An individual’s failure to comply with drug test procedures implementing federal regulations cannot be deemed to have violated state or local discrimination laws

An individual’s failure to comply with drug test procedures implementing federal regulations cannot be deemed to have violated state or local discrimination laws

The individual was unable to provide the required urine sample to qualify eligibility for employment as an Assistant City Highway Repairer.

Although Supreme Court summarily granted the individual’s on the issue of liability, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lower courts ruling “on the law” and directed that the individual’s complaint be dismissed.

The court said that there was no competent evidence that the individual suffered from a disabling medical condition that prevented him from being able to produce a urine sample nor, assuming that issues of fact exist whether he suffered a medical impairment, the Appellate Division said that the had failed to make any showing that this impairment caused him to be unable to provide a 45-milliliter urine specimen within the required three-hour time period.

Noting that the employer, in determining that the individual failed to comply with its drug test procedures "implementing federal regulations" governing his eligibility for the position as set out in 49 CFR Part 40, the court said that the employer “cannot have violated state or local discrimination laws by [doing so]," citing Kinneary v City of New York, 601 F3d 151.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03527.htm

Local government management guide on information technology governance available from the Office of the State Comptroller

Local government management guide on information technology governance available from the Office of the State Comptroller

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

The Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Local Government and School Accountability has released its latest edition of its Local Government Management Guide on Information Technology Governance.

The Guide is intended to make the oversight of information technology less daunting by providing a template for understanding and strengthening controls over IT. It includes a Security Self–Assessment structured around twelve key areas of IT security that is intended to help local governments exercise effective oversight of IT operations and serve as a starting point for discussions with personnel who are responsible for the day–to–day management of the entity’s computer operations. 

Readers are invited to e-mail the Division -- localgov@osc.state.ny.us --with questions concerning IT governance or for assistance interpreting the self–assessment results.

The Guide is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/lgmg/itgovernance.pdf?utm_source=weeklynews20120505&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=lgmgitg_pdf

An appointing authority has broad discretion in determining if an omission in the probationer’s application form is material to his or her qualifications for the position

An appointing authority has broad discretion in determining if an omission in the probationer’s application form is material to his or her qualifications for the position

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed a Supreme Court ruling that dismissed a probationary police officer’s challenge to his termination during his probationary period.

The court said that the appointing authority was “entitled to discharge a probationary police officer ‘for almost any reason, or for no reason at all' as long as it is not in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason," citing Duncan v Kelly, 9 NY3d 1024.

The probationer alleged that he was terminated because of his “inadvertent” failure to disclose the psychological treatment he underwent at the age of six. The Appellate Division held that even if the probationer was "ignorant or unaware of or oblivious to his personal history,” the appointing authority was entitled, given the broad discretion vested in it, to deem "such omissions a[s] material to his qualifications."

Citing Talamo v Murphy, 38 NY2d 637, the decision notes that even assuming the truth of the probationer's allegations, his petition failed to allege any facts that would, if proven to be true, constituted a violation of "statute or policies established by decisional law."

As the probationer failed to allege facts supporting a conclusion that his termination was in bad faith, the Appellate Division ruled that “Given this failure, a hearing to resolve the truth of the facts alleged is unnecessary.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03516.htm