Sick leave and workers’ compensation

Sick leave and workers’ compensation

Robinson v NYC Department of Social Services, 266 A.D.2d 613

Ada Robinson, a stenographer/secretary, filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits based upon work-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Although she “failed to file her claim” within the two-year period as required by Section 28 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, the Workers’ Compensation Board awarded her workers’ compensation benefits. The department appealed.

The department had continued Robinson on the payroll following her surgery to relieve her condition. The Board decided that this constituted an advance payment of wages within the meaning of Section 28, and held that the “limitations period” did not apply in her case.*

As Robinson “could have used sick leave” even if her condition had not been work-related, the department argued that she would have been paid regardless of the cause of injury and thus it had not made an advance payment.

The department’s personnel records, however, showed that Robinson had checked the disability box, not one of the sick leave boxes, on the “request for leave form” approved and signed by her supervisor. Also, her request for additional absence, also approved by her supervisor, included the notation “Workers’ Comp.”

Thus, said the court, the record supported the Board’s ruling that the department continued to pay Robinson in recognition of its workers’ compensation liability.

* Remuneration in the form of wages can constitute an advance payment where the payment is provided in recognition of workers compensation liability. In contrast, payments made regardless of the cause of injury do not constitute an advance payment.

Determining General Municipal Law Section 207-a benefits to be paid the individual after he or she retires

Determining General Municipal Law Section 207-a benefits to be paid the individual after he or she retires

Gresis v Fairview Fire District, Supreme Court, Justice Loehr, 15 Misc.3d 209

James J. Gresis is a retired Fire Captain receiving a performance of duty disability retirement allowance from the New York State Employees’ Retirement System plus a supplemental benefit pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 207-a(2) paid by Fairview. The Section 207-a supplemental benefit to be paid by Fairview is the difference between the amount of Gresis’ disability retirement allowance and the amount of “his regular salary and wages” until he reaches mandatory service retirement age, age 70.*

When Gresis commenced receiving his retirement allowance, the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) then in effect between the Fairview Fire Department and the Fire Fighters Association provided for a graduated salary structure for firefighters based on years of service. Further, Gresis’ “regular salary and wages” as a Captain was determined by applying a mathematical formula that provided Fairview Fire Captains with an annual salary that was 35% higher than the salary of a first-grade Firefighter.

In September 2002, all Captains, with the exception of Gresis, were reclassified Deputy Chiefs. Any Captain seeking to be appointed to this new title had to take and pass the Deputy Chief's examination. It appears that all Captains, with the exception of Gresis, took the Deputy Chief's examination and were appointed Deputy Chiefs.

Initially Fairport provided a Section 207-a supplement to Gresis based on a Captain's salary. However, commencing in mid-2006, Fairview reduced the supplement it had been paying Gresis to a lesser amount.

Gresis claimed that his supplement should be based on the compensation rate paid to Deputy Chiefs. The impact of this change in compensation, according to Gresis, was as though Fairport had demoted him from two grade levels above the Firefighter's grade to one grade above Firefighter’s grade. Fairview’s reduction of his supplementation to his retirement allowance, Gresis argued, violated General Municipal Law Section 207-a.

Fairport, on the other hand, maintained that it had continued to pay Gresis at the grade he retired at: Captain. It argued that any reduction in the amount of the supplement was the result of the reclassification and the new CBA, In effect, Fairport said that the pay rate for its Fire Captains at the time Gresis retired was now equal to the pay rate for its Fire Lieutenants. Thus, Fairport contended, it had not demoted Gresis but merely provided him with the supplement reflecting the change in the classification and allocation of his former position.

The court, citing Pease v Colucci, 59 AD2d 233,** rejected Fairview’s theory. It ruled that Section 207-a guarantees that any firefighter who suffers an employment-connected disability will receive his or her full annual wage “which shall not be interrupted or reduced in any respect except as based on the employee's own misconduct.”

The court decided that Fairport’s reduction of Gresis’ supplemental benefit from two grades above a Firefighter's to one grade above a Firefighter's was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of General Municipal Law Section 207-a(2).

* In Drahos v Village of Johnston City, 80 AD2d 100, the Court held that a firefighter injured in the line of duty and unable to return to work is entitled to the full amount of his regular salary until he returns, citing Section 207-a of the General Municipal Law. This, said the Drahos court, includes increases and adjustments received by firefighters in active status during the period of absence.

**  In Pease the Appellate Division ruled that once an individual became qualified for a Section 207-a benefit, the benefit continues until the individual recovers or reaches the mandatory age of retirement. The Pease case involved a Buffalo fire lieutenant who was "laid off" from his position while on Section 207-a leave. Lieutenant Pease’s position was abolished due to the City of Buffalo's financial difficulties. Buffalo then "reinstated" Pease to a firefighter position; reducing his Section 207-a supplement by calculating it on basis of a "firefighter's salary" rather than his previous salary as a lieutenant. This change, said the court, violated mandates set out in Section 207-a with respect to supplements to the retirement allowance to be paid to by the employer.

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

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.

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

Proceeding with disciplinary action in situations where disability may be a consideration

Proceeding with disciplinary action in situations where disability may be a consideration

Matter of Schlitz v Cavanagh, 14 Misc.3d 1213(A

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) 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.

Essentially Section 72 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 perform the duties of the position satisfactorily because of that 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.

Schlitz also was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Section 75. Before the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing, however, Schlitz was placed on Section 72 -- non-occupational disability leave -- from his position.

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 and penalty 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 of disciplinary charges against him under these circumstances amounted to unlawful workplace discrimination against a person with a disability.

In addition, Schlitz argued that the Town was required to present the evidence of his depression in the §75 hearing as a defense or in mitigation of the misconduct charges.

Justice Mayer found 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 held 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.

Section 73 of the Civil Service Law addresses the termination of an individual who has been continuously absent from his or her position on Section 72 leave for more than one year.

Third Circuit sustains employee's removal for lying about reason for absences

Third Circuit sustains employee's removal for lying about reason for absences

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.

John Prigge told Sears, his employer, that he was absent for two days to receive radiation treatment for prostate cancer.  In reality, Prigge suffered from bipolar disorder, which had been diagnosed several years earlier.  Prigge was subsequently absent for seven days during which he was admitted to a medical clinic suffering from depression.  On this occasion, Prigge advised Sears that his absence was due to incapacity and treatment for bipolar disorder.  He also confessed that his prior absence was not due to prostate cancer, but to bipolar disorder. 

Sears demanded that Prigge provide medical documentation substantiating his need for leave due to prostate cancer and bipolar disorder.  Prigge provided medical documentation substantiating his need for leave due to bipolar disorder.  He provided medical certification verifying that he did not suffer from prostate cancer.  Sears fired for failure to substantiate his need for leave with medical documentation due to prostate cancer, and for lying about his need for prostate cancer. 

The Third Circuit agreed with Sears.  It found, essentially, that Sears had the right to terminate Prigge for lying about his need for leave, and because he failed to substantiate that need with supporting medical documentation. 

Mr. Bosland Comments:  However awkward or embarrassing, employees need to tell their employers the real reason for their need for FMLA leave.  Courts have not allowed employees to tell their employer a false reason for the need for leave.  In addition to being truthful, had Prigge told Sears the real reason for the prior leave it would have likely been covered by the FMLA.  Courts have not excused employees from telling their employer the real reason for their need leave out of embarrassment or fear that the reason will be fodder for office gossip.  Nor have they looked past the false reason to find FMLA coverage based on the real reason for the leave.  Courts have consistently found that employers are entitled to the real reason animating the need for leave. 

Prigge v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 10-3397 (3d Cir. June 23, 2011).

Insurance to defend and indemnify offices and employees of a political subdivision of the State

Insurance to defend and indemnify offices and employees of a political subdivision of the State

Watkins Glen Central School District v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 286 A.D.2d 48

Sections 17 and 18 of the Public Officers Law provide for the defense and indemnification of public employees in connection with their official acts or their failure to perform an official act. Sometimes a public employer decides to purchase an insurance policy to protect itself in the event it is sued for its employees' alleged acts or omissions, official or otherwise.

The Watkins Glen Central School District purchased an “errors and omission” insurance policy from National Union Fire. When the District asked to Company to defend and indemnify it in connection with another law suit, Dean v Watkins Glen Central School District, [Western District of New York, Civil Action No. 98-CV-0362C], National Union said it was not obligated to defend and indemnify the District under the terms of the policy.* The District sued National, seeking a court order declaring that the insurance company was obligated to defend and indemnify it in connection with the Dean action.

In Dean, the plaintiff alleged that the District was negligent in its hiring and supervision of a teacher with a history of sexual misconduct with students. Did this mean that National Union could disclaim coverage under the exclusion for intentional acts set out in the policy it issued to the District?

The Appellate Division said that National Union could not disclaim coverage, finding that “to permit the insurer to do so would wholly vitiate coverage and frustrate the reasonable expectations of the insured, contrary to the parties' unambiguous intentions.”

Accordingly, ruled the court, under the circumstances of this case, Watkins Glen is entitled to be defended and, if need be, indemnified by National Union Fire as a matter of law.

Significantly, National Union claimed that coverage for damages arising from the teacher’s alleged sexual misconduct was expressly foreclosed pursuant to the unambiguous language of the assault and battery and bodily injury/emotional distress exclusions set out in the District's policy. The District, on the other hand, offered parole evidence that the parties had purposely negotiated for the elimination of a provision within the policy that would have expressly excluded coverage for sexual molestation.

The Appellate Division said that an understanding of the type of insurance policy involved was critical to correctly deciding the appeal. An errors and omissions policy is not a standard general liability policy but rather “is intended to insure a member of a designated calling against liability arising out of the mistakes inherent in the practice of that particular profession or business” other than those engaged in the legal and medical fields.

The Appellate Division ruled that National Union's errors and omissions policy was intended to cover the District's negligence in its rendering of professional services. Such coverage, said the court, undeniably includes negligence in the hiring and supervision of employees. Finding “no direct controlling authority to the contrary from any New York court precluding such errors and omissions coverage in a case such as this,” the Appellate Division said that it was persuaded that “National Union is indeed obligated to provide the School District with defense and indemnification for its potential liability for its alleged professional malpractice.”

* In the Dean case it was alleged that the District was negligent in connection with its hiring, supervision, and retention of a teacher. The teacher was reportedly convicted in Pennsylvania in 1974 of sex crimes he committed in the course of his employment as an elementary school teacher and Dean alleged that the teacher committed criminal acts of sexual abuse as against the Dean infant plaintiffs while in the employ of the District.

Limiting the use of personal leave accruals

Limiting the use of personal leave accruals

Johnston v ITT Aerospace/Communications, CA7, 272 F.3d 498

Sometimes an employee will challenge his or her employer's placing restrictions on the use of an employee's personal leave accruals. In the Johnston case, the Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether an employer's leave policy that distinguished between granting paid leave in connection with an individual's responding to a court order and the employee's filing a lawsuit on his or her own behalf, was lawful.

Kevin M. Johnston, an employee of ITT Aerospace/Communications Division of ITT Industries, Inc., challenged the company's attendance policy, which contains an exception for absences that are due to the employee's being ordered by a court “to appear as a witness (not a party).” The issue was raised as part of Johnston's Title VII law suit against ITT after he was assessed two unexcused absences for days on which he attended a preliminary pretrial conference, and gave his deposition, in the Title VII action that he filed against ITT.

The Circuit Court concluded that “[t]here is nothing unlawful about a leave policy that distinguishes between leave that is due to a court order and leave to enable an employee to engage in private business, including the filing of lawsuits.”

Mental stress and workers' compensation

Mental stress and workers' compensation

Vaupell v Buffalo City School District, 288 A.D.2d 510

The provisions set out in Section 2(7) of the Workers' Compensation Law [WCL] was a critical factor in resolving the appeal filed by Naomi Vaupell challenging the Workers' Compensation Board's denying her additional benefits following her termination by the Buffalo City School District.

WCL Section 2(7) specifically excludes from compensation “an injury which is solely mental and is based on work related stress if such mental injury is a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination taken in good faith by the employer.”

Naomi Vaupell had suffered a head laceration and concussion in September 1993 while working as a special education teacher for the Buffalo City School District. She filed for and received workers' compensation benefits for a consequential psychiatric condition. In September 1994, Vaupell returned to work with no restrictions imposed by her treating psychiatrist and her Workers' Compensation case was closed.

In September 1995, Vaupell was denied tenure and terminated from her position based upon her poor job performance. She then filed for additional workers' compensation benefits alleging that her ineffectiveness as a teacher and termination were causally related to her previously compensable psychiatric condition.

A Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge denied Vaupell's claim upon finding that any recurrence of her stress-related symptoms was due to her poor performance evaluations. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision and Vaupell appealed its ruling.

The Appellate Division dismissed Vaupell's appeal, noting that “[s]ince the Board decided only the question of whether claimant's inability to perform her job and her resulting termination were causally related to her 1993 injury, this Court's review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that claimant's loss of employment was solely related to the employer's denial of tenure and her poor work performance,” thus triggering the provisions of WCL Section 2(7).

The decision notes that Vaupell testified that she was emotionally devastated when she received negative evaluations and the letter of dismissal. Accordingly, said the court, “the Board's conclusion that Vaupell's symptoms of stress were related to poor work evaluations rather than her original compensable injury is supported by the record.”

As the evidence presented at the Workers' Compensation hearing established that Vaupell had been evaluated as unsatisfactory in the performance of her teaching duties prior to, as well as after, her injury and the lack of any evidence in the record suggesting that the employer acted in bad faith in making the negative evaluations or denying Vaupell tenure, the Appellate Division declined to disturb the Board's decision.

PERB rules employer’s conducting a survey of unit members to determine if a recognized or certified collective bargaining agent should continue to represent the unit an improper employer practice

PERB rules employer’s conducting a survey of unit members to determine if a recognized or certified collective bargaining agent should continue to represent the unit an improper employer practice
Matter of Monroe County v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2011 NY Slip Op 05170

The Public Employment Relations Board found ruled that Monroe County had committed an improper employer practice in violation of the Taylor Law when it conducted a survey “to assess whether to hold a secret ballot election” to determine if CSEA should continue as the union representing certain of the County’s part-time employees.

CSEA had told Monroe that the CSEA unit for part-time employees was in administratorship, i.e., the CSEA local had taken over control of the part-time unit, because the unit no longer had any officers “to run it.”  Although Monroe had agreed to negotiate with CSEA concerning the part-time workers in the unit, it mailed all of its part-time employees represented by CSEA a letter and survey form underlying CSEA’s improper practice charge.

PERB affirmed its hearing officer’s determination that Monroe had "interfered with, restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of protected rights." Monroe appealed, seeking to annul PERB's determination while PERB counterclaimed seeking enforcement of its remedial order.

The Appellate Division concluded that substantial evidence supported PERB's determination that Monroe had violated Civil Service Law §209-a (1) (a) by conducting the survey. The court rejected Monroe’s claim that it was acting appropriately and was justified in sending out the survey based on a provision in the prior collective bargaining agreement.

The provision relied on by Monroe stated that CSEA's "representative status shall continue as long as it represents a majority of the bargaining unit employees, provided that if [Monroe County] receives evidence that thirty percent or more of the unit employees are questioning this status, the parties will conduct a secret ballot election conducted by PERB to determine representative status."

The Appellate Division ruled that PERB’s finding that this language did not provide Monroe with the authority to actively solicit employees' opinions regarding their potential dissatisfaction with CSEA's union representation nor did Monroe have authority under the regulations to seek decertification of CSEA was “rational.” It commented that courts give deference to PERB's interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, which is within PERB's area of expertise, as long as that interpretation is reasonable, rational and supported by the language of the agreement.

Notwithstanding Monroe’s concerns regarding CSEA's ability to effectively represent its employees in the part-time unit, the Appellate Division decided that PERB “reasonably determined that this concern did not permit [Monroe County] to conduct a survey. Accordingly, said the court, PERB was entitled to a judgment of enforcement of its remedial order.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_05170.htm

Pension benefits and marital property

Pension benefits and marital property

DeLuca v DeLuca, 97 N.Y.2d 139

Retirement benefits frequently are an important factor in a divorce. In the DeLuca case the Court of Appeals ruled that retirement benefits from the New York City Police Superior Officers Variable Supplements Fund [VSF] are marital property subject to equitable distribution in a divorce proceeding.

New York City Detective Crescenzo DeLuca divorced his wife, Maria, after 30 years of marriage. Before the divorce became final, DeLuca retired and began receiving VSF benefits in addition to his regular pension benefits.

A New York Supreme Court justice subsequently granted Crescenzo the divorce. As part of the equitable distribution of Crescenzo's assets, the court awarded Marie half of his past and future VSF payments. The Appellate Division, however, modified the award (276 AD2 143), holding that VSF benefits were not marital property on the theory that VSF benefits were not pension benefits under the City's Administrative Code Section 13-279[b].

The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the VSF was subject to equitable distribution in a divorce proceeding. The court said the VSF, along with its counterpart for police officers below the rank of sergeant ... were the result of contract negotiations between the City of New York and the unions representing police officers. In 1968, both sides jointly proposed legislation allowing the Police Pension Fund, whose pension investments were limited to fixed-income obligations, to invest some of its assets in equities, such as common stock, with the hope of creating higher earnings. The additional earnings could then be used as extra post-retirement compensation to attract qualified individuals and induce long-term service.

The Court of Appeals decided that whether VSF benefits constitute marital property cannot be determined by the Administrative Code provisions relied on by the Appellate Division but rather are to be determined pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Domestic Relations Law.

The general rule in such cases is that if the benefit is something of value and was earned in whole or in part during the marriage, it may be considered marital property subject to equitable distribution. Referring to Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, the court pointed out that “rights in a vested but non-matured pension were marital property.”

Thus, said the court, formalized concepts such as “vesting” and “maturity” are not determinative in such situations, noting that in Olivo v Olivo, 82 NY2d 202, it ruled that compensation received after dissolution of the marriage for services rendered during the marriage is marital property.

In the words of the court, “VSF benefits are a supplement to pension fund payments and, as such, a form of compensation for past services related to the first 20 years of police employment, notwithstanding the date they mature.”

Also noted was the fact that although issues such as “vesting” and “maturity” do not raise serious obstacles to the determination that VSF benefits are marital property, they do affect valuation and distribution. 

In processing a grievance all procedural steps must be satisfied

In processing a grievance all procedural steps must be satisfied

Brown v Nassau County, 288 AD2d 216

The lesson in the Brown case: failure to follow the steps set out in a collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedure in a timely fashion may prove fatal to seeking further relief.

Larry Brown filed an out-of-title work grievance. When he and his union attempted to appeal the Step 3 determination of the Nassau County Office of Labor Relations [OLR], OLR rejected his grievance, saying that it was untimely. The Appellate Division agreed.

Brown's grievance was filed in accordance with a “five-step grievance procedure” set out in the collective bargaining agreement. OLR denied Brown's grievance at Step three and it appears that neither Brown nor the union proceeded to a Step four “advisory appeal” as set out Section 23-1.4 of the agreement.

According to the decision, the union made an untimely request that the County “schedule ... an arbitration date” following the County's unwillingness to stipulate to settle the dispute in accordance with the recommendation of a mediator.

The court noted that there was no proof that the County, in contrast to Brown and the union, the parties aggrieved by the Step 3 determination, was responsible for initiating the procedure at Step Four, or for the scheduling of the arbitration procedures.

Brown and the union sought a court order to compel arbitration of the grievance. The Appellate Division said that since there is no evidence that either Brown or the union ever timely “proceed[ed] to an advisory appeal” to either of the two alternative arbitral forums described in Section 23-1.4 of the parties' agreement, it agreed with the Supreme Court that, in light of this failure to complete the five-step grievance procedure, neither Brown nor the union could sue the County directly.

The simple answer: Had either Brown or the union followed the time requirement for perfecting the appeal to the next step, Step 4, the matter would have been subject to arbitration as permitted under the agreement.

Brown and the union also contended that they should not have been required to complete all five steps of the grievance procedure, because proceeding through all such steps would have been futile. The Appellate Division rejected this argument as being “without merit.”

Rebutting employer's defense to charges of unlawful discrimination

Rebutting employer's defense to charges of unlawful discrimination

Wallace v Methodist Hospital System, CA5, 271 F.3d 212

In the Wallace case, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, points out that an individual charging his or her employer with unlawful discrimination “must present facts to rebut each and every legitimate non-discriminatory reason advanced by [her employer] in order to survive [a motion for] summary judgment”.

Implicit in this ruling: if but one of the explanations offered by an employer in defending itself against allegations of unlawful discrimination survives, the employer will prevail.

Frequently an individual is able to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in challenging an adverse employment decision by introducing circumstantial evidence sufficient to raise a presumption of discrimination.

Once this is done, the employer is charged with the burden of producing a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment decision. If the employer provides a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action, the presumption of discrimination is defeated.

It then becomes the individual's burden to persuade the trier of fact that he or she was, in fact, the victim of unlawful discrimination by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer intentionally discriminated against him or her because of his or her protected status.

In the Wallace case, the Hospital did not dispute that a former nurse, Veronica A. Wallace, had established a prima facie case of discrimination. However, in response to that prima facie case, the Hospital offered two nondiscriminatory reasons for discharging Wallace.

According to the decision, the Hospital contended that Wallace had violated two of its written rules and the violation of either constituted grounds for her immediate termination under its written policies without regard to her past performance:

(1) the employee performed a procedure without receiving a physician's order even though Hospital's written policies required an order; and

(2) the employee falsified medical records.

Although Wallace admitted that she had violated both policies, she argued that she was subject to disparate disciplinary treatment, and, therefore, Methodist's stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination.

According to the ruling, at the heart of whether the district court properly found that Wallace failed to demonstrate by substantial evidence that the Hospital's explanation of its actions constituted pretext.

While Wallace contended that she had provided evidence of disparate treatment, the district court held that the examples of disparate treatment she offered did not involve “similarly situated nurses.”

The Circuit Court sustained the lower court's findings, noting that it has held that in order for a plaintiff to show disparate treatment, Wallace had to demonstrate “that the misconduct for which she was discharged was nearly identical to that engaged in by a[n] employee [not within her protected class] whom [the company] retained,” citing Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores (No. 471), 891 F.2d 1177.

Put another way, the conduct at issue is not nearly identical when the difference between the plaintiff's conduct and that of those alleged to be similarly situated accounts for the difference in treatment received from the employer.

Here, said the court, the Hospital had shown that “with but one exception,” the nurses to whom Wallace points are not similarly situated as “they had either acted under a doctor's orders, did not need a doctor's order for their actions, or no one in a supervisory capacity was aware of the nurse's actions.”

In addition, said the court, Wallace failed to rebut the second reason advanced by the Hospital in discharging her -- falsification of medical records.

Concluding that there was no legally sufficient basis that would allow a jury to decide that Wallace had been discharged because of discrimination, the Circuit Court sustained the lower court's dismissal of Wallace's complaint.

Actively participating in the arbitration process without objection precludes the party later claiming that the matter presented to the arbitrator was not subject to arbitration

Actively participating in the arbitration process without objection precludes the party later claiming that the matter presented to the arbitrator was not subject to arbitration
Matter of Jandrew v County of Cortland, 2011 NY Slip Op 04143, Appellate Division, Third Department

Cortland County terminated Bryon Jandrew from his position with the County.

Jandrew filed a grievance under the relevant collective bargaining agreement [CBA]. The grievance was ultimately submitted to binding arbitration in accordance with the CBA, and an arbitrator was jointly elected by the parties.

Although Cortland contended that the subject matter of the grievance was not subject to arbitration, it did not seek a stay of arbitration and agreed to have the issue of arbitrability of Jandrew’s grievance determined by the arbitrator, as well as the issues of whether Jandrew was “properly terminated” and, if not “properly terminated,” the appropriate remedy.

The arbitrator ruled that Jandrew’s grievance was arbitrable. The arbitrator then determined that Jandrew’s termination was without cause and, as the remedy ruled that the County must reinstate him to his former position with back pay and benefits.

Although Courtland then notified Jandrew's attorney that it would appeal the award and that Jandrew “should not show up to work pending the appeal,” the County neither appealed the award nor did it move to vacate or modify it. Further, the County did not restore Jandrew to the payroll or provide back pay or benefits as directed by the arbitrator.

Jandrew then filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking to confirm the arbitrator's award, whereupon Courtland filed an answer to his petition and moved to vacate the award.

Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s action.

The Appellate Division rejected Cortland’s argument that the award should be vacated because the arbitrator lacked the authority to decide the controversy. The court pointed out that “A party who actively participates in arbitration without seeking a stay pursuant to CPLR §7503(b) waives the right to a judicial determination of the arbitrability of the dispute,” citing Matter of United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Education of City School District of City of New York, 1 NY3d 72.

In this instance, said the court, although the County initially took the position that the grievance was not arbitrable, it thereafter joined in the selection of the arbitrator, fully participated in the arbitration proceeding and, most significantly, itself submitted to arbitration the issue of whether the grievance was arbitrable rather than "availing itself of all its reasonable judicial remedies."

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that the County had waived its right to contest the arbitrator's power to decide the controversy.

Further, said the court, “By submitting [the grievance] to arbitration, [Cortland] ran the risk that the arbitrator would find the dispute covered under the CBA, as she did, and while a contrary determination certainly would have been reasonable on the present record, it is not for us to substitute our judgment for that of the arbitrator in this regard.”

Finally, the Appellate Division rejected Cortland’s contention that the arbitrator's award violated public policy. Although an arbitration award may be vacated on this “extremely narrow ground” it may be vacated only where a court can conclude, "'without engaging in any extended fact-finding or legal analysis' that a law 'prohibit[s], in an absolute sense, [the] particular matters [to be] decided'" or that "the award itself violate[s] a well-defined constitutional, statutory or common law of this State"

Simply stated, said the court, “we fail to find any strong public policy precluding parties to a collective bargaining agreement from agreeing that the disciplining of employees for failure to maintain minimum job qualifications is to be submitted to and decided by an arbitrator.”

Similarly, with respect to the County’s argument that the award usurped the County Personnel Officer's power to set minimum job qualifications, the Appellate Division said “again the Cortland failed to point to any public policy that ‘prohibit[s], in an absolute sense,’ an employer from delegating to an arbitrator the authority to determine if an employee continues to meet the minimum qualifications of his or her position.”

Considering the adage that arbitrators "may do justice as they see it, applying their own sense of law and equity to the facts as they find them to be," the Appellate Division concluded that Cortland had not established that the arbitration award should be vacated for public policy reasons.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_04143.htm

Removing a candidate's name from the eligible list

Removing a candidate's name from the eligible list

Ryff v Westchester Co. Personnel Office, 287 AD2d 723

The Westchester County Personnel Office removed Michael Ryff's name from the eligible list for police officer. Ryff demanded that the Office provide him with copies of reports concerning an investigation that resulted in his previous termination from his position as a probationary police officer with the Westchester County Department of Public Safety. The Appellate Division ruled that Ryff was not entitled to be given copies of such reports.

In addition, it declined to provide “judicial intervention,” ruling that the Personnel Office's determination to remove the Ryff's name from the eligible list after affording him an opportunity to submit written opposition to the disqualification pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 50(4)(e) was neither irrational nor arbitrary.

Civil Service Law Section 50(4)(e) permits the State or a municipal civil service commission to disqualification of an individual who was dismissed from his or her position upon stated charges alleging incompetence or misconduct. Section 50(4) also authorizes a commission to disqualify an individual following an investigation of his or her qualifications and an opportunity to object to such disqualification.

Suspension of retirement allowance upon post-retirement employment

Suspension of retirement allowance upon post-retirement employment

Matter of Grella v Hevesi, 38 AD3d 113

Philip M. Grella retired effective January 1, 2003 after serving as an Assistant District Attorney in Nassau County for 24 years and six years as a Judge of the Nassau County District Court.

Grella was appointed as a Court of Claims Judge effective June 30, 2003 and administratively assigned to Supreme Court. The Retirement System notified Judge Grella that his retirement allowance would be suspended because of his postretirement employment once his earnings reached $25,000. He was also told that because he had been reemployed by the same employer from which he had retired, he could earn up to $36,000 without any diminution of his retirement allowance if he obtained a so-called 211 waiver [see Retirement and Social Security Law § 211].

In addition, the Retirement System decided that the nature of Grella post-retirement employment made him ineligible for the Civil Service Law §150 elective office exception.

The public policy in New York is that in the event a retired member of a public retirement system of this State is employed by State or a political subdivision of the State, his or her retirement allowance is suspended until he or she again retires.* The major exceptions to this policy:

1. Retirement and Social Security Law §212 sets forth limits on annual earnings which a retiree under the age of 65 may earn in public employment without diminution of his or her retirement allowance.

2. Section 150 of the Civil Service Law, which generally provides for the suspension of pension and annuity during a retiree’s post-retirement employment by the state, or of any municipal corporation, or political subdivision of the state, for compensation, does not apply where such compensation is paid in connection with jury duty, or serving as an inspector of election, poll clerk or ballot clerk under the election law, or received compensation for serving as a notary public or commissioner of deeds, or compensation received for serving in an elective public office.

3. The Section 150 exception for election to public officer does not apply in situations where the individual “subsequent to his or her retirement from an elective public office, accepts appointment, is re-elected or takes a new oath of office to the same elective public office from which he or she retired.” In such cases the retiree’s retirement allowance is suspended until the date he or she vacates such elective public office, unless the amount earned for any calendar year for that elective public office does not exceed the earning limitation provided for retired persons in section two hundred twelve of the retirement and social security law.”

When Grella challenged the Retirement System’s determination, State Supreme Court Justice George B. Ceresia, Jr. ruled that Grella “did not accept elective public office within the meaning of Civil Service Law §150 when he was appointed by the Governor to the New York State Court of Claims” [see 10 Misc.3d 519].

Justice Ceresa said that Grella’s was appointed, rather than elected to his Court of Claims position and this was not converted to elective office merely by reason of his assignment to New York State Supreme Court, an elective position. The Appellate Division agreed and dismissed Grella’s appeal.

On another point, Judge Grella had argued that the Retirement System should be “equitably estopped” from suspending his retirement benefits because, he claimed, he relied on” erroneous advice from an Office of Court Administration [OCA] representative regarding his entitlement to receive benefits” if he accepted postretirement employment with OCA.

Although acting on this advise may have proven detrimental to Grella, the Appellate Division said the doctrine estoppel “generally cannot be invoked against the state or its agencies” because erroneous advice provided by a government employee as “this does not constitute the type of unusual circumstance” triggering the application of the doctrine. 

* The retiree’s retirement allowance is typically not affected in the event he or she accepts employment with a private sector employer, with the federal government or with another State or undertakes self-employment.

Acceptance of gifts by public officials

Acceptance of gifts by public officials

Decision of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 15,486

Members of the Board of Education of the Massapequa Union Free School District attended a social event sponsored by the board’s attorneys. Paul Dashefsky, claiming that as the fair market value of the reception was between $200 and $300 per person, complained that such attendance constituted a violation of district policy and General Municipal Law §805-a.

He asked the Commissioner to rule that the board members’ attendance constituted a violation of law and district policy. He also asked the Commissioner to direct the board members “to cease and desist from accepting any prohibited gifts.” Finally, Dashefsky wanted the Commissioner to direct the board members “to publicly disclose all gifts accepted during their term of service;” and to reimburse the district for the fair market value of any gifts accepted in violation of law or district policy.

Although the Commissioner dismissed Dashefsky’s appeal as untimely, he said that “Even if it were not dismissed on procedural grounds, the appeal would be dismissed on the merits.”

Dashefsky had the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief he sought and the burden of establishing the facts upon which he seeks relief. The Commissioner said that Dashefsky’s claim that the cost of the reception was between $200 and $300 per person was mere speculation as there was nothing in the record to confirm this allegation. Accordingly, said the Commissioner, Dashefsky failed to establish that the dollar limit set out in the statute or the policy had been violated..

The Commissioner, however, said that he felt “compelled to remind [the board members] of the gift prohibitions in the General Municipal Law and their obligations thereunder.” General Municipal Law §805-a(1) states:

No municipal officer or employee shall: a. directly or indirectly, solicit any gift, or accept or receive any gift having a value of seventy-five dollars or more, whether in the form of money, service, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, thing or promise, or in any other form, under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred that the gift was intended to influence him, or could reasonably be expected to influence him, in the performance of his official duties or was intended as a reward for any official action on his part.

The Commissioner cautioned:

“A violation of §805-a(1) occurs not only where there is an intent to influence or reward an official but also in instances where there is an appearance that a gift will influence the official (Op Atty Gen No. 89-48). Under this standard, it may “reasonably be inferred” that the reception was intended to influence, or “could reasonably be expected to influence” the board’s decision to continue its business relationship with the law firm or to reward the board for past actions, including the retention of the firm’s services.

“As public officials, board members must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. (Op Atty Gen No. 89-48). I thus encourage the individual board members to be scrupulous in their adherence to the gift prohibitions contained in General Municipal Law §805-a(1) and board policy.”

Substantial evidence that the educator would be reemployed during the succeeding school year defeats teacher’s claim for unemployment insurance between school years

Substantial evidence that the educator would be reemployed during the succeeding school year defeats teacher’s claim for unemployment insurance between school years
Matter of Murphy v Commissioner of Labor, 2011 NY Slip Op 05396, Appellate Division, Third Department

A professional employed by an educational institution is ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits for the period between two successive academic years when he or she has received a reasonable assurance of continued employment.*

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 1, 2010, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she had a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

Patricia J. Murphy was employed as a per diem substitute teacher in Manhattan and the Bronx by the New York City Department of Education during the 2008-2009 school year for a total of 154 days. On June 12, 2009, claimant was sent a letter by the employer assuring her of continued employment during the upcoming 2009-2010 school year, with the amount of work available and the economic terms and conditions of employment to be substantially the same as in the previous year.

Murphy applied for unemployment insurance benefits for the summer of 2009 buts the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately determined that she was ineligible to receive them as she had received a reasonable assurance of continued employment. Murphy appealed the Board’s determination.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s ruling, holding that the testimony by the school district, together with the letter sent to Murphy indicating a belief she would be offered the same amount of work during the succeeding academic year, provide substantial evidence to support the Board's determination.

* Labor Law §590 [10]

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_05396.htm

Applicant for employment as a corrections officer rejected because of misdemeanor convictions

Applicant for employment as a corrections officer rejected because of misdemeanor convictions

Matter of Little v County of Westchester, 36 AD3d 616

Kith Little was disqualified for employment as a Westchester County corrections officer because he had been earlier convicted of misdemeanors.

He sued Rocco Pozzi, the Westchester County Commissioner of Correction, seeking a court order directing his appointment as a corrections officer. The court sustained the Commissioner’s determination that Little’s previous misdemeanor convictions rendered him unfit for the position of correction officer.

The Appellate Division said that the appointing authority has wide discretion in determining the fitness of candidates, “which discretion is particularly broad in the hiring of law enforcement officers, to whom high standards may be applied.”

Finding that Pozzi’s decision was neither irrational nor arbitrary, the court dismissed Little’s appeal.

Section 50.4 of the Civil Service Law permits the State Department of Civil Service or a municipal commission or personnel officer to "investigate the qualifications and background of an eligible after he [or she] has been appointed ... and upon finding facts which if known prior to appointment, would have warranted his [or her] disqualification ... direct that his [or her] employment be terminated." 

Except in cases of fraud, there is a three-year statute of limitation on disqualifying an employee pursuant to Section 50.4.

Misinformation may be given by a candidate when completing an application for employment. The Angelopoulos case, [Angelopoulos v New York City Civil Service Commission, Appellate Division, First Department], however, did not involve misinformation but rather the omission of certain information from the application form. According to the decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, Angelopoulos was disqualified from his position of police officer on the grounds that he "fraudulently omitted his military service on his application for employment...."

Although Angelopoulos stated that he had no prior military service and that he had never used an alias, it was determined that he had enlisted in the United States Army under the name of Angelo.

This misrepresentation was discovered during a post-employment investigation that revealed that a felony warrant had been issued against Angelopoulos for desertion from the Army and that he was given a "General Discharge in absentia" from the Army. On the basis of this falsification, Angelopoulos was disqualified from the police force for fraud. His dismissal upheld by the New York City Civil Service Commission.

Under Section 50.4 of the Civil Service Law, an individual may be disqualified only for "fraud of a substantial nature" in his application. Angelopoulos argued that he did not commit any fraud as he had agreed to a general discharge in connection with the settlement of a disciplinary matter while in the Army and that "he understood that his period of service was a ‘nullity’, which he need never reveal."

The Appellate Division said that Angelopoulos neither disclosed the fact of his service nor his use of an alias in connection with his military service. This, it ruled, "could not be said that these misrepresentations were immaterial."

The Court also noted that Angelopoulos falsely indicated that he was employed in a civilian job while he was actually in the military, which it said "goes beyond mere concealment." It then sustained his disqualification by the Commission.

Another case, Carchietta v Department of Personnel, 568 NY2d 386, involved the disqualification of a candidate for appointment to police officer positions based on information revealed in the course of a pre-employment checking the applicant's background.

Carchietta was disqualified by the New York City Department of Personnel for appointment as a police officer. The Department had disqualified him on the grounds of "character" following a background investigation. According to the report, Carchietta, as a youth, had been arrested in connection with his alleged participation in the transfer of a forged prescription for illicit drugs. Apparently, the Department decided that his explanation of his involvement in the incident was "questionable."

Claiming that the Department's decision to disqualify him was arbitrary and capricious, Carchietta sued. Rejecting his appeal, the Appellate Division said that Carchietta had failed to present evidentiary facts from which an inference of bad faith, illegality or arbitrary or capricious conduct can be drawn. The court said that record supported the Civil Service Commission's "exercise of its broad discretion" in disqualifying Carchietta for the position of police officer on the basis of his "character."

Section 106 of the Civil Service Law makes it a misdemeanor for any individual to impersonate a candidate in a civil service examination as well as a candidate allowing another individual to impersonate him or her in the examination.

Although litigation involving disqualification of a candidate pursuant to §50.4 of the Civil Service Law is relatively common, cases dealing with alleged violations of §106 are rare. One of the few cases reported concerning violations of §106 is People v Knox, l78 AD 344, a case decided in 1903, in which the Appellate Division ruled that a civil service commission may disqualify an applicant where it finds that fraud or deception has been practiced.

Daubman v Nassau County Civil Service Commission, 601 NY2d 14, notes that §50.4(b) of the Civil Service Law allows a civil service commission to disqualify an individual for appointment if the applicant or appointee "is found to have a disability which renders him or her unfit to perform in a reasonable manner the duties of the position in which he or she seeks employment, or which may reasonably be expected to render him or her unfit to continue to perform in a reasonable manner the duties of the position...." 

The Daubman decision suggests that a civil service commission should consider the standards imposed by the State's Human Rights Law in determining whether an individual should be disqualified because of a "disability." 

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.