bears the burden of proving that an employee constitutes a direct threat.

In Hutton's case there was no dispute that his employment posed some risk of potential harm to others. Was this risk of a sufficient magnitude and probability to disqualify Hutton from the chlorine finishing operator position?

Finding that an individualized assessment of each factor in the EEOC's four-factor test supports the conclusion that Hutton would pose a direct threat to his co-workers and others, the court sustained the lower court's dismissal of Hutton's complaint.

The court ruled that Elf had met the “direct threat” test established by EEOC with respect to Hutton's co-workers and other by demonstrating that (1) the duration of the risk would exist for as long as Hutton held the chlorine finishing operator's job; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm is catastrophic -- many lives could be lost; (3) although the likelihood that the potential harm will occur is small, whether and when it will occur cannot be predicted; and (4) the imminence of the potential harm is unknown because of the unpredictability of Hutton's condition.

Union use of school e-mail in connection with a school board election

Union use of school e-mail in connection with a school board election

Appeal of John M. Himmelberg and Andrew J. Little, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 15,490

Himmelberg and Little, unsuccessful school board candidates, challenge certain events related to a school board election. The Commissioner sustained the appeal in part.

Essentially, Himmelberg and Little complained that the president of the Fairport Education Association, the union representing the district’s teachers, used his district e-mail account to send e-mail to the district e-mail accounts of all union members advising the members of the union’s endorsement of two candidates for seats on the board. The e-mail also set forth the reasons the union chose not to endorse Himmelberg and Little.

In response to Himmelberg’s and Little’s objection, the school superintendent said that the union had the contractual right to use the district’s e-mail system to communicate with its members and that neither he nor the board endorsed the union president’s message.

After the election, the union distributed a newsletter to teachers via their district mailboxes. The newsletter included a message from the union president discussing the “hard core haters leading the effort against our school district.” While the newsletter did not refer to either Himmelberg or Little by name, it did name individuals the union president previously had identified as associated with them

Ultimately, Himmelberg and Little appealed to the Commissioner. The Commissioner granted the appeal in part. He said that although a board of education may provide informational material to the voters concerning a vote or election, the use of district resources to distribute materials designed to solicit favorable votes violates the constitutional prohibition against use of public funds to promote a partisan political position. Further, said the Commissioner, “Even indirect support, such as a school board giving a private organization access to its established channels of communication to espouse a partisan position has been deemed improper” and “lending indirect support to the private organization’s efforts to influence the vote, permitting such use of school facilities also lends an appearance of prohibited partisan activity by the school district, which should be avoided.”

Accordingly, the Commissioner found that under the facts of this case, the school district improperly permitted the union to use district resources to advocate the union’s position. Although the district asserted that the union’s use of e-mail was undertaken pursuant to its contract and was consistent with the parties’ longstanding practice, the Commissioner said that the parties’ collective bargaining agreement cannot authorize unconstitutional partisan use of district resources.

In contrast, the Commissioner said that “The post-election newsletter … did not constitute improper advocacy. While it contained strong, potentially divisive language, it was not directed at a specific question before the voters and was directed to union members only.

The Commissioner ordered the district to review its policies to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to guard against improper partisan political activity.

Employee terminated after being found guilty of moral turpitude and dishonesty

Employee terminated after being found guilty of moral turpitude and dishonesty

Health and Hospitals Corporation v Saavedra, OATH Index #1404/11 [Modified as to the penalty to be imposed]

OATH Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis ruled that a community associate could be sanctioned for off-duty misconduct based upon her admission that she took $4,680 from the City retirement system (NYCERS) that she knew did not belong to her.

The woman had taken a loan from NYCERS and a check was mailed to her even though the money had already been electronically deposited into her account. She cashed the check knowing she was not entitled to it.

ALJ Lewis found a nexus between the conduct and her job, i.e., she was able to obtain the pension loan from NYCERS because she works for the City of New York.

Judge Lewis noted that crimes of larceny are indicative of moral turpitude, which may constitute a basis for discipline.

As to the penalty to be imposed, the Administrative Law Judge found the employee’s expression of remorse at trial to be sincere and noted that the misconduct was not premeditated, but a crime of opportunity and recommended that a 60-day suspension without pay be imposed by the appointing authority.

However, Raquel Ayala, as the designee of Antonio Martin, Kings County Hospital Center's Executive Director, accepted Judge Lewis’ findings of fact but disagreed with Judge Lewis' recommended penalty of a sixty (60) day suspension and imposed the penalty of termination,* concluding that the employee had breached her employer’s trust which, said Ms. Ayala, is essential to anyone’s employment.

Ms. Ayala noted that her determination may be appealed by application to the Personnel Review Board or in accordance with Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

* The courts have ruled that the appointing authority may impose a harsher penalty than the penalty recommended by a disciplinary hearing officer [see Alamio v Ambach, 91 AD2d 695 and Henry v Village of Palmyra, 105 AD2d 1159 for examples of such actions and the standards to be followed in such cases].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-1404.pdf

Witness creditability determinations

Witness creditability determinations

CSEA Local 1000 [Vaziri-Cohen] v Tioga County, 288 AD2d 802

In an administrative disciplinary action, the hearing officer's determination is frequently based on his or her evaluation of the credibility of witnesses testifying at the disciplinary hearing. In the Vaziri-Cohen appeal the Appellate Division considered the issue of credibility in determining if substantial evidence supported the disciplinary determination resulting in Vaziri-Cohen's dismissal.

Susan Vaziri-Cohen was terminated after being found guilty of charges that she had falsified agency records, repeatedly failed to follow her superior's instructions and made demeaning remarks to a co-worker about her supervisor.

The Hearing Officer recommended that Vaziri-Cohen be dismissed from service based on a finding that her conduct had “hindered the mission of the agency and hurt its credibility” and that she “remained unwilling to concede that her behavior was unacceptable.”

CSEA appealed, contending that the hearing officer's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Division disagreed and dismissed the appeal.

The court pointed out that here the finding of the hearing officer with respect to the first charge -- falsification of official records -- turned on issues of credibility and inferences drawn by the hearing officer from the evidence presented. Finding that the conclusion drawn by the hearing officer was supported by both direct and circumstantial evidence, the court sustained the hearing officer's finding. Noting that both Vaziri-Cohen and her supervisor testified during the disciplinary hearing, the court said that “it was within the province of the Hearing Officer to implicitly reject the credibility of [Vaziri-Cohen's] exculpatory explanation.”

As to the second charge -- Vaziri-Cohen's alleged failure to follow work orders -- her supervisor testified that despite several successive directives by him concerning the inclusion of certain information in a client's medical record over the course of one week -- Vaziri-Cohen failed to add the information as directed.

Vaziri-Cohen, on the other hand, testified that she had made the changes directed by her supervisor. The court said that this conflict in the testimony given at the disciplinary hearing raised an issue of credibility implicitly resolved by the Hearing Officer's ruling against her.

As to the charge alleging Vaziri-Cohen made disparaging remarks about her superior to a co-worker, the Appellate Division said that substantial evidence supported the hearing officer's conclusion that, under the circumstances, her comments were “irresponsible and denigrating” and obviates any claim that they were made in good faith.

According to the decision, “the unrefuted testimony, including [Vaziri-Cohen's] admission, established that ... [she] made a denigrating and explicit comment to a co-worker about her supervisor ....”

As to the penalty imposed, dismissal, the Appellate Division wrote that “in view of the nature of the misconduct and insubordination involved in these charges, we see no basis upon which to disturb the penalty of dismissal, which we do not find was so disproportionate [to the offenses to which she was found guilty] as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,” citing the Pell standard [Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222].

Creditability was also an issue in the Pelayo case [Pelayo v Safir, App. Div., First Dept., November 27, 2001]. Henry Pelayo, a New York City police officer, was dismissed from his position after being found guilty of administrative disciplinary charges alleging that he “knowingly gave false material testimony in felony court proceedings, and that he provided false information concerning the events underlying [those] criminal proceedings in departmental ... forms.”

The court said that Pelayo “challenges to the credibility determinations of the Assistant Deputy Commissioner are unavailing since, in an Article 78 proceeding, the reviewing court may not weigh the evidence, choose between conflicting proof, or substitute its assessment of the evidence or witness credibility for that of the administrative fact-finder.”

Whistle blowing

Whistle blowing

Kahn v SUNY Health Center at Brooklyn, 288 AD2d 350

What is the whistle blower required to show in order to prevail? What is the targeted agency required to demonstrate in defending itself in a whistle blower case? These were among the issues considered by the Appellate Division when Mahmood Khan sued SUNY's Health Center at Brooklyn claiming it had violated Section 740 of the Labor Law.

In order to prevail in his Section 740 complaint, Kahn was required to plead and prove that the Health Center engaged in an activity, policy, or practice that constituted an actual violation of law, rule, or regulation. A critical factor in resolving this litigation concerned the nature of the proof required. The court said that an employee's good-faith reasonable belief that an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation occurred is insufficient: he or she must show that there was a violation actually occurred.

Kahn had alleged that conditions in the Health Center's laboratories were unsafe due to poor air quality.

The Medical Center, however, produced affidavits and other proof demonstrating that during the period relevant to the Kahn's complaints of unsafe conditions, the Center's laboratories were not found to be in violation of any safety or health standards promulgated under the United States Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 or any regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor.

Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the Health Center had come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to sustain its burden for granting its motion for summary judgment.

In contrast, said the court, Kahn failed to make the requisite factual showing to defeat the motion. He did not allege an actual violation of any specific law, rule, or regulation either in his complaint or his affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The court rejected Kahn's “uncorroborated and unsubstantiated opinion that the laboratories were unsafe” holding that it amounted to no more than “a reasonable belief of a possible violation.” This, without proof, will not support a cause of action to recover damages under Labor Law Section 740.

Disability as a defense in disciplinary actions

Disability as a defense in disciplinary actions

Matter of Schlitz v Cavanagh, 2007 NY Slip Op 50026(U), Supreme Court, Suffolk County

The significant issue in the Schlitz case concerned the interplay of two different provisions of the Civil Service Law:

1. Serving disciplinary charges against an individual pursuant to Section 75; and

2. Placing an employee on leave pursuant to Section 72, which is triggered in cases of an employee’s inability to perform the duties of the position because of non-work related disease or disability.

In Penebre v Dzaluk, 51 AD2d 574, the Appellate Division ruled that §75 charges for misconduct should not have been served on a police officer but that the employer should have proceeded under §72, Ordinary Disability Leave instead. Penebre, said the court, “had performed successfully as a police officer for 13 years before his behavior markedly changed.” He became depressed and inattentive.

Under these circumstances, the Appellate Division said that serving Penebre with §75 charges for misconduct was misplaced. The court indicated the rather than initiate disciplinary action, the appointing authority should have utilized Section 72 which provides for the placement of an employee on a leave because of a disability, other than a disability resulting from an occupational injury or disease, in the event it is determined that he or she is unable to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position because of that disability.

Schlitz was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Section 75. Before the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing, however, Schlitz was placed on Section 72 leave.

A physician was employed by the Town and asked to determine whether or not Schlitz was suffering from a mental health issue that affected his ability to perform his duties satisfactorily. The physician’s opinion, “given within a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” was that "any past misbehavior on the part of Mr. Schlitz would not have been because of a psychiatric condition."

Ultimately, Schlitz was found guilty of various instances of misconduct and the penalty imposed was demotion.

Schlitz appealed but withdrew his claim regarding the Section 75 determination by conceding that there was substantial evidence to justify the findings of misconduct and the penalty imposed. Instead, Schlitz contended that the Town knew that he was suffering from depression and that the filing disciplinary charges against him under these circumstances amounted to unlawful workplace discrimination against a person with a disability.

In addition, Schlitz argued that his employer was required to present the evidence of his depression at the §75 hearing as a defense, or in mitigation of the misconduct charge, on his behalf.

Justice Mayer ruled that Town was within its rights to conduct the §72 proceeding and suspend the §75 hearing pending the results of Schlitz’s medical evaluation. Further, said the court, once the Town had evidence that the misconduct alleged in the §75 charges and specifications were not due to mental disability, it had the right to move forward under §75.

As to Schlitz’s claim that he was the victim of “unlawful workplace discrimination against a person with a disability,” the court said that the medical evidence in this case was that Schlitz’s acts of misbehavior were not caused by a psychiatric condition. Justice Mayer ruled that “there is no admissible proof that the petitioner is, or ever was, mentally disabled, and the claim of workplace discrimination perpetrated by the Town by bringing the charges of misconduct against an allegedly disabled person is, therefore, without merit.”

In contrast to discipline/termination procedures, the basic concept underlying the use of Section 72 in disability related situations is the separation/rehabilitation/reinstatement of the employee.

Section 72.1 sets out the procedures to be followed by the appointing authority before an employee may be placed on leave for ordinary disability involuntarily.

Section 72.3 describes the appeal procedures, including recourse to the courts pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, available to an individual involuntarily placed on disability leave following a Section 72.1 hearing.

Section 72.5 provides an exception to the basic requirement that a Section 72.1 hearing must be concluded before the employee may be placed on Section 72 disability leave involuntarily based on the appointing officer determination that there is a "potential danger" if the employee is permitted to continue on the job.

If the employee is absent of Section 72 leave for more than twelve consecutive months, the appointing officer may, but is not required, to terminate the individual in accordance with the provisions set out in Section 73 of the Civil Service Law.

Employee terminated for cause may grieve the employer’s denying the individual post-employment health insurance benefits

Employee terminated for cause may grieve the employer’s denying the individual post-employment health insurance benefits
Matter of Union- Endicott Cent. School Dist. v Union-Endicott Maintenance Workers' Assn., 2011 NY Slip Op 05167, Appellate Division, Third Department

George Kolmel, was employed as a maintenance worker for some 35 years by the Union-Endicott Central School District.  In May 2009 Kolmel submitted a letter of resignation setting out an effective date of September 30, 2009.

The school district, however, disregarded his resignation letter pursuant to 4 NYCRR 5.3 (b)* and filed disciplinary charges against him pursuant to Civil Service Law §75. Following the §75 hearing on the disciplinary charges, but before a decision was rendered, the Union-Endicott Maintenance Workers Association filed a grievance on behalf of Kolmel alleging that the school district violated the CBA by conditioning Kolmel's entitlement to retirement health insurance benefits upon the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding by electing to  disregard Kolmel's letter of resignation and pursue disciplinary charges against him.**

The disciplinary hearing officer sustained the charges against Kolmel and recommended his termination. The Board of Education adopted the hearing officer’s findings and recommendations and terminated Kolmel. It then denied his grievance on the ground that, since he was terminated from employment, he was not a "retiree" for purposes of retirement health benefits under the CBA.

The Union filed a demand for arbitration but the school district filed a petition pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules §7503, seeking a court order to stay the arbitration of the grievance.

Supreme Court denied the school districts motion to stay arbitration, finding that there was no public policy prohibiting arbitration of the issue of Kolmel's entitlement to post-employment health benefits and that the dispute was one which the parties had agreed to arbitrate under the CBA.

In considering the school district’s appeal of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Appellate Division said that: "The court's role in reviewing applications to stay arbitration is . . . a limited one," citing Matter of Enlarged City School Dist. of Troy [Troy Teachers Assn, 69 NY2d 905.”

Further, said the court, in considering the school district’s appeal, it applies a “two-pronged test” for determining whether a grievance is arbitrable, and must decide:

1. Is there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance; and

2. If no such prohibition exists, the court must determine if the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement.

As to the public policy issue, the Appellate Division said that the school district argues that “public policy prohibits arbitration of the matter since determination of Kolmel's employment status is governed by 4 NYCRR 5.3(b), which provides that "when charges of incompetency or misconduct have been or are about to be filed against an employee, the appointing authority may elect to disregard a resignation filed by such employee and to prosecute such charges and, in the event that such employee is found guilty of such charges and dismissed from the service, his [or her] termination shall be recorded as a dismissal rather than as a resignation."

Essentially the school district contended that “to allow an arbitrator to determine whether Kolmel retired or was dismissed for purposes of receiving retiree benefits under the CBA would violate the policy considerations embodied in 4 NYCRR 5.3(b) in that it would defeat its authority to disregard petitioner's resignation and ignore Kolmel's status as a dismissed employee under the regulation.”

The Appellate Division disagreed, explaining that “[I]t is well settled that 'there is no prohibition against arbitrating a dispute originating from the terms of a collective bargaining agreement concerning health insurance benefits for retirees,'" citing Matter of Peters v Union-Endicott Cent. School Dist., 77 AD3d at 1239.”

The school district, said the court, had not identified any statute, precedent or public policy that prohibits arbitration of a dispute over the provision of contractual post-employment retirement benefits to an employee who has committed a crime or otherwise engaged in misconduct. Further, although 4 NYCRR 5.3 (b) provides for an employee's termination under these circumstances to be recorded as a dismissal rather than a resignation, no law or policy requires an employee's status under 4 NYCRR 5.3 (b) to be determinative of that employee's status under the CBA.

The Appellate Division concluded that “The issue of the effect, if any, of Kolmel's status as a dismissed employee pursuant to 4 NYCRR 5.3 (b) — as well as his alleged misconduct — as it pertains to his entitlement to benefits goes to the merits of the grievance, not to its arbitrability.”

The Appellate Division also rejected the school district’s argument that Kolmel had no right to arbitration under the CBA as a dismissed employee, noting that the broad arbitration clause permitted the Union to demand arbitration if dissatisfied with the decision at Stage 3 of the grievance process. Moreover, said the court, issues such as a school district's relationship to retired or discharged employees and the question of whether such former employees are covered by the grievance procedure are for the arbitrator to decide.

* N.B. 4 NYCRR 5.3(b) applies to employees 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 1,  Application of Rules, states that “Except as otherwise specified in any particular rule, these rules shall apply to positions and employments 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” [emphasis supplied]. However, many local civil service commissions and personnel officers have adopted a similar rule.

** Kolmel otherwise met the requirements to receive retirement health benefits under the CBA.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_05167.htm

Arbitrating the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement

Arbitrating the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement

City of Schenectady v Schenectady PBA, 289 AD2d 814

The applicable collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between the City of Schenectady and the Schenectady PBA provided that “all police department employees ... will be provided retirement benefits based upon their average earnings during the 12-month period prior to his or her retirement pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law Section 302.9(d).”

Section 302.9(d) applied only to Tier I employees at the time the CAB was executed. In 1999 Section 302.9(d) was amended to include both Tier I and Tier II members of the retirement system. When the City refused to extend the CBA “12-month period” benefit to its retiring Tier II police employees, the PBA grieved and demanded the issue be submitted to arbitration.

The City obtained a stay of arbitration on the ground that the dispute was not arbitrable. On appeal the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's ruling holding that there was no public policy or statutory bar to submitting the matter to an arbitrator for resolution.

The court pointed out the in determining whether or not a public sector negotiated contract grievance is subject to arbitration, a two-step analysis is used, citing Liverpool Central School District v United Liverpool Faculty Association, 42 NY2d 509, 513.

The first test: does the issue concern a subject that is arbitrable under the Taylor Law? The court said that as neither the City nor the PBA claimed that public policy prevents arbitration of this retirement issue, it only had to consider the second test: did the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute in question?

The standard to be applied by the court in evaluating the second test: is there a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA.

The PBA relied on the language in the CBA that provided that: Pursuant to the provisions of [Retirement and Social Security Law] Section 302.9(d) ... [the City] will provide retirement benefits based upon the average earnings during the twelve (12) month period prior to ... retirement.

The PBA argued that the City violated this provision when it refused to apply this provision to both Tier I and Tier II retiring members of its police department. The City, on the other hand, contended that the issue was not subject to arbitration as it never contemplated the provision would be applicable to Tier II members of the retirement system.

The Appellate Division found that “there is a decided relationship between the subject in dispute and the general subject of the CBA.”

Further, said the court, the City was, in effect, asking it “to interpret a substantive provisions of the CBA and find that the subject of the grievance could not have been contemplated by the parties at the time that they executed the CBA,” on the theory that the relevant provisions of Retirement and Social Security Law were not in existence at the time the CBA was negotiated and, “therefore, the benefits provided under that section were not and could not have been bargained for.”

This is exactly the type of interpretation of a CBA that the courts are told is the “kind of merit inquiry that [courts] are admonished not to engage in,” citing Committee of Interns and Residents v Dinkins, 86 NY2d 478.

The court rejected the City's contention that Retirement and Social Security Law Section 443(f-1) precludes the arbitration demanded by the PBA. Why? Because, said the Appellate Division, “[t]hat section provides that an unsuccessful demand for Retirement and Social Security Law Section 443(f) benefits, during collective bargaining negotiations, shall not be subject to compulsory interest arbitration as provided for in Civil Service Law Section 209(4).

Accordingly, the court decided that Section 443(f-1) does not address and, therefore, does not prohibit such issue from being raised, as here, in contractual grievance arbitration.

The Appellate Division came to the same conclusion in a case involving the same basic issue: City of Johnstown v Johnstown PBA, decided December 20, 2001.

Discovery of public employer’s electronic records in federal litigation

Discovery of public employer’s electronic records in federal litigation

Pritchard, et al v County of Erie and others, 546 F.3d 222

Pritchard obtained an order from a federal district court justice compelling Erie County to produce certain electronic communications – e-mails - between County officials and an attorney employed by the County. The County objected, claiming that these e-mails were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and vacated the district court’s order.

However, the Circuit Court then remanded the matter back to the lower court to consider another issue: “whether the privilege was otherwise waived.” Accordingly, the Circuit Court directed the lower court “to enter an interim order to protect the confidentiality of the disputed communications” until the issue of whether the privilege claimed by the County had been waived was decided.

United States District Court Justice Curtin had initially authorized the discovery of e-mailed communications, among other documents, that had been exchanged by an Assistant Erie County Attorney and County officials. The County characterized these e-mails as e-mails that “solicit, contain and discuss advice from attorney to client.”

In the words of the Second Circuit, Erie County’s petition “raises an issue of first impression: whether the attorney-client privilege protects communications that pass between a government lawyer having no policymaking authority and a public official, where those communications assess the legality of a policy and propose alternative policies in that light.”

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between client and counsel made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance. As the Supreme Court said in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383. at 389, “This permits attorneys and their clients to communicate fully and frankly and thereby to promote ‘broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.’”

In civil suits between private persons and government agencies, the attorney-client privilege protects most confidential communications between government counsel and the agency that are for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance.

The Circuit Court said that “Access to legal advice by officials responsible for formulating, implementing and monitoring governmental policy is fundamental to promot[ing] broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice,” again citing Upjohn.

In this instance, the Circuit Court decided that the e-mails in question were exchanged between the county officials and their county attorney for “the predominant purpose of soliciting or rendering legal advice." They convey to the public officials responsible for formulating, implementing and monitoring Erie County’s corrections policies, a lawyer’s assessment of Fourth Amendment requirements, and provide guidance in crafting and implementing alternative policies for compliance. This advice -- particularly when viewed in the context in which it was solicited and rendered--does not constitute “general policy or political advice” unprotected by the privilege.

The issue of privilege with respect to electronic communications and records kept in electronic form will probably be the subject of future litigation. Changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Rules 5.1, 16(b), 24, 26(a), 26(b)(2), 26(b)(5), 26(f), 33, 34(a), 34(b), 37(f), 45], and the Federal Rules of Evidence [Rules 404, 408, 606, 609], among others, took effect on December 1, 2006.

These amendments essentially address electronically stored information for the purpose of “discovery” in the course of litigation, including the obligation of the litigants to meet and confer about electronic discovery early in litigation and the discovery of information “electronically stored.” The new rules also require the parties to include information about electronically stored information in initial disclosures; the mandated early discovery-planning conference of counsel; the report to the court; and the pretrial scheduling conference with the judge. 

Depression may not qualify as a disability

Depression may not qualify as a disability

Aldrup v Caldera, 274 F.3d 282

William A. Aldrup complained that he was depressed and this constituted a disability under ADA. The reason for his depression: he had suffered stress and anxiety because of his having to work with certain employees.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Aldrup's claims, finding that he was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA because although he was unable to work only with particular co-workers at one particular job, he could work with other individuals at another work site.

Aldrup was a firefighter at a military installation, the Camp Bullis Fire Station. Because of a staffing shortage at another installation, Aldrup was assigned to the Fort Sam Houston Station -- about 20 miles away from Bullis -- for one day. He refused to report to Sam Houston.

He was charge with insubordination and dismissed from his position. Earlier he had been subjected to “progressive discipline” for other acts of insubordination.*

Clearly, the failure of a subordinate to follow a direct order of a supervisor is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for taking adverse employment action. Did Aldrup state a valid explanation of his insubordination by claiming that he suffered a disability involving a major life activity -- working?

The court decided that Aldrup had failed to offer evidence that he was substantially limited in the life activity of working and that he had failed to create a fact issue that his employer's proffered reason for his removal -- insubordination -- was pretextual.

Aldrup based his disability claim on his alleged depression resulting from “the stress and anxiety of having to work with certain employees at the [Houston Station].” This, said the court, was insufficient to demonstrate that Aldrup was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. His claim, “if supported by the record, would merely tend to show that he was unable to perform any job at one specific location, and is not evidence of Aldrup's general inability to perform a broad class of jobs.”

Aldrup also claimed that he was entitled to disobey his supervisor's order because it placed him in personal jeopardy. The court said that while a subordinate must obey an order first and complain later, there is an exception when obeying the order would place the subordinate in a clearly dangerous situation. The Circuit Court did not find any “clearly dangerous situation” present that would excuse Aldrup's misconduct in refusing to comply with his superior's directive.

The court's conclusion: based on the record, the decision to remove Aldrup was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

* In challenging the Merit Systems Protection Board's sustaining his dismissal, Aldrup alleged “mixed claims” -- i.e., claims based on discrimination as well as other grounds. The Circuit Court said that while it did not generally have jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board, it did have jurisdiction over this type of “mixed case,” citing Wiggins v US Postal Service, 653 F.2d 219.

Governor Cuomo announces five year labor agreement with the Civil Service Employees Association

Governor Cuomo announces five year labor agreement with the Civil Service Employees Association

Source: Executive Office Press Office

On June 22, 2011 Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced that his administration has reached a five-year labor agreement with the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA). CSEA represents 66,000 New York State employees and is one of the largest public employee unions in the state. The agreement, which must be ratified by members of CSEA in the several State negotiating units represented by CSEA, would provide State employees represented by CSEA with protection from broad layoffs.

”The agreement includes a freeze on base wages for 3 years and a redesign of the employee health care contribution and benefit system, saving $73 million this fiscal year and $93 million next fiscal year. If adopted by the state's other collective bargaining units, the agreement will reduce workforce costs by $1.63 billion over the course of the agreement, including $1.27 billion of savings in healthcare costs, and would achieve sufficient savings to avoid the need for broad layoffs arising from the gap in the state operations budget. Overall, the five-year agreement if adopted statewide would be $3.8 billion less expensive to the state than the previous four-year agreement reached in 2007.”

Key elements reported:

Base Wages: Under the five year agreement, there will be no general salary increase in Fiscal Year 2011-12; 2012-13; 2013-14. Employees will receive a 2 percent increase in 2014-15 and 2015-16.

2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16
0%	0%	0%	2%	2%

Expected Savings: The 2011 wage agreement is $2.5 billion less costly to the state than the 2007 agreement, if adopted through the state workforce.

Health Care System Redesign: The agreement includes a series of reforms in the employee health care system that saves $61 million annually in the CSEA contract and $263 million over the contract term. If adopted by all bargaining units, these reforms would save $1.27 billion. The components of the health system redesign are: 

Health Care Contributions: The agreement includes substantial changes to employee health care contributions bringing public employee benefits more in line with the private sector. The contribution for health care benefits have not changed in 30 years, while the cost of the state's health care program has increased 100 percent in the past decade. The agreement reflects a two percent increase in contributions for Grade 9 employees and below, and a six percent increase for Grade 10 employees and above. (Under the agreement, for example, the state will pay 69 percent of family coverage for a Grade 10 employee and above, and the employee will pay 31 percent. The prior split was 75 percent state/25 percent employee. For individual coverage, a Grade 10 employee and above will pay 16 percent and the state share will be 84 percent. The prior split was 10 percent employee/90 percent state).

Expected Savings: The CSEA agreement results in $30 million in annual savings from this provision, and $141.7 million over the contract term. If adopted for the entire workforce, this change will save $165 million per year, and $764 million over the term of the contract.

Health Care Opt Out: For the first time, the state is offering an opt-out option. Health care premiums cost $16,600 for family coverage and $7300 for individual coverage. Employees electing to opt out of the health insurance program must provide proof of alternative coverage and will receive $1000 or $3000 for the cessation of individual or family coverage, respectively. This will save the state thousands of dollars for each employee who opts out.

Savings: The opt-out will save $7.3 million annually and $31 million over the contract term for CSEA alone. The opt-out achieves $21.6 million in annual savings, and $91.8 million over the five year term if adopted statewide.

Health Benefit Redesign: The health benefit plan system of co-pays, deductibles, and programs has been redesigned to encourage healthy choices and control costs of pharmaceutical products. For example, for the first time the plan will cover the use of nurse practitioners and "minute clinics" and encourage employees to use these services when appropriate instead of hospital emergency rooms.

Expected Savings: The CSEA savings for this provision are $22.3 million annually and $95.7 million over the contract term. If adopted by all bargaining units, these changes generate $85.5 million annually when adopted statewide, and $361.4 million over the term of the contract.

Deficit Reduction Leave: Under the agreement, employees will take a five day unpaid deficit reduction leave during fiscal year 2011-12 and four days unpaid leave during fiscal year 2012-13. The value of the days taken not worked will be deducted from employee pay over the remaining pay periods equally during the fiscal year in which they are taken. Employees will be repaid the value of the 4 days from 2012-13 in equal installments starting at the end of the contract term.

Expected Savings: The furloughs will yield $360 million in savings if adopted by all bargaining units.

Performance advances, longevity and retention payments: Performance advances and longevity payments will continue to be in effect. Current employees who remain active through 2013 will earn a onetime retention payment of $775 in 2013 and $225 in 2014 in recognition of working without a wage increase for three years.

Patient Abuse Reforms: Both CSEA and the State agree that the system in place for investigating allegations of abuse of patients at state facilities does not adequately protect our most vulnerable population in state care. While CSEA employees are dedicated caretakers, allegations of abuse must be dealt with thoroughly. Under the agreement, the State and CSEA will take a number of steps to improve the quality of care, including creating a completely new Select Panel on Patient Abuse with A-list arbitrators and creating a table of penalties for increasingly severe acts of misconduct, along with a number of other reforms.

Review of Temporary Employees: The State and CSEA will form a joint committee to review the use of temporary employees and contractors and make recommendations to the Division of Budget and Department of Civil Service.

Layoff Protection: CSEA employees will receive broad layoff protection for fiscal year 2011-12 and 2012-13 arising from the $450 million budget gap. Workforce reductions due to management decisions to close or restructure facilities authorized by legislation, SAGE recommendations or material or unanticipated changes in the State's fiscal circumstances are not covered by this limitation.

Negotiations for the State were led by a special team appointed by the Governor comprising Todd R. Snyder, Senior Managing Director of Rothschild Inc. and Co-Head of Rothschild's Restructuring and Reorganization group; and Joseph M. Bress, former head of the Governor's Office of Employee Relations and former Vice President of Labor Relations at Amtrak, under the direction of Howard Glaser, Director of State Operations.

Authority of an arbitrator to modify the disciplinary penalty proposed by the employer

Authority of an arbitrator to modify the disciplinary penalty proposed by the employer

Matter of Communication Workers of Am., Local 1170 v Town of Greece, 2011 NY Slip Op 05308, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The arbitrator sustained various disciplinary charges against a Town of Greece police sergeant and determined that "[t]he Town had just and sufficient cause to demote" the Sergeant. The arbitrator further determined, however, that a permanent demotion was unreasonable and arbitrary, and converted the proposed penalty to a demotion for a term of one year.

The CWA asked Supreme Court to confirm the arbitration award while the Town asked the court to vacate the award in part on the ground that the award exceeded the scope of the arbitrator's authority. 

Supreme Court sustained Greece’s motion to vacate the award and remanded the matter to the Town for its imposition of a new penalty.

In response to CWA’s appeal, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court erred in vacating that part of the arbitration award reducing the penalty to a demotion for a term of one year and remitted the matter "to the Town for reconsideration of the penalty to be imposed upon" the Sergeant and confirmed the arbitration award.

The Appellate Division said that an arbitrator’s award may be vacated on the ground that an arbitrator exceeded his or her power "only where the arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power."* 

The Court explained that “It is well established that "an arbitrator has broad discretion to determine a dispute and fix a remedy[] and that any contractual limitation on that discretion must be contained, either explicitly or incorporated by reference, in the arbitration clause itself'," citing Matter of State of New York [Dept. of Correctional Servs.] [Council 82, AFSCME], 176 AD2d 1009, lv denied 79 NY2d 756. Further, the Appellate Division pointed out that "To exclude a substantive issue from arbitration, therefore, generally requires specific enumeration in the arbitration clause itself of the subjects intended to be put beyond the arbitrator's reach."

Specifically the court decided that the underlying collective bargaining agreement [CBA] authorized the arbitrator to determine that the imposed punishment is "unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious" and if so found, the CBA specifically provides that, "where the penalty imposed is found to be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious," the arbitrator may make a determination "with respect to the penalty imposed upon the grievant . . . ."

The Appellate Division pointed out that while the CBA does not explicitly authorize an arbitrator to substitute an appropriate penalty upon determining that the penalty imposed by the Town is unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, there is likewise no such "specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power."

Accordingly, the court conclude that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in modifying the grievant's penalty from a permanent demotion to a demotion for a term of one year.

* Courts have also vacated an arbitration award where it is determined that the award “violated strong public policy.” See Ford v CSEA, 94 AD2d 262, in which the court addresses the critical question of the power of an arbitrator to render a decision which impacts on or affects a public policy.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_05308.htm

Protected speech in public employment

Protected speech in public employment

Green v Board of County Commissioners, USCA, 10th Circuit, Docket 05-6297

The general rule applied in cases where a public employee’s allegation that his or her right to free speech has been violated is that while an employee's freedom of speech regarding matters of “public concern” may not be restricted by a public employer, the employer may prohibit an employee from speaking “in an official capacity.” The Green case involved the analysis and application of this general rule.

Jennifer Green was employed at Canadian County, Oklahoma's Juvenile Justice Center as a drug-lab technician and detention officer. As part of her job, she performed drug-screening tests. She was concerned that some of the samples tested produced “false-positive” results. As the Center did not have a confirmation testing policy, she raised the issue of “false positive” test results with her immediate supervisor, William Alexander. Alexander was not responsive.

Without Alexander’s knowledge, Green contacted the manufacturer of the drug-testing equipment used at the Center and asked questions about confirmation testing. In addition, she spoke with representatives of the Department of Human Services about the need for a confirmation test. Ultimately, Green arranged for a caseworker to transport a sample that had tested positive for drugs to a hospital for confirmation testing. The confirmation test indicated that the Center's initial test of the sample produced a false-positive result. Green communicated this information to Mr. Alexander. Soon thereafter, the Center adopted a formal confirmation testing policy.

Green complained following this episode her employer treated her less fairly and she was subsequently dismissed from her position. She sued, contending that her employer’s actions violated the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 [Civil action for deprivation of rights], and state-law. A federal district court judge dismissed her petition and Green appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

One element of Green’s complaint alleged that the County’s actions violated her Constitutional right to free speech.

Addressing the “free speech” aspect of her appeal, the Circuit Court concluded that Green’s First Amendment rights had not been violated because Green’s “free speech” allegations did not involve communicating with newspapers or her legislators or performing some similar activity.

Green disagreed with her supervisors' evaluation of the need for a formal testing policy and her unauthorized obtaining of the confirmation test to prove her point. However, the Circuit Court, citing Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 195 [at 1960], said that a government employee’s First Amendment rights do “not invest them with a right to perform their jobs however they see fit.” Accordingly, there is no “judicial oversight of communications between and among government employees and their superiors in the course of official business” and “displacement of managerial discretion by judicial supervision.”

Here, said the court, Green's communications with third parties about confirmation testing are the types of communications that would be attributable to the Center and thus the Center has an interest in controlling them. Accordingly, in the eyes of the Circuit Court, Green’s speech was not “protected speech.”

Sustaining the lower court’s dismissal of Green’s petition, the Circuit ruled that with respect to the unauthorized confirmation test arranged for by Green and her related communications to third parties, Green did not speak or act in her capacity as a citizen, but rather was acting as a government employee and thus did not exercise protected free speech.

Free speech issues raised by public employees have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in a number of instances. Essentially public officers and employees enjoy “protected speech” in connection with their public comments concerning a State or municipal employer's activities that are a matter of public concern.

In contrast, comments by a public officer or employee concerning his or her personal unhappiness with a public employer, such as complaints about working conditions or his or her personal disagreement concerning internal operations of the department or agency which do not rise to the level of a “public interest,” are not protected by the Constitution.

Typically, the resolution of such “free speech” cases turns on the court’s view as to whether the employee’s comments address a matter of “public concern” or a matter of “personal interest.”

Equal pay for equal work and “red lined” positions

Equal pay for equal work and “red lined” positions

Fenton v St. Lawrence County, 36 AD3d 1102

Deanna Fenton and C. Kevin McDonough both served as personnel technicians with St. Lawrence County. Fenton’s annual salary, however, was significantly less than McDonough’s annual salary.

Fenton’s salary was based on a grade-step salary schedule contained in a Taylor Law contract while McDonough's salary reflected the salary he was receiving of his previous higher salaried position – Personnel Director – when he was “downgraded” to a lower grade position. When McDonough was downgraded, his salary was “red lined.”

In response to Fenton’s complaining about this salary discrepancy, her supervisors had a “desk audit” of her position performed. As a result, Fenton’s position was allocated to a higher salary grade but this did not resolve the underlying salary discrepancy between Fenton and McDonough.

Fenton filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] alleging the difference between her salary and McDonough’s constituted a violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 USC § 206 [d]. Fenton also complained that after filing her complaint with EEOC she had been subjected to retaliation.

Eventually EEOC issued a right to sue letter and Fenton brought and action in State Supreme Court seeking compensation for gender discrimination. Supreme Court issued an order summarily dismissing Fenton’s petition. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s action.

The Appellate Division said that in order to maintain a cause of action under the Equal Pay Act, the plaintiff must “establish a prima facie case of wage discrimination by demonstrating that:

(1) The employer pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex:

(2) The employees perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; [and]

(3) The jobs are performed under similar working conditions” citing, Aldrich v Randolph Cent. School Dist., 963 F.2d 520, 524, cert denied 506 US 965.

St. Lawrence County conceded that Fenton had established a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination, Accordingly, the burden of going forward shifted to it to demonstrate that the pay disparity was justified – i.e. the differences in the wages paid to Fenton and to McDonough was due to a factor “other than sex”

The County contended that it had met its burden by establishing that Fenton’s salary was lower than McDonough's because McDonough’s salary reflected the compensation he had been receiving in his former, higher grade position, and his salary rate had been “red lined” or “red circled” for legitimate business reasons.

The Appellate Division said that it agreed and dismissed Fenton’s appeal.

The court explained that:

“The term 'red circle' rate is used to describe certain unusual, higher than normal, wage rates which are maintained for reasons unrelated to sex” such as reclassification or reallocation of position as a result of reorganization or for other legitimate administrative purposes. Where a position is red circled for legitimate business reasons, it may result in the maintenance of an employee's salary at a higher rate despite a decrease in the employee's responsibilities or duties.” This constitutes a “factor other than sex” and thus qualifies as an affirmative defense under the Equal Pay Act.”

In this instance St. Lawrence County “red circled” an incumbent’s salary to avoid financially injuring the downgraded employee. The court noted that the County had red circled the salaries of both male and female employees affected by its reorganization.

This evidence established the requisite affirmative defense, shifting the burden to Fenton to raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether County’s' red circling of these position was a pretext for gender discrimination.

In the court’s view, Fenton “failed to meet” her burden of rebutting the County’s affirmative defense by proving that its reason was “mere pretext” for unlawful discrimination.

Administrative adjudications

Administrative adjudications

Brzostek v Syracuse Fire Dept., 238 AD2d 947; Leave to appeal denied, 92 NY2d 102

In the Brzostek case, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, was asked to review an administrative adjudication. In an earlier appeal concerning the parties, the court ruled that Brzostek was entitled to a determination on the merits of his request for General Municipal Law Section 207-a (2) benefits [Brzostek v City of Syracuse, 238 AD2d 947; Leave to appeal denied, 92 NY2d 1026].*

Instead of holding a hearing, thereby creating “an administrative record for judicial review,” the City and Brzostek agreed upon a “set of stipulated facts” which were submitted to Supreme Court. Supreme Court then reviewed the matter “de novo.”

The Appellate Division ruled that such a procedure was incorrect. It said that an administrative determination must be made by the appropriate agency in the first instance, and Brzostek had the burden of proving that he was eligible for Section 207-a benefits.

The court said that the department had to determine the merits of Brzostek's application and remanded the matter to it for this purpose. Once the administrative agency makes its determination, if the individual objects, he or she may appeal the decision.

An administrative agency's administrative determination is subject to judicial review in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The traditional test applied by the courts is such instances: is the administrative determination supported by substantial evidence in the record.

* General Municipal Law Section 207-a provides significant benefits to firefighters who are disabled as the result on an injury sustained in the line of duty.