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

April 05, 2012

Allegations of defamation of the employee follow postings made on the employer's web site


Allegations of defamation of the employee follow postings made on the employer's web site 

Firth v State of New York, NYS Court of Appeals, 98 NY2d 365

From time to time, an employee will sue his or her public employer contending that he or she was defamed because of the employer's dissemination of information concerning his or her performance of official duties that the individual considers demeaning or embarrassing.

Among the most common "defamation" claims are those involving an individual alleging that internal communications between administrators or between an employee and an administrator or a third party concerning the worker contains libelous or defamatory statements.*

As a general rule, unless the individual is able to demonstrate "publication" and prove "malice," the courts usually dispose of such cases involving a public employer by applying the doctrine of "qualified immunity."

The electronic age has provided an additional potential source of litigation based on allegations that the publication of certain information constitutes libel.

Many public jurisdictions maintain a "web-site" to disseminate information to the public. The Firth decision concerns a situation where placing a report critical of an individual resulted in the individual suing the public entity for defamation.

George Firth, formerly employed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as its Director of the Division of Law Enforcement, sued the State, alleging that it defamed him when it placed a report issued by the Office of the State Inspector General critical of Firth's managerial style and the procedures he used in procuring weapons for the agency on State-maintained web-sites available to the public.

At a press conference, the Office of the State Inspector General distributed a report entitled The Best Bang for Their Buck, in which Firth's management style was criticized. On the same day, the State Education Department posted an executive summary of the report with links to the full text of the report on its Government Locator Internet site.

As characterized by the Court of Appeals, the central issue in Firth's appeal concerned how "defamation jurisprudence, developed in New York courts in connection with traditional, i.e., printed, mass media communications, applies to communications in a new medium -- cyberspace -- in the modern Information Age" insofar as the statute of limitations for bringing such a law suit is concerned.

The court's conclusion: the single publication rule is applicable to allegedly defamatory statements that are posted on an Internet site and an unrelated modification of information displayed in another part of the same Web site does not constitute a republication for the purpose of determining the one-year statute of limitations for defamation actions set out in Section 215(13) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

In effect, the statute of limitations begins to run when the statement alleged to have disparaged the individual is first made available on the Internet.

Although "republication" will "retrigger" the running of the statute of limitations, the Court of Appeals ruled that "[t]he mere addition of unrelated information to a Web site cannot be equated with the repetition of defamatory matter" as a separate publication.

Consider another aspect of the electronic distribution of information electronically -- the use of E-mail as a vehicle for transmitting statements alleged to disparage an individual. This issue was not addressed by the court in the Firth decision.

Clearly the date on which the E-mail was initially transmitted would trigger the running of the statute of limitations in such cases. But what is the effect of the "forwarding" of E-mail?

Will the courts consider "forwarding" an E-mail by the recipient to another individual to be a "republication" for the purposes of determining the timeliness of an action? Still another element to consider -- may the "forwarder" be sued for the alleged libel?

If the courts deem each "forwarding" [and, perhaps, the "forwarder"] of an E-mail to be an independent and unique "republication" for the purposes of determining the running of the statute of limitations and liability, it may be that alleged disparagement by E-mail may never become stale insofar as bringing a viable law suit is concerned. Undoubtedly these issues will be presented to the courts for resolution because of the proliferation electronic communication and dissemination of information in the workplace.

* Murphy v Herfort140 A.D.2d 415, is an example of litigation resulting from communications between administrators while Missek-Falkoff v Keller, 153 AD2d 841, is an example of a case in which one employee sued another employee claiming that the contents of a memorandum from the second employee to a superior concerning a "problem" with the coworker constituted libel. Allegations of defamation may arise following an employee's former employer supplying information to a prospective employer of the individual in response to a request for "references." Buxton v Plant City, 57 LW 2649, provides an example of this type of complaint.

April 04, 2012

Failure to possess a valid license or certificate required by law to perform the duties of the position held a valid basis for terminating the incumbent from the position


Failure to possess a valid license or certificate required by law to perform the duties of the position held a valid basis for terminating the incumbent from the position
Lutz v Krokoff, 2012 NY Slip Op 22083, Supreme Court, Albany County, Justice Michael C. Lynch

An Albany, New York police officer’s driver’s license was revoked as the result of an off-duty incident.

The Chief of Police wrote the officer indicating that possession of a valid driver’s license “is a minimum qualification for [a] Police Officer in the City of Albany” and offered him “the opportunity to present ...written documentation regarding the status of [his] license.…” The officer told the Chief that his driver's license was "currently suspended pending prosecution and revoked ... but that he had filed a “Notice of Appeal.”

Chief Krokoff terminated the police officer from his position "effective immediately" explaining:

“In that you no longer hold a valid State driver's license allowing you to lawfully operate a motor vehicle in this State, you no longer meet a critically important minimum qualification of a Police Officer in the City of Albany.”

The officer sued, contending that the Chief’s determination to terminate his employment based on his failure to possess a valid driver's license was affected by an error of law and was arbitrary and capricious. The officer also argues that the determination was without a rational basis and arbitrary and capricious because "no other police officer who has had his or her license temporarily suspended or revoked has been terminated ...for the failure to possess a valid New York State driver's license".

Addressing the issue of “due process,” the court said that “A pre-termination hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 or, in certain cases, a collective bargaining agreement, is not necessarily required where a public employee becomes ineligible or unqualified for continued employment,” citing New York State Office of Children and Family Services v. Lanterman, 14 NY3d 275 and Felix v. NY City Dep't of Citywide Admin. Servs., 3 NY3d 498.

Justice Lynch, referring to Felix, commented that in that case the Court of Appeals distinguished between conduct that renders an employee ineligible to continue employment (i.e.the failure to maintain a residence in the City as required by the City Code) with conduct constituting misconduct.

Only action in the nature of discipline is subject to pre-termination review pursuant to the Civil Service Law or a similar law, or a disciplinary procedure set out in a collective bargaining agreement. 

In contrast, where an individual is required by law to posses a valid license or “professional certification” in order to lawfully perform the duties of the position was the individual’s failure to produce evidence of his or her possession of the required license or certification meant that he or she was not qualified to hold the position rather than “incompetent,” in a pejorative sense, to perform the duties of the position.*

In this instance, said the court, the issue was whether Chief Krokoff's determination to summarily terminate the police officer based on his failure to posses a valid New York State driver's license was made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.

The question presented here did not implicate issues concerning the police officer’s performing the duties of his job satisfactorily or allegations of misconduct or competency. Rather, the police officer's ability “to operate a vehicle legally (i.e. with a valid license) is “a defined standard that is not related to job performance.” Justice Lynch concluded that once an officer loses his or her driver’s license, he or she is no longer able to perform the duties of his or her job lawfully. Whether that officer has engaged in misconduct or failed to competently perform such duties was not at issue.

In Justice Lynch’s view, the maintenance of a valid driver's license was a qualification for employment as a police officer in the City of Albany. As such, the Chief's decision to terminate the police officer without a hearing because he was unable to produce evidence of having a valid driver’s license was not arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law or a violation of due process.

As to the police officer’s claim of “disparate treatment” because "no other police officer who has had his or her license temporarily suspended or revoked has been terminated ... for the failure to possess a valid New York State driver's license," the court noted that Chief Krokoff had indicated that “since he became Chief of Police … no other police officer has been similarly situated to [the police officer] insofar as not having a valid driver's license" and the officer “has not demonstrated otherwise.”

Justice Lynch denied the police officer’s petition and dismissed his complaint.

* In Martin ex rel Lekkas, 86 AD2d 712, the appointing authority had terminated Lekkas from his position because he did not hold a valid New York State license to practice medicine. However, Lekkas served in an administrative capacity and did not practice medicine. The court held that only where the duties of the position required the incumbent to be licensed may the lack of such a license be grounds for termination.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_22083.htm

Health insurance benefit enjoyed by retired individuals not subject to collective bargaining between the employer and the employee organization absent the consent of all the parties


Health insurance benefit enjoyed by retired individuals not subject to collective bargaining between the employer and the employee organization absent the consent of all the parties
DiBattista v County of Westchester, 35 Misc3d 1205

The action involved some 1,600 individuals who retired from Westchester County as their employer between 1993 and 2004.

Between 1993 and 2001, two collective bargaining agreements were executed between CSEA and Westchester County. These agreements, among other things, provided for certain medical health insurance benefits. Those provisions remained in effect until May 2004 when a new agreement was made.

The 2004 agreement changed the health benefits available to active employees and Westchester County decided that such changes should also be imposed on its then retired employees. The County indicated that it had been its policy to treat retirees the same as active employees whenever a new collective bargaining agreement negotiated.

The retired employees sued, contending the County could not modify their health insurance benefits to reflect the benefits it and CSEA had negotiated on behalf of active employees in the collective bargaining unit when such modification resulted in an increase in their medical and health insurance costs.

Justice Lefkowitz agreed, ruling:

1. “Absent consent of all parties, a union does not represent retirees when it negotiates with an employer in collective bargaining;

2. “Vested retirement rights may not be altered without the pensioner's consent;

3. “Where, as here, there is no durational limit in the immediate prior collective bargaining agreements as to retiree health insurance benefits 'it is unlikely that such benefits, which are typically understood as a form of delayed compensation for past services, would be left to the contingencies of future negotiations';

4. “Retiree benefits 'carry with them an inference that they continue so long as the prerequisite status is maintained'; and

5. “This inference trumps any general duration clause as to the life or termination of the agreement.”

Deciding in favor of the retirees, Justice Lefkowitz held that the retirees’ health insurance benefits set out in the prior collective bargaining agreements survived the 2004 negotiated agreement and could not be modified without their consent, citing Hudock v. Village of Endicott, 28 AD3rd 923 and other decisions.

N.B. The County appealed Justice Lefkowitz's decision but subsequently decided to withdraw its appeals. The Appellate Division granted the County’s application to withdraw the appeals [DiBattista v County of Westchester, Slip Opinion No: 2010 NY Slip Op 60446(U), Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_52731.htm

A party seeking to set aside a stipulation in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding must demonstrate “good cause” such as fraud, overreaching, duress, or mistake


A party seeking to set aside a stipulation in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding must demonstrate “good cause” such as fraud, overreaching, duress, or mistake
Sheng v State of N.Y. Div. of Human Rights, 2012 NY Slip Op 02310, Appellate Division, Second Department

The New York State Division of Human Rights dismissed Juan Y. Sheng’s  administrative complaint alleging unlawful discrimination after deterimining that there was “no probable cause.” Subsequenlty Sheng asked  Supreme Court to vacate a stipulation discontinuing the proceeding before the Division with prejudice. Supreme Court denied Sheng’s petition.

The Appellate Division dismissed Sheng’s appeal, explaining that stipulations disposing of proceedings and actions "are favored by the courts and are not to be lightly set aside, especially where, as here, the party seeking to vacate the stipulation was represented by counsel." Further, said the court, A party seeking to set aside such a stipulation will be granted relief only upon a showing of good cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, overreaching, duress, or mistake,” citing McCoy v Feinman, 99 NY2d 295.

Concluding that Supreme Court properly determined that Sheng failed to demonstrate good cause to set aside the stipulation discontinuing the proceeding with prejudice, the Appellate Division commented that “The failure of [Sheng’s]  attorney to ascertain or understand the legal effect of a discontinuance with prejudice was not a basis upon which to vacate the sitpulation.”

Further, the court said that Sheng submitted no evidence in support of her claim of fraudulent inducement based on opposing counsel's failure to inform her counsel of the legal ramifications of a discontinuance with prejudice. In the words of the Appellate Division, “opposing counsel owed no duty to disclose her understanding of those legal ramifications” to Sheng or Sheng’s attorney.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02310.htm

April 03, 2012

The denial of a FOIL request by an entity subject to the Freedom of Information Law may not be based on the purpose for which the document or record was produced or the function to which it relates


The denial of a FOIL request by an entity subject to the Freedom of Information Law may not be based on the purpose for which the document or record was produced or the function to which it relates
Hayes v Chestertown Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 02367, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Chestertown Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. [CVFC] partially denying Christine A. Hayes’s Freedom of Information Law requests, contending that it was a private corporation not subject to the requirements of FOIL.

Ultimately Hayes initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding seeking to compel CVFC to comply with numerous FOIL requests and the Open Meetings Law, as well as an award of counsel fees and litigation costs.

Supreme Court held that the Open Meetings Law was not applicable to the meetings held by CVFC and ordered CVFC to submit the documents requested by Hayes to the court for an in camera review so that it could redact any records containing "non-firematic" information. Hayes appealed.

The Appellate Division, agreeing with Hayes, said that “to the extent Supreme Court's FOIL determination differentiated between records concerning public, or ‘firematic,’ and private functions of CVFC, this was error.”  Although Supreme Court found, and CVFC conceded, that CVFC is an "agency" subject to the requirements of FOIL, it was incorrect in determining that “because CVFC engages in both governmental and private activities, the records of its nongovernmental functions are not subject to FOIL's disclosure requirements.”

Commenting that nothing in the statute itself and nothing in the legislative history suggesting that the Legislature intended such content-based limitation in defining the term "record," the Appellate Division said that the Court of Appeals has consistently held that "FOIL's scope is not to be limited based on 'the purpose for which the document was produced or the function to which it relates,'" citing Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Kimball, 50 NY2d at 581.

Having determined that CVFC is an "agency" subject to FOIL, the Appellate Division said that Supreme Court was required to order disclosure of the requested records — without regard to whether they related to governmental or nongovernmental functions — unless one of the exceptions set forth in Public Officers Law §87 (2) was applicable.” Noting that CVFC had not claimed the benefit of any FOIL exemption,* "it must make the requested records available” to Hayes.

The Appellate Division, however, said that it was not persuaded that Supreme Court erred in denying Hayes' request for counsel fees and litigation costs. Explaining that "Reasonable counsel fees 'may' be awarded by the court in a FOIL proceeding where the litigant has 'substantially prevailed,' where the court finds that the record involved was 'of clearly significant interest to the general public' and where 'the agency lacked a reasonable basis in law for withholding the record,'" the court said that even where all of the statutory requirements have been met, "the decision whether to award counsel fees rests in the discretion of the court and will not be overturned in the absence of an abuse of such discretion." 

Although Hayes had “substantially prevailed,” characterizing the documents sought as “not of significant interest to the general public, the Appellate Division decided that Supreme Court had not abused its discretion in denying Hayes' request for attorney fees and costs.

As to Hayes’ complaint concerning CVFC's alleged violation of the Open Meetings Law, the Appellate Division held that although “CVFC is an ‘agency’ under FOIL, it is not a ‘public body’ subject to the Open Meetings Law” and thus its monthly meetings need not be open to the public.

The Open Meetings Law, said the court, requires that "[e]very meeting of a public body … be open to the general public," citing Public Officers Law §103[a], and defines "public body" as "any entity, for which a quorum is required in order to conduct public business and which consists of two or more members, performing a governmental function for the state or for an agency or department thereof."

While there was no dispute that the Fire District, as a political subdivision of the State and thus a "public body," is subject to the Open Meetings Law, the Appellate Division noted that, in contrast, CVFC is a private, not-for-profit corporation organized as a charitable organization under the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law and governed by its constitution and bylaws.** 

As the record established that, unlike the meetings of the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Fire District where the official government business of the Fire District is conducted, the meetings of CVFC relate to its internal affairs and the social, recreational and benevolent activities that it undertakes in furtherance of its charitable purpose. Further, said the court, CVFC receives no public funds for such events and activities, which are instead supported through fundraising and donations from private sources. Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that CVFC is not a "public body" under the Open Meetings Law.

* The release of some public records is limited by statute [see, for example, Education Law, §1127 - Confidentiality of records; §33.13, Mental Hygiene Law - Clinical records; confidentiality]. Otherwise, an individual is not required to submit a FOIL request as a condition precedent to obtaining public records where access is not barred by statute. A FOIL request is required only in the event the custodian of the public record[s] sought declines to “voluntarily” provide the information or record requested. In such cases the individual or organization is required to file a FOIL request to obtain the information. It should also be noted that there is no bar to providing information pursuant to a FOIL request, or otherwise, that falls within one or more of the exceptions that the custodian could rely upon in denying a FOIL request, in whole or in part, for the information or records demanded.

** See N-PCL §§201 and 1402[e][1].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02367.htm

If the CBA provides for the arbitration of alleged contract violations, unless there is a statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition barring such arbitration courts cannot stay the arbitration


If the CBA provides for the arbitration of alleged contract violations, unless there is a statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition barring such arbitration courts cannot stay the arbitration
County of Rockland v Civil Serv. Empl. Assn., Inc., 2012 NY Slip Op 01815, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (CSEA), filed a grievance on behalf of one of its members in the collective bargaining unit and shortly thereafter filed a similar grievance on behalf of another of its members in the unit. Both grievances filed by CSEA alleged that Rockland County had violated certain provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA] between CSEA and the County when it assigned per diem employees to perform certain work instead of giving those assignments to regular full- and part-time employees in the collective bargaining unit.

Rockland denied the grievances and ultimately CSEA demanded that the grievances be submitted to binding arbitration.

Rockland County filed an Article 75 petition in Supreme Court seeking a court order permanently staying the arbitration. Supreme Court granted its petition and permanently stayed the arbitration of the grievances. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s order.

The Appellate Division said that in the public sector context, determining whether a grievance is arbitrable requires a court to first determine whether there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance.

If the demand for arbitration meets this test, then the court must then determine "whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement."

The Appellate Division said that inasmuch as the grievances allege that Rockland County violated certain provisions of the CBA, and the CBA contains a procedure to arbitrate "any alleged violation, misrepresentation, or inequitable application of [the CBA]," the parties have agreed to arbitrate the grievances.

Further, noted the court, Rockland’s allegation that CSEA’s demand for arbitration was untimely is an issue to be resolved by the arbitrator and not the courts.

Thus, said the Appellate Division, Supreme Court erred in granting the County’s petition and permanently staying the arbitration. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

April 02, 2012

Removal from public office


Removal from public office

Warren v Bielecki, 2012 NY Slip Op 01037, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Although this action seeking to remove two persons from public office pursuant to Public Officers Law §36 was dismissed as moot as the individuals targeted for such removal no longer held public office, the Appellate Division commented that had it consider the matter on its merits if would have dismissed the petition seeking such removals.

The court noted that based on the findings of fact made by a referee it had appointed, there were insufficient grounds upon which to remove either individual from office pursuant to Public Officers Law §36.

Removal from public officer pursuant to Public Officers Law §36 requires evidence of "self-dealing, corrupt activities, conflict of interest, moral turpitude, intentional wrongdoing or violation of a public trust."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_01037.htm

Lack of objective evidence of a disability supports rejection of employee’s application for disability retirement benefits


Lack of objective evidence of a disability supports rejection of employee’s application for disability retirement benefits
Hughes v Kelly, 2012 NY Slip Op 02393, Appellate Division, First Department
A New York City police officer, Jeffrey Hughes, filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits. He also filed an application for ordinary disability retirement benefits. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly rejected denied both applications and Hughes filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking to overturn the Commissioner’s determination.
Supreme Court dismissed Hughes’ petition. Unanimously affirming the lower court’s ruling, the Appellate Division held that there was a rational basis the Commissioner’s determination.
The record, said the court, showed that after reviewing the medical evidence submitted by Hughes and the findings from its physical examinations of Hughes, the Medical Board concluded that "there was no objective evidence of a disability." Citing Matter of Appleby v Herkommer, 165 AD2d 727, the Appellate Division noted that “ It is well established that the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Medical Board.”
The decision indicates that the Medical Board found that the deficits in Hughes’ “range of motion” were attributable to "voluntary guarding" and there were no objective radiographic studies presented showing any abnormal findings. Further, said the court, Board considered evidence submitted by Hughes' personal physicians and provided a rational explanation for its medical judgment.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02393.htm

March 31, 2012

Retrenchment in education: a national problem

Retrenchment in education: a national problem
Source: Selected items reported in newspapers and blogs and on television concerning teacher layoffs

Below are some of the articles concerning the reduction of teaching personnel in schools districts throughout the United States.


Montville schools brace for cuts; 18 teachers get layoff notices
Norwich Bulletin
By KALA KACHMAR The Montville school district has issued layoff notices to 18 teachers indicating the school board might not renew their contracts next year because of budget constraints. The state requires teachers be notified by May 1 if there is a ...
See all stories on this topic »

Pontiac schools to lay off 95, including 43 teachers
The Detroit News
By Shawn D. Lewis Pontiac— The Pontiac Public School District will lay off 95 employees, including 43 teachers, beginning next month as part of its plan to eliminate a $24.5 million deficit. The cuts also include 27 school administrators, ...
See all stories on this topic »

Zionsville economy, property values, quality teachers hang in the balance of ...
Indianapolis Star
The rejection resulted in the layoff of 21 teaching and counseling positions. Last year, the school district finally got a money-saving ballot measure passed when 74.5 percent approved a plan to refinance debt as a way to generate a few million dollars ...
See all stories on this topic »

Ohio Federation of Teachers says Cleveland reform plan lacks any proven ...
Plain Dealer
Jackson's plan would possibly expand the school year or school day, set-up a merit pay for teachers, base layoffs on teacher performance and make getting rid of poor teachers easier. Seniority would no longer be the sole determining factor in layoffs ...
See all stories on this topic »


Shrewsbury parents object to class sizes, talk override
Wicked Local
Although Superintendent Joseph Sawyer announced $2.3 million in cuts recently, including five teacher layoffs and the loss of 32 full-time positions, the district is still facing an $844000 budget gap. If the town does not receive increased revenue, ...
See all stories on this topic »

979 fewer teachers in Maryland public schools
The Star Democrat
Half of the state's school systems have fewer teachers this year than last with a system's largest decline reaching 634. In recent years, some other states have undergone budget cuts sometimes resulting in thousands of teacher layoffs.
See all stories on this topic »

School board works to close budget gap
YNN
After last week's recommendation of more than 100 teacher layoffs, Superintendent Joe Hochreiter laid out further possible reductions in special education services and facility usage. Hochreiter also challenged the district staff to make concessions if ...
See all stories on this topic »

Littleton Educators' Association, School Committee reach tentative agreement
Wicked Local
... would cost $16.9 million in fiscal 2013, including step-and-lane salary increases and increased special education costs, the School Committee has voted for a $16.3 million budget, which may incorporate both teacher layoffs and fee increases.
See all stories on this topic »

Public speaks against Shenandoah Valley budget plan
Republican & Herald
SHENANDOAH - The proposed cuts in many programs and layoffs of teachers drew a standing-room-only crowd for Wednesday's regular meeting of the Shenandoah Valley Board of Education, with most speakers focusing on the planned loss of the music program.
See all stories on this topic »

Schools Will Be Protected From Cuts Next Year, Walcott Says
New York Times
By Anna M. Phillips After years of painful cuts and threats of teacher layoffs, New York officials laid out on Tuesday a decidedly more optimistic portrait of financing for city schools next year, saying they expected that principals would have enough ...
See all stories on this topic »

Massie tells City Council funding gap will bring more teacher layoffs
Lynchburg News and Advance
Interim Superintendent Larry Massie told Lynchburg City Council Tuesday the school division will cut more teachers, beyond the 34 positions already budgeted, if $3.7 million in additional funding does not materialize. Massie and School Board Chairman ...
See all stories on this topic »

No teacher layoffs in Kingsburg schools
Kingsburg Recorder
By Mary Lou Aguirre Kingsburg Joint Union High School District teachers can enjoy their spring vacation knowing their jobs aren't in jeopardy. KHS Principal/Superintendent Randy Morris was asked if state cuts to education would result in layoffs for ...
See all stories on this topic »

Hundreds protest layoffs at Baldwin Park Unified meeting
Pasadena Star-News
BALDWIN PARK - Dressed in red and armed with signs and chants, hundreds of parents, children and teachers Tuesday took on a half-mile march to a Baldwin Park Unified board meeting to protest recent teacher layoffs. The rally came on the heels of a ...
See all stories on this topic »

Breaking Down the Budget: What Teacher Layoffs Would Mean
Patch.com
Patch File photo As the Three Village Central School District copes with losses in state aid combined with unfunded mandates and rising costs, administrators have proposed eliminating nine full-time equivalent teaching positions at the elementary level ...
See all stories on this topic »

Fulton County Schools officials say budget could be balanced without layoffs ...
Atlanta Journal Constitution
By D. Aileen Dodd Fulton County Schools chief financial officer Robert Morales said Tuesday as the district prepares for budget season it is facing a $41.9 million funding gap that it could handle without teacher layoffs or furlough days.
See all stories on this topic »

Students upset iPads bought for school while teachers are laid-off
39online.com
Well originally there was the suggestion that the $18 million spent on the devices would be better served preventing teacher's layoffs. But since bond money can't be used for salaries, the argument of equality came up, suggesting that rather than ...
See all stories on this topic »

School Board Approves 52 Layoff Notices, Technology Upgrades
Patch.com
By Carl Engelking As part of the planning process for the 2012-13 budget, the Menomonee Falls School Board on Monday approved the issuance of 52 preliminary layoff notices for teaching staff. School Board Member Gina Palazzari said the total number of ...
See all stories on this topic »

Protest Planned at School Board Meeting for Teacher Layoffs
Patch.com
"There will be hundreds of parents, teachers and students wearing red to support our teachers." At least seven teachers are being laid off in Geddes Elementary, according to Mata. The school is located at 14600 Cavette Place, close to the intersection ...
See all stories on this topic »

Dublin to lay off 16 teachers, cut 30 vacant positions
Columbus Dispatch
By Collin Binkley Two central Ohio school districts are finalizing layoffs for next school year after November levy failures. The Dublin school board voted tonight to cut 46 teaching jobs –– though only 16 people will lose jobs –– and 133 supplemental ...
See all stories on this topic »

Republicans look to governor on teacher layoffs
Pioneer Press
By Megan Boldt State lawmakers who want to end seniority-based teacher layoffs put Gov. Mark Dayton's education chief on the hot seat Monday, March 26, on whether the Democrat's administration had any appetite to negotiate an agreement this year on ...
See all stories on this topic »

Calif. Schools Urged to Change Layoff Policy to Improve Teaching
NewsMax.com
By Andy Butcher California school officials should change their staff downsizing policy to improve teaching and boost morale, according to the state legislative analyst's office. Procedures now base layoffs on seniority, which means that the most ...
See all stories on this topic »

California Urged To Address Teacher-Layoff Policies
Education Week News (blog)
By Stephen Sawchuk on March 26, 2012 10:18 AM An analysis from California's Legislative Analyst's Office urges the state to consider revamping its teacher-layoff policies, including reducing the emphasis on seniority. The report makes nonpartisan ...
See all stories on this topic »

Board Rejects Plan to Lay Off 500 Teachers, Staff
Patch.com
“Our teachers and paraprofessionals are our children's greatest asset. We really urge you to have some discussions with us before making a decision.” Staff members urged the board to reject the layoffs, and some questioned a proposal to implement a ...
See all stories on this topic »

Lennox district shields teachers
Daily Breeze
By Rob Kuznia Staff Writer In a move that has the teachers union up in arms, the Lennox School District is making an end-run around "last-hired, first-fired" seniority laws, sending layoff notices to 100 of the district's 340 teachers, yet shielding ...
See all stories on this topic »

Cleveland Teachers Union and Mayor Frank Jackson move closer to agreement on ...
Plain Dealer (blog)
The major accord came with how to handle the layoff and recall of teachers, with Jackson agreeing Monday to use the plan suggested by teachers last week. The compromise plan would rely on teacher evaluations first, and tenure and seniority second.
See all stories on this topic »


Teachers' Support For Reform Depends In Part On Experience -- Gates/Scholastic ...
Huffington Post
"Layoffs shouldn't be based on seniority, and it's good to make it hard to let go of teachers who are doing well." Many of these reform measures involve shaking up the teaching profession in a way that makes promotion less dependent on experience.
See all stories on this topic »

Teacher tenure bill may be unacceptable to Gov. Dayton
Minnesota Public Radio
They want public school administrators to be able to consider job performance, and not just years of service, when making decisions about teacher layoffs. Cassellius said she shares the goal of having effective teachers in every classroom.
See all stories on this topic »


Clyde cuts teachers, mulls levy
Fremont News Messenger
Elchert said there is a possibility the district could receive more retirements in the summer, which could lead to some of the laid-off employees being called back to work. The board also approved reductions to several non-teaching positions.
See all stories on this topic »


 =========================
The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click On http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/ for additional information about this electronic reference manual.
 =========================




March 30, 2012

In an Article 75 challenge to a §3020-a disciplinary decision, the court asks [1] does the award have evidentiary support? and [2] is the award arbitrary and capricious?

In an Article 75 challenge to a §3020-a disciplinary decision, the court asks [1] does the award have evidentiary support? and [2] is the award arbitrary and capricious?
Malone v Board of Educ. of East Meadow Union Free School Dist., 2012 NY Slip Op 02306, Appellate Division, Second Department

A tenured teacher was stopping cars exiting the driveway of East Meadow High School in order to distribute leaflets concerning ongoing contract negotiations between the teachers' union and the East Meadow Union Free School District.

When the teacher continued to distribute the leaflets after the school principal directed him to cease that activity, he was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law alleging [1] misconduct for causing a hazardous condition and [2] insubordination for failing to obey the principal's directive.

Ultimately the charges proceeded to arbitration and the arbitrator found the teacher guilty of both charges. The teacher then filed an Article 75 petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award.

Supreme Court denied the teacher’s petition and dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Noting that where the requirement to arbitrate is statutory, as is the case in a disciplinary action conducted pursuant to Education Law §3020-a* the arbitrator's determination is subject to "closer judicial scrutiny" under CPLR 7511(b) than it would receive had the arbitration been conducted voluntarily.

However, said the court, in an Article 75 proceeding a court determines only whether the award had evidentiary support and whether the award was arbitrary and capricious.**

Here, the Appellate Division decided that the determination of the arbitrator was based on the evidence proffered at the hearing. This, said the court, including the the teacher's testimony that he approached vehicles as they exited the driveway of the high school, which required him to cross in front of moving vehicles. This, according to the decision, "established the charge of misconduct by adequate evidence."

Further, said the court, “The testimony of both [the teacher] and the school principal that [the teacher] continued to distribute leaflets after being directed to cease this activity established the charge of insubordination by adequate evidence.”

Thus, concluded the Appellate Division, “the findings with respect to both charges were not arbitrary and capricious.”

* See Education Law §3020-a[3]

** Education Law §3020-a[5], “Appeal” provides that “ Not later than ten days after receipt of the hearing officer's decision, the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York state supreme court to vacate or modify the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to section seven thousand five hundred eleven of the civil practice law and rules. The court's review shall be limited to the grounds set forth in such section. The hearing panel's determination shall be deemed to be final for the purpose of such proceeding. In no case shall the filing or the pendency of an appeal delay the implementation of the decision of the hearing officer.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02306.htm


===================
The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State. This more than 1500 page e-book is now available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/ for additional information concerning this electronic reference manual.
 =======================

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.