Determining “in-service” status for the purposes of qualifying for a disability retirement allowance

Determining “in-service” status for the purposes of qualifying for a disability retirement allowance

Matter of Jetter, 288 A.D.2d 591 [see also Jetter v. McCall, 241 A.D.2d 746; Jetter v. Hevesi, 5 A.D.3d 941]

The Jetter case points out that although an applicant for disability retirement benefits has the burden of demonstrating his or her eligibility for such benefits, there must be substantial evidence in the record to support the Retirement System's rejection of the application.

New York State Trooper Roy P. Jetter discovered that he was awarded in-service disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law [RSSL] Section 363-b (b) (2) (b), rather than pursuant to RSSL Section 363-b (b) (2) (a). Benefits received pursuant to Section 363-b (b) (a) apparently are treated more favorably for Federal personal income tax purposes.*

Jetter asked the Retirement System to reconsider its determination. The System decided that although Jetter's disability indeed was casually related to the October 1992 incident, such incident did not occur while he was “in service” and, therefore, he was not entitled to in-service benefits. Jetter appealed.

The Appellate Division noted that to be eligible to receive benefits under Section 363-b (b) (2) (a), Jetter had to establish that he sustained an in-service disability. Jetter's attorney, however, elected to object to the System's interjection of the in-service issue instead of offering proof concerning the issue. This tactical decision, said the court, does not entitle Jetter to a new hearing.

Notwithstanding this, the Appellate Division concluded that the System's “underlying determination is not supported by substantial evidence” and thus Jetter was entitled to a re-hearing because of this.

The only evidence presented on the in-service issue came from (1) Jetter's application for benefits, in which the then Superintendent of the State Police indicated that his injury was sustained while Jetter was “on-duty”; and (2) Jetter's hearing testimony during which he stated that “[w]ith the police department and the use of the [government] vehicle[s], you are on duty when you leave your house and begin to drive.”

While the System was free to reject any or all of Jetter's testimony on this point, its determination “must still be supported by substantial evidence in the record, which would include evidentiary facts and inferences which could fairly be drawn therefrom.”

As the record did not contain any evidence concerning Jetter's regular work schedule or assigned duties, his specific schedule and assigned tour on the day of the incident or whether he engaged in any work-related activities while he was en route to his office, the System's finding that Jetter's injury occurred “before [he] was scheduled to begin his tour” cannot stand.

Significantly, the court said that although Jetter had not entered his place of employment prior to sustaining the disabling injury, that fact, standing alone, does not constitute substantial evidence to support the underlying determination, and cross-examination of Jetter did not result in the elicitation additional facts from which it could be inferred that Jetter was not in service at the time he was injured.

The court's conclusion: Since the record made before the Retirement System did not have sufficient evidence to make a reasoned determination concerning whether or not Jetter had been injured “while in-service,” this case had to be returned to the Retirement System “for a further hearing on that limited point.”

* RSSL retirement benefits are not subject to New York State personal income tax.

Terminated probationer denied a name-clearing hearing

Terminated probationer denied a name-clearing hearing

Matter of Johnston v Kelly, 35 A.D.3d 297, 828 N.Y.S.2d 10

Kevin Johnston, because he served as a probationary police officer, could be terminated from his position without a hearing or a statement of reasons, for any reason or no reason at all, provided the dismissal was not made in bad faith, was not for constitutionally impermissible reasons, or was not in violation of law.

After Johnston was terminated from his position before completing his probationary period, he sued and obtained a court order from Supreme Court directing that he be given a “name-clearing hearing.”

The Appellate Division held that Supreme Court’s granting Johnston’s petition for such a hearing was incorrect. The Appellate Division pointed out that the lower court had improperly granted Johnston’s request for a name-clearing hearing as “the sole purpose of a name-clearing hearing is to afford the employee an opportunity to prove that the stigmatizing material in the personnel file is false."

Here, said the Appellate Division, Johnston has not demonstrated that the materials contained in his personnel file are stigmatizing. More importantly, Johnston had not denied the truth of the central factual assertions in his personnel records that formed the basis for his probationary termination. The decisions notes that Johnston “denied facts that were not stated in the report,” or denied statements in the report that were, at most, “tangential to the central issues.”

In any event, the satisfaction that the individual could expect obtain following the holding of a name clearing hearing is limited. Although it could result in a terminated probationary or provisional employee "clearing" his or her name, clearing his or her name does not automatically result in the individual winning reinstatement to his or her former position.

As the Court of Appeals held in Matter of Stanziale [55 NY2d 735], -- where the basis for dismissal is of a "stigmatizing nature" the individual is entitled to some due process so as to clear his or her name --. However the courts have not yet held that an individual is entitled to more than "some due process" insofar as redress or relief within the context of a name-clearing hearing is concerned.

In contrast to the ruling in Johnston, in Matter of Murphy v City of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 35 A.D.3d 319, the court ruled that John J. Murphy was entitled to a name clearing hearing following his “coerced retirement” from his position with the New York City Employees’ Retirement System.

Here the Retirement system conceded that the element of dissemination has been satisfied. Murphy had sufficiently alleged that the report prepared by Retirement System personnel contains inaccuracies and that the report's conclusions are stigmatizing, “as they arguably accused Murphy of immorality.” Regardless whether Murphy resigned or was fired, the court said that he has satisfied the requirement of loss of employment that is necessary to demand a name-clearing hearing.

Determining the creditability of a witness

Determining the creditability of a witness

Sarmiento v Newsday, 287 A.D.2d 851

Newsday dismissed Marta Sarmiento from her position after she allegedly uttered a racial epithet in Spanish to a fellow employee in violation of Newsday's rules governing its employees’ conduct. When Sarmiento applied for unemployment insurance, her application was denied on the ground that she had lost her employment due to her misconduct.

Sarmiento appealed and ultimately the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, affirming the decision of its Administrative Law Judge [ALJ], ruled that Sarmiento was entitled to benefits. The ALJ had found Sarmiento's “testimony to be the more credible and lacking any disinterested witnesses to the incident in question.” Newsday appealed.

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, holding that while “[o]ffensive conduct in the workplace, including the use of abusive language, can be found to constitute disqualifying misconduct,” here the only direct evidence that Sarmiento uttered a racial slur was given by the alleged victim thereof who had admittedly been at odds with claimant for some time. Accordingly, the Board's decision was based on it view as to the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses.

The issue of credibility is one for the Board to resolve and as there is substantial evidence to support the Board's decision finding claimant entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits, the court declined to overturn its ruling.

Judicial review of position classification decisions

Judicial review of position classification decisions

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v State of New York Unified Ct. Sys., 35 A.D.3d 1005, 826 N.Y.S.2d 481

Observing that when a position classification decision is made, "[t]he courts have the power to reverse or modify a particular classification . . . [only] if it is 'wholly arbitrary or without any rational basis,'" the Appellate Division dismissed CSEA’s attempt to compel the Office of Court Administration’s Chief Administrative Judge to reclassify certain Court Clerks (JG-18) positions to Senior Court Clerk (JG-21).

In the words of the Appellate Division: “[s]o long as the [position] classification determination has a rational basis, this Court may not disturb it even if there are legitimate grounds for a difference of opinion.”

CSEA argued that the Office of Court Administration’s decision to eliminate the position of Senior Court Clerk in the Third and Fourth Judicial Departments, while retaining the Senior Court Clerk position in the First and Second Judicial Departments, had no rational basis because there were no differences in the job duties of Court Clerks upstate and Senior Court Clerks downstate.

The Appellate Division, pointing out that by law the Court Clerks in the First and Second Judicial Departments are peace officers, rejected CSEA’s argument that the additional duties expected of peace officers are not relevant as they are not mentioned in the job description for Senior Court Clerk. It said that “Repeating in the job standard what has been conferred by the Legislature would be unnecessary.”

As to CSEA’s claim that it was unlikely that “Senior Court Clerks will be called upon to provide backup to uniformed courtroom security,” the court said that this is not determinative as the duties required from title classifications need only be performed "as the need occurs."

CSEA also contended that the Office of Court Administration’s decision “violates Civil Service Law §115.” §115 states that it is "the policy of the state to provide equal pay for equal work." Although CSEA argued “that the peace officer status for Senior Court Clerks is meaningless and that the clerical duties of both titles are identical,” the Appellate Division said that it disagreed that the peace officer status of the Senior Court Clerk is meaningless, concluding that Senior Court Clerks and Court Clerks do not “provide equal work.”

Employee must be in close physical proximity to ill family member to satisfy FMLA "To Care For" requirement

Employee must be in close physical proximity to ill family member to satisfy FMLA "To Care For" requirement
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.

Girard Baham requested and was granted FMLA leave to care for his daughter, who fell and suffered a serious head injury while the family was on vacation. The daughter was airlifted from Honduras to Miami, where the family remained in the hospital while their daughter recovered.

Baham was on provisionally approved FMLA leave from March 20 through May 5, 2008.  From April 12 through April 29, however, Baham returned to their home in Texas in response to neighborhood association letters complaining of an untended yard.  He also cleaned up the house, and added padding to sharp edges in the home to protect his daughter upon her return.  Baham's wife remained in Florida while caring for their daughter.  Baham talked with his wife by telephone every day.  Baham did not, however, inform his employer of his returned to Texas.

On his return, Baham was informed that his FMLA paperwork was incomplete, and he was asked to provide the missing information.  Baham let work later that day, leaving his keys and ID card with the security guard. The employer interpreted this act as a resignation, and sent a letter confirming his termination a few days later.  Baham sued, alleging that his termination violated the FMLA.  The federal trial court dismissed the suit, finding that Baham failed to establish that he "cared" for his daughter within the meaning of the FMLA while he was in Texas.  Baham appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit.

To be entitled to FMLA leave, an employee must show that he is needed "to care for" a family member with a serious health condition.  29 USC 2612(a)(1)(C).  In addition to providing physical care, the employee is entitled to leave in order to provide psychological comfort and reassurance which would be beneficial to his or her child or to make arrangements for changes in care such as transfer to a nursing home.  29 CFR 825.116(a).

Baham argued that he was entitled to FMLA leave while he was in Texas away from his daughter based on frequent telephone contact wit his wife, who was caring for their daughter.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed.  Following the lead of the Ninth Circuit in Telllis v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 414 F.3d 1045, 1047 (9th Cir. 2005), the Fifth Circuit found that the "to care for" requirement required the employee to provide "some actual care" while in "close and continuing proximity to the ill family member."  While Baham was in Texas he was not in close continuing proximity to his daughter.

The Court also opined that cutting the lawn, cleaning the house, and preparing the house by padding furniture, did not qualify as "care" under the FMLA.  The Court noted that it found no authority holding that merely remaining in frequent telephone contact with a relative while in another state for weeks constitutes providing care for purposes of the FMLA.

 The Fifth Circuit afformed the judgment of the district court dismissing Bagahms FMLA claim.
Comment:  The Fifth Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit in imposing a requirement that "caring for" an ill family member requires the provision of some actual care in close and continuing proximity to the ill family member.  With respect to the "actual care" requirement, the decision is not surprising in that Baham's telephone contacts were with his wife, not his daughter or his daughter's physicians.  The situation would doubtless have been different had he been consulting with his wife and doctors about treatment options for his daughter. That activity would likely be viewed as providing "some actual care."  Cutting the lawn, and cleaning and preparing the house for the daughter's return home was apparently too attenuated from "physical or psychological care" to fall within the protections of the FMLA, at least for the Fifth Circuit.

Interestingly, neither the Statute nor the DOL FMLA regulations specifically impose a "close and continuing proximity" requirement for an employee to "care for" an ill family member.  Query whether in a world of real-time internet video/audio access to the daughter's hospital room whether an employee could not provide psychological care remotely.  With the right facts, I believe the court-manufactured "close and continuing proximity" care requirement will fall as a relic of a past age in light of the new technological reality.          
 Baham v. McLane Foodservice, Inc., No. 10-10944 (5th Cir. July 1, 2011)  http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/10/10-10944.0.wpd.pdf

Extraordinary salary increases excluded in determining the individual’s final average salary for retirement purposes.

Extraordinary salary increases excluded in determining the individual’s final average salary for retirement purposes.

Matter of Palandra v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 011 NY Slip Op 04357, Appellate Division, Third Department
 

Maria Palandra was employed by the Elmont Union Free School District and eventually became its superintendent of schools. In 2000, Palandra and the school district entered into a contract setting her salary and providing that she would receive payment for her accumulated vacation and sick leave upon her retirement.

Subsequently the parties entered into a new agreement that eliminated the career increment provision and barred Palandra from receiving payment for unused leave time upon her retirement. Instead, Palandra’s was retroactively raised to $224,268, with increases in following years capped at 5%.

Ultimately the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System [TRS] excluded those increases from the calculation of Palandra's final average salary and reduced her retirement benefits accordingly. Palandra sued but Supreme Court dismissed her petition.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, noting that “In order to calculate [Palandra’s] retirement benefits, [TRS] must rely upon her final average salary, defined as "the average regular compensation earned . . . during the three years of actual service immediately preceding [her] date of retirement" as mandated by Education Law §501[11] [b]. Accordingly, the Retirement System will act to prevent the artificial inflation of that figure by excluding "any form of termination pay or compensation otherwise paid in anticipation of retirement."

The court explained that Palandra had received extraordinary salary increases in the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 school years and, indeed, had altered the terms of prior agreements to do so. Moreover, the latter increase was accompanied by the elimination of her contractual rights to obtain payments for accumulated leave time upon her retirement and an optional one-time only increment, "items that were facially excludable from her final average salary.”

The Appellate Division, conceding that “material in the record that could support a different result,” held that the Retirement System could “rationally concluded from the above evidence that the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 salary increases were made in anticipation of [Palandra’s] retirement and excluded them from her final average salary."

The court also rejected Palandra’s claim that the System's “otherwise rational determination” was rendered arbitrary and capricious by the delay in issuing it.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_04357.htm

Employee must be in close physical proximity to ill family member to satisfy FMLA “to care for” requirement

Employee must be in close physical proximity to ill family member to satisfy FMLA “to care for” requirement

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.

Girard Baham requested and was granted FMLA leave to care for his daughter, who fell and suffered a serious head injury while the family was on vacation. The daughter was airlifted from Honduras to Miami, where the family remained in the hospital while their daughter recovered.  

Baham was on provisionally approved FMLA leave from March 20 through May 5, 2008.  From April 12 through April 29, however, Baham returned to their home in Texas in response to neighborhood association letters complaining of an untended yard.  He also cleaned up the house, and added padding to sharp edges in the home to protect his daughter upon her return.  Baham's wife remained in Florida while caring for their daughter.  Baham talked with his wife by telephone every day.  Baham did not, however, inform his employer of his returned to Texas. 

On his return, Baham was informed that his FMLA paperwork was incomplete, and he was asked to provide the missing information.  Baham let work later that day, leaving his keys and ID card with the security guard. The employer interpreted this act as a resignation, and sent a letter confirming his termination a few days later.  Baham sued, alleging that his termination violated the FMLA.  The federal trial court dismissed the suit, finding that Baham failed to establish that he "cared" for his daughter within the meaning of the FMLA while he was in Texas.  Baham appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit.

To be entitled to FMLA leave, an employee must show that he is needed "to care for" a family member with a serious health condition.  29 USC 2612(a)(1)(C).  In addition to providing physical care, the employee is entitled to leave in order to provide psychological comfort and reassurance which would be beneficial to his or her child or to make arrangements for changes in care such as transfer to a nursing home.  29 CFR 825.116(a). 

Baham argued that he was entitled to FMLA leave while he was in Texas away from his daughter based on frequent telephone contact wit his wife, who was caring for their daughter.  The Fifth Circuit disagreed.  Following the lead of the Ninth Circuit in Telllis v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 414 F.3d 1045, 1047 (9th Cir. 2005), the Fifth Circuit found that the "to care for" requirement required the employee to provide "some actual care" while in "close and continuing proximity to the ill family member."  While Baham was in Texas he was not in close continuing proximity to his daughter.  

The Court also opined that cutting the lawn, cleaning the house, and preparing the house by padding furniture, did not qualify as "care" under the FMLA.  The Court noted that it found no authority holding that merely remaining in frequent telephone contact with a relative while in another state for weeks constitutes providing care for purposes of the FMLA. 

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Bagahm’s FMLA claim.

Mr. Bosland Comments:  The Fifth Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit in imposing a requirement that "caring for" an ill family member requires the provision of some actual care in close and continuing proximity to the ill family member.  With respect to the "actual care" requirement, the decision is not surprising in that Baham's telephone contacts were with his wife, not his daughter or his daughter's physicians.  The situation would doubtless have been different had he been consulting with his wife and doctors about treatment options for his daughter. That activity would likely be viewed as providing "some actual care."  Cutting the lawn, and cleaning and preparing the house for the daughter's return home was apparently too attenuated from "physical or psychological care" to fall within the protections of the FMLA, at least for the Fifth Circuit.

Interestingly, neither the Statute nor the DOL FMLA regulations specifically impose a "close and continuing proximity" requirement for an employee to "care for" an ill family member.  Query whether in a world of real-time Internet video/audio access to the daughter's hospital room whether an employee could not provide psychological care remotely.  With the right facts, I believe the court-manufactured "close and continuing proximity" care requirement will fall as a relic of a past age in light of the new technological reality.   

        

Baham v. McLane Foodservice, Inc., No. 10-10944 (5th Cir. July 1, 2011)  http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/10/10-10944.0.wpd.pdf

Eleventh Amendment immunity of a public entity

Eleventh Amendment immunity of a public entity

Aguilar v. The New York Convention Center Operating Corp., USDC SDNY, Judge Motley, 2001 WL 1360229

The basic issue in the Aguilar case concerned a claim of immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Fifty individual plaintiffs, each of whom is either female or a member of a racial or ethnic minority, currently or formerly employed by the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, sued the Center alleging that it is managed by a group of “white Irish males” who have engaged in widespread race and gender discrimination. The Javits Center asked the District Court Justice to dismiss the case, claiming it had Eleventh Amendment Immunity from such litigation.

The District Court said that “It is well settled that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state in federal court unless Congress has abrogated or the state has waived its sovereign immunity,” citing Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 465 U.S. 89.

However, here the fifty complainants did not sue the State of New York but rather an entity created by the State -- the New York Convention Center Operating Corporation [NYCCOC] that operates the Javits Center. Accordingly, the initial for the court to resolve:

Is NYCCOC more like an “arm of the state,” in which case the Eleventh Amendment applies, or more like “a municipal corporation or other political subdivision,” in which case the Eleventh Amendment does not apply.

In Mancuso v New York State Thruway Authority, 86 F.3d 289, the Second Circuit affirmed its six-factor inquiry for determining whether a state-created entity enjoys Eleventh Amendment immunity under the “arm of the state” doctrine:

(1) how the entity is referred to in the documents that created it;

(2) how its governing members are appointed;

(3) how it is funded;

(4) whether its function is traditionally one of local or state government;

(5) whether the state has veto power over its actions; and

(6) whether the entity's financial obligations are binding upon the state.

The decision notes that if these factors point in different directions, the tension must be resolved mindful of the Eleventh Amendment's twin rationales -- protecting states' treasuries and protecting their dignity.

The first factor -- how the entity is referred to in the documents that created it -- did not support or defeat a finding of immunity. NYCCOC was created as a “body corporate and politic” constituting a “public benefit corporation.” On one hand, the statute creating the NYCCOC characterize its function as an “essential government function” while it then enumerates ways in which the state may “cooperat[e]” and “assist” the NYCCOC in the performance of its duties, suggesting that the legislature considered the NYCCOC and the state to be distinct entities.

The Court concluded that here the first Mancuso factor is neutral.

In contrast, the court found that the second factor -- how NYCCOC's governing members are appointed -- weighs squarely in favor of immunity as they were appointed by the governor and by leaders of the legislature.

The third factor -- how the NYCCOC is funded -- was also viewed a neutral by the court as NYCCOC could both issue bonds and collect rents and fees for the use of its facilities.

Was NYCCOC performing a role that “is traditionally one of state or local government?” No, said the court, the operation of a convention center cannot be considered a traditional state function.

As to the fifth factor, the absence of any power of the state to veto any NYCCOC weighed against a finding of immunity. Although the chair of the NYCCOC's board of directors serves at the pleasure of the governor, he or she does so only in his or her capacity as chair. No member of the board, including the chair with respect to his or her status as a “member of the board, may be removed from his or her office except for cause.

The sixth factor -- whether the entity's obligations are binding on the state -- weighs heavily against immunity. Here the court noted that because the “[t]he obligations of the corporation shall not be debts of the state,” that “the state shall not be liable thereon,” and that “such obligations shall not be payable out of any funds other than those of the corporation.”

The court's conclusion: NYCCOC should not be deemed an “arm of the state” for Eleventh Amendment purposes, i.e., it is more like a municipality or a political subdivision of a state than an entity acting as an alter ego of a state.

Filing a timely notice for disability retirement benefits critical to eligibility for such benefits

Filing a timely notice for disability retirement benefits critical to eligibility for such benefits

Wilson v NYSERS, 288 AD2d 602

Theodore J. Wilson neglected to file the written notice required by Retirement and Social Security Law [RSSL] Section 363-c (e) (a) in order to claim accidental disability retirement benefits. As a result, the Retirement System rejected his application for such benefits.

Wilson appealed, arguing that he had provided the required notice because he had filed Workers' Compensation claims, which was an option available to him, citing RSSL Section 363-c [e] [b] [1].

Unfortunately, this did not offer a solution to Wilson’s problem because Wilson had not filed his written claim for workers' compensation benefits within the 30-day period provided by Workers' Compensation Law Section 18.

While Wilson had apparently gave oral notice of the occurrence and thereby provided the employer with actual knowledge of the occurrence within the 30-day period, which would be sufficient to permit the Workers' Compensation Board to excuse the lack of timely written notice, the Appellate Division, citing Spahn v Regan, 163 AD2d 642, said:

This court has repeatedly stated that a decision of the Workers' Compensation Board to excuse a petitioner's failure to comply with the provisions of Workers' Compensation Law Section 18 is not binding upon respondent [Comptroller] for accidental disability retirement purposes and does not alter the fact that timely notice of the compensation claim was not given.

 

The Appellate Division said that it found no reason to deviate from this holding notwithstanding the fact that Wilson's application was for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

The lesson here: It is essential that the individual file the required Section 363-c (e) (a) notice with the Retirement System in a timely fashion.

Freedom of Law only applies to public entities

Freedom of Law only applies to public entities

McBride v Franklin, 288 AD2d 130

The McBride decision demonstrates that only a public entity is subject to the provisions of New York States' Freedom of Information Law [FOIL], (Section 84, Public Officers Law).

Nathan McBride filed a petition in a New York State Supreme Court in an effort to compel Jessie T. Franklin to disclose certain information that McBride contended FOIL required be made available to the public. When the Supreme Court dismissed his petition, McBride appealed, only to have the Appellate Division affirm the lower court's determination.

The Appellate Division pointed out that McBride's petition was properly dismissed since Franklin, a private investigator hired by McBride's attorneys in a criminal manner, is not an “agency” subject to FOIL's disclosure requirements and thus there was no authority for a court directing that Franklin provided the information McBride had demanded.

Workers’ compensation and Section 207-a/207-c disability claims

Workers’ compensation and Section 207-a/207-c disability claims

Balcerak v Nassau County, Ct. of Appeals, 93 NY2d 808

If a police officer is awarded workers’ compensation benefits before his or her employer decides whether or not he or she is eligible for disability benefits under Section 207-c of the General Municipal Law, may the appointing authority still deny the individual’s application for Section 207-c benefits? Yes, said the Court of Appeals, in a unanimous opinion, reversing a decision by the Appellate Division to the contrary.

Until this ruling, various appellate division and Supreme Court decisions held that the employer was prevented from rejecting the police officer’s Section 207-c claim under such circumstances under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. In fact, one Supreme Court justice recently ruled that the mere filing of a workers’ compensation claim by the employer, which it was mandated to do by law, prevented it from denying the individual’s Section 207-c application.

In Balcerak, the Court of Appeals concluded that Gregory Balcerak, a Nassau County corrections officer was not automatically entitled to Section 207-c benefits simply because the Workers’ Compensation Board had determined that he had suffered a work-related injury and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply in such cases.*

Balcerak had been injured in an automobile accident in June 1996, just after leaving from his assignment to special duty on the “midnight shift.” Nassau rejected his application for Section 207-c benefits for his “injury sustained while on duty form” on September 9, 1997. The Workers’ Compen­sation Board, however, had approved Balcerak’s application for workers’ compensation benefit before the county had made its determination.

Balcerak sued, demanding that Nassau provide him with “Section 207-c benefits, retroactive to the date of the accident.

A Supreme Court justice concluded that the Nassau was bound by the Workers’ Compensation Board’s finding that Balcerak was injured while on duty. The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing that the collateral estoppel doctrine applied against the County.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Workers’ Compensation Law and the General Municipal Law are discrete, independent compensation systems and that a favorable Workers’ Compensation determination does not, therefore, automatically entitle an employee to the special benefits provided by Section 207-c.**

According to the ruling, the Workers’ Compensation Board’s determination does not automatically preclude a municipality’s discrete decision on a General Municipal Law Section 207-c application. The distinction between the two laws made by the Court of Appeals:

1. Section 207-c benefits were meant to fulfill a narrow and important purpose ... to compensate specified municipal employees for injuries incurred in the performance of special work related to the nature of heightened risks and duties.***

2. Workers’ Compensation is a general and comprehensive social program designed to provide all injured employees with some scheduled compensation and medical expenses, regardless of fault for ordinary and unqualified employment duties.

In view of this ruling, it appears that in evaluating a claim for Section 207-c benefits, the appointing authority should:

1. Determine if an individual is unable to perform the duties of his or her position because of a disability.

2. If it is determined that the individual is disabled, was the individual disabled as the result of a work-related injury or disease? If the answer is no, the individual is probably eligible for disability leave pursuant to Section 72 of the Civil Service Law.

3. If it is determined that the individual was disabled on the job, was the injury or disease at work incurred in the performance of “official duties” as a police officer? If the answer is no, the individual is probably still eligible for leave pursuant to Section 71 of the Civil Service Law, Workers’ Compensation Leave.

4. If it is determined that the individual was disabled as a result of his or her performing “official duties,” he or she is presumably eligible for Section 207-c benefits as provided by law.

Some collective bargaining agreements negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law set out procedures for the processing of Section 207-c applications.

* Although this case concerned Section 207-c, which covers police officers, while Section 207-a of the General Municipal Law applies to firefighters injured in the line of duty, the rationale adopted by the Court of Appeals in making its determination would probably be followed in a similar Section 207-a case.

** This decision did not end the matter regarding Balcerak’s eligibility for 207-c benefits. The Court of Appeals said that its ruling “resolves only the collateral estoppel issue....” The other issue in this action -- did Nassau have “a rational basis for its decision denying Balcerak Section 207-c benefits,”, had not yet addressed by the Appellate Division. Accordingly, the case was returned to the Appellate Division for its consideration of this issue.

*** N.B. Subsequently the Court of Appeals revisited and clarified its view regarding the availability of Section 207-c benefits based on a perception of “heightened risks and duties,” holding that “[I]n order to be eligible for Section 207-c benefits, a covered municipal employee need only prove a ‘direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury’.” (see Matter of Theroux v Reilly, 1 NY3d 232 

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

General Municipal Law§§ 207-a and 207-c - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://section207.blogspot.com/ for additional information about this electronic reference manual.

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

Activities by teachers in the course of collective bargaining are not protected activities within the meaning of the Taylor Law when such activities place students at risk

Activities by teachers in the course of collective bargaining are not protected activities within the meaning of the Taylor Law when such activities place students at risk

Lucia v Board of Educ. of the E. Meadow Union Free School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 51210(U), Supreme Court, Nassau County, Judge Vito M. DeStefano, Not selected for publication in the Official Reports.

Although teachers of the Woodland Middle School of the East Meadow Union Free School District were provided with their own parking spaces on school property, one day several teachers parked their cars along the curb in front of the school, an area designated as the schools student "drop off" area, in an effort "intended to achieve a new collective bargaining agreement." 

East Meadow, alleging that because of rain, heavy traffic, and the presence of parked cars at both the curbs in front of the school, parents were forced to drop off their children in the middle of the street, filed disciplinary charges against Barbara Lucia and three other teachers who allegedly parked their cars along the curbside on that day.

Following the resulting disciplinary hearing, the Hearing Officer ruled that the District had sustained its burden of proof on the charges filed against the teachers.Noting that protected union activity may lose its status by the manner in which it was conducted, the Hearing Officer ruled, in relevant part that:

“Based upon the finding that [her] actions created a safety hazard for the children, I do not find that [her] actions . . . were protected activity. . . . It is foreseeable that where so many cars are parked at that location it would delay the drop off of students … Albeit a lapse in judgment, [Lucia's] actions took place outside the school, and there is no evidence that they had any impact on her role as a teacher with considerable experience. A fine of one thousand ($1,000) dollars should serve to remind her that her actions that morning were inappropriate.

Lucia filed a petition pursuant to CPLR 7511 seeking an order vacating the decision of the Hearing Officer on the grounds that it was "irrational, arbitrary and capricious, and not based upon adequate or substantial evidence, in violation of public policy and not in accord with due process."

Noting that Education Law §3020-a(5) provides that an employee seeking to modify or vacate a hearing officer's determination is limited to the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 or if it is clearly violative of a strong public policy, Judge DeStefano ruled that the Hearing Officer's determination did not violate a strong public policy and, further, was not totally or completely irrational, and did not exceed a specific enumerated limitation of the Hearing Officer's power. 

As to the “public policy exception, Judge DeStefano explained that although Lucia, and similarly situated teachers, have a constitutionally protected right to engage in union activity, the scope of the public policy exception is "extremely narrow … and the exercise of teachers' free assembly and speech rights are circumscribed to the extent that such exercise endangers the safety of children.”

As to Lucia’s argument that the Hearing Officer’s decision was totally irrational or that it otherwise exceeded his authority, Judge DeStefano said that “when reviewing compulsory arbitration in education proceedings, the court should accept the arbitrator's credibility determinations, even where "room for choice exits.” Here, said the court, there was testimony from which the Hearing Officer could reasonably conclude that “Lucia parked her car on the street as part of a demonstration calculated to disrupt the student "drop-off" area and which created a safety hazard to the children.” 

Judge DeStefano dismissed Lucia’s petition seeking an order vacating the determination of Hearing Officer.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_51210.htm

No FMLA protections based on incomplete medical certification

No FMLA protections based on incomplete medical certification

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.

Janet Lewis was employed as a civilian in the Air Force as Director of the Elmendorf Air Force Base Child Development Center.  She requested 120 days of FMLA leave due to her own serious health condition. The Agency required Lewis to support her request for leave with the WH-380 medical certification form.  Lewis had her doctor fill out the form, which she submitted in support of her leave request. At the same time, she submitted a prescription from her doctor, and a 2006 letter from another doctor.  Kathleen DeShasier, Lewis's supervisor, told her the documents she submitted were insufficient to support her request for FMLA leave.  Lewis refused to submit more information, believing that she had provided all the information necessary under the FMLA.  When she failed to show up for work, the Agency fired her AWOL.  She appealed her removal through the administrative and federal district court, without success. 

Before the Ninth Circuit, Lewis argued that the documents she submitted provided sufficient medical facts to support the conclusion that she suffered from an FMLA-covered serious health condition. The Ninth Circuit disagreed.  Lewis's WH-380, the court observed, "states only that she was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and needed therapy, medical treatment, bed rest, two prescriptions medications, and 120 days off work." 

Significantly, the Court found that the WH-380 form was incomplete because it failed to-

1. provide a summary of the medical facts that support the diagnosis;

2. contain an explanation as to why Lewis was unable to perform her work duties; and

3. address what additional treatments would be required for her condition.

The   rejected Lewis's alternative argument that she submitted adequate medical documentation to the HR department in support of her workers’ compensation claim. 

Along with her OWCP claim, Lewis did, the Court found, submit medical documents and a detailed diagnosis.  

However, Lewis did not deliver the OWCP documents to her supervisor. Instead, she specifically requested that the HR department keep her medical records confidential and out of her supervisor's hands.  In so doing, the Court essentially found that Lewis could not rely on her OWCP documents as a way to supplement her incomplete WH-380.

Mr. Bosland Comments:  To substantiate an employee's request for serious health condition FMLA leave, an employer may require the employee to submit a complete medical certification.  The permissible content of that certification is governed by federal regulations.  To determine whether the leave is covered by the FMLA, an employer may not require an employee to provide more medical information than is permitted by law.  While an employer may voluntarily agree to accept a medical certification with less medical information than permitted  (employers are not mandated to require any medical certification), they are perfectly within their rights to insist that they receive a complete medical certification. 

Some employee's are very reluctant to disclose their medical condition to their supervisor or employer when requesting leave.  They fear that their highly confidential medical information will "get out" and become fodder for the office rumor mill.  These employees tend to offer sparse medical certifications.  These certifications may even have something written in every area of the WH-380 form, but the information provided is either incomplete or useless.  When offered the chance to submit additional information, these employees, like Lewis, often refuse.   

Employees who refuse to provide additional information run the considerable risk of losing FMLA protections.  As with Lewis, employees who forge ahead and take the leave anyway in the belief that they did provide a complete medical certification, and that the employer is wrong, run the considerable risk of being disciplined for AWOL.  Before risking your job, employees better be certain that they are right and their employer is wrong on this issue.  Check with your union, the US Department of Labor, or an attorney. 

Note that the Court rejected Lewis's argument that she satisfied her FMLA medical certification by providing additional medical information to the HR department as part of the OWCP claim. While the Court did not spell it out, the implication is that she was required to submit her FMLA request to her supervisor, not the HR department.  Moreover, she specifically asked that her OWCP medical documents be kept confidential including from her supervisor. 

Providing medical information, but not to the right person or office, is another (failed) tactic frequently used by employees who don't want to disclose information to their supervisor even though that is what may be required by the employer's policy.  For example, as in Lewis, employees will send their medical documentation to a medical or OWCP unit with confidentiality restrictions, and then claim that they satisfied the FMLA because they provided the certification to their employer writ large.   

Where the employer has a policy or practice requiring the employee to request leave and provide supporting medical certification through the immediate supervisor or a specified office, providing the medical documentation to some other unit of the employer will not secure the protections of the FMLA.  Courts have not allowed employees to game the system by providing supporting medical documentation to someone within the company, but outside of the policy or practice.   

Lewis v. USA, No. 10-35624 (9th Cir. May 26, 2011), http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/26/10-35624.pdf

Considering hearsay evidence offered in the course of an administrative hearing

Considering hearsay evidence offered in the course of an administrative hearing

Derbyshire v Safir, 288 AD2d 18, [Motion for leave to appeal denied, 97 NY2d 611]

In this appeal, the Appellate Division held that Joseph Derbyshire received a fair hearing and that substantial evidence supported the administrative determination to dismiss him from his position.

Derbyshire had argued that certain hearsay evidence against him should not have been considered in making the administrative determination. The Appellate Division disagreed, ruling that “[h]ighly probative hearsay evidence was properly admitted” and thus could be considered in making the determination.

The court also commented that Derbyshire's admissions to his wife were not protected by the marital privilege (Section 4502[b], Civil Practice Law and Rules) because of the nature of the misconduct involved and it found no basis upon which to apply a more restrictive rule in administrative proceedings than would apply in a criminal proceeding.

Under the circumstances, the court said, “imposing the penalty of dismissal does not shock the conscience of this Court,” citing Brown v Safir, 258 AD2d 359, [leave to appeal denied, 93 NY2d 807].

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

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

 =======================

Doctrine of Estoppel applied in ADA litigation

Doctrine of Estoppel applied in ADA litigation

DeVito v Chicago Park District, CA7, 270. F.3d 532

Nicholas DeVito charged that his employer, the Chicago Park District, violated the ADA by failing to accommodate his disability. His claim was dismissed after a bench trial. The district court judge found that the DeVito was physically incapable of working full time, even with an accommodation, and therefore was not within the Act's protections. The Circuit Court agreed and dismissed DeVito's appeal.

DeVito worked as a laborer for the park district until he injured his back in 1979. Although his injury prevented his returning to his laborer's job, he was assigned to a “light duty” job -- answering the telephone at a park district office near his home.*

Four years later, the park district fired DeVito after it videotaped him twisting, bending, and climbing in and out of trucks.

Starting with the observation that the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act provide relief only to persons who are capable, with or without an accommodation that would make it possible for them to work despite a disability, to perform the essential functions of their job, which in the case of a full-time job requires that they be capable of working full time.**

In addition, said the court, there is a more fundamental objection to DeVito's claim. The doctrine of estoppel prevents a litigant from repudiating a representation that has reasonably, foreseeable induced reliance by the person to whom he made it. “Even if the representation was false (indeed that is the usual case in which the doctrine is applied), the maker of it is estopped (forbidden) to deny it and by denying it pull the rug out from under the unsuspecting person to whom he had made it.”

The doctrine has been applied in ADA cases much like this one -- cases in which an employee attempts to whipsaw his employer by first obtaining benefits or concessions upon a representation of total disability to work full time and then seeking damages for the employer's failure to accommodate the disability, which the employee now seeks to prove was not total after all.

In the words of the court, “an ADA plaintiff may be estopped by an inconsistent representation made to his employer to obtain benefits.” However, the Circuit Court observed that “since different statutes define total disability differently, the employee will sometimes be able to explain away the apparent inconsistency of his positions.

Here the court rejected DeVito's efforts to “explain away” any inconsistencies in his position. It said that the park district was entitled to rely on DeVito's implicit representation -- implicit in his behavior in his light-duty job answering the phone -- that “he could work no more than two or three hours a day and on his explicit representation that his condition had not improved since the original injury.”

* DeVito was allowed to leave work whenever he felt pain or stress and admitted that he would typically leave work after only two or three hours, though he was being paid the full wages of a laborer who works eight hours a day.

** The fact that DeVito had not worked full time for 13 years at the time of the appeal hearing -- the ostensible reason being his disability, and his statement at that hearing that he currently felt no better than he had felt when he was first injured -- was enough evidence to enable the district judge to find that DeVito was incapable of working full time.