ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

October 06, 2011

Employees assumed to have knowledge of their employer's policies

Employees assumed to have knowledge of their employer's policies
Gallagher v Commissioner of Labor, 298 A.D.2d 828

Robert J. Gallagher was suspended from his position as a senior insurance examiner after criminal charges were filed against him. The criminal charges alleged that he had purchased and sold stock options in an insurance company that was regulated by his employer, the New York State Department of Insurance.

Gallagher filed for unemployment insurance benefits but his application was denied. He appealed to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. In his appeal Gallagher admitted to his buying and selling stock options in a company that was regulated by the State Department of Insurance but claimed that he did not know that such conduct was prohibited at the time.

Accordingly, he contended, he should not be deemed culpable to the point that he was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

The Board, however, denied Gallagher's appeal seeking unemployment insurance benefits after it determined that he had engaged in disqualifying misconduct. Gallagher sued, challenging the Board's ruling.

In the words of the Appellate Division,

It is well settled that "[a]n employee's apparent dishonesty or failure to comply with the employer's established policies and procedures can constitute disqualifying misconduct"

The Appellate Division said the record established that not only were such transactions were against the employer's policies, -- they were unlawful. Further, the job description of Gallagher's position and his responsibilities required him to understand the Insurance Law.

In effect, the court said that Gallagher, serving as a Senior Insurance Examiner, would be deemed to have knowledge of the relevant Insurance Department policies and the Insurance Law.

Under the circumstances, said the court, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that Gallagher knew or should have known that his actions were prohibited. It sustained the Commission's decision and dismissed Gallagher's appeal.

Employer's liability for employee’s off-duty conduct

Employer's liability for employee’s off-duty conduct
Perez v City of New York, App. Div., 1st Dept., Docket #1973

In Donahue v Young, Appellate Division, Second Department, Docket 2001-09542, the court held that a municipal employer was not liable under the doctrine of respondent superior[1] when one of its firefighters, while off duty, assisted in extinguishing a fire and in the course providing such assistance, injured a third party. However, the Perez ruling suggests that the courts may view this type of situation differently when the employee in question is a police officer.

In essence, the doctrine "respondeat superior" embraces the concept that the employer is responsible for the actions of its employees.

In the process of making an arrest while off-duty, a New York City police officer, shot and killed an innocent bystander. While not specifically holding that the City was liable for the police officer's action, the Appellate Division did say that the fact that the officer was making an arrest was in and of itself enough to raise a "triable issue" as to whether the City was liable under the theory respondent superior.

The court indicated that "there were substantiated complaints pre-dating the shooting of Perez lodged against the police officer with the Civilian Complaint Review Board." Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, there were issues of fact as to whether the City negligently trained the officer and, or, negligently retained him in its employ.

The Legislature has often provided special benefits for law enforcement and firefighting personnel. For example, Article 14 of the New York State Civil Service Law provide unionized firemen and unionized police the right to interest arbitration regarding terms and conditions of employment whereby other unionized public employees do not. Also, both law enforcement and firefighting personnel enjoy eligibility for special benefits under Sections 207-a and 207-c of the General Municipal Law if they are injured in the course of their employment.

As in Donahue, the police officer was performing a duty he would otherwise perform if officially on duty in the course of which a third party was injured or otherwise harmed. While the Court did not affirmatively decide that the City was culpable, it is clearly stating that there is a legitimate question as to whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applied.

New York State courts have long held that police officers are legitimately held to a higher standard than other public employees for the purposes of discipline. This decision suggests that a law enforcement agency may also be held to a higher standard than other public employers when one of its officers causes an injury to someone while the employee was off duty.

[1] In essence, the doctrine "respondeat superior" expresses the concept that the employer is responsible for the actions of its employees performed in the course of their regular duties.

October 05, 2011

Public employee must serve in a “safety-sensitive” position in order to be subject to random testing for alcohol or unlawful drugs

Public employee must serve in a “safety-sensitive” position in order to be subject to random testing for alcohol or unlawful drugs
New York City Department of Transportation v R.B., OATH Index #1215/11

R.B., a maintenance worker employed by the Staten Island Ferry Division of the Department of Transportation was served with disciplinary charges after testing positive for marijuana in a random drug test.

R.B. challenged the Division’s subjecting him to a random drug and alcohol test that led to the disciplinary action, contending that as he did not serve in a “safety-sensitive” position as he did not perform work on the ferries or on ferry equipment and thus subjecting him to such testing was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis agreed, holding that because R.B. duties were custodial in nature, performed in the ferry buildings and grounds under direct supervision, subjecting him to such random testing violated his rights under the federal Constitution. Judge Lewis sustained R.B.'s motion to dismiss the disciplinary charges filed against him.

The Court of Appeals had approved random drug testing in specific instances such as the testing of law enforcement personnel assigned to narcotics interdiction [see Caruso v Ward, 72 NY2 432]. In contrast, in the Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers case, 70 NY2d 57, the court held that reasonable expectations of privacy required probable cause to permit the school district to require probationary teachers to undergo random testing for unlawful drugs.

As the Court of Appeals held in Delaraba v Nassau County Police Department, 83 N.Y.2d 367, “[i]t is well established law that random drug screening constitutes a search and seizure within the meaning of the Federal and State constitutions (National Treasury Employees Union v Von Raab, 489 US 656; Matter of Caruso v Ward, 72 NY2d 432). The guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures found in both the State and Federal Constitutions (NY Constitution, Article 1, 12; US Constitution, 4th Amend) is designed to protect the personal privacy and dignity of the individual against unwarranted intrusions by the State (Matter of Abe A., 56 NY2d 288; Matter of Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v Board of Education of the Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District, 70 NY2d 57, 64).

“A three-pronged standard of review was articulated in Patchogue-Medford as it related to all probationary teachers eligible for appointment to submit to a urine test for the purpose of detecting potential drug abuse. This Court, invalidating the plan, held that a drug screening plan must be closely scrutinized and permitted only where: (1) the individual's privacy interests are minimal, (2) the government's interests are substantial, and (3) safeguards are in place to ensure that the individual's reasonable expectations of privacy are not subject to unregulated discretion (Patchogue-Medford, supra at 70).”

The general rule in New York State with respect to requiring a "non-security or safety sensitive" public employee to submit to random drug tests is that except where a negotiated agreement or statute authorizes or requires random drug testing, a public employer must have reasonable cause or justified suspicion to require an employee to take an involuntary drug test.

The R.B. decision is posted on the Internet at:

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.