Individual must prove four elements to prevail in a claim that he or she was subjected to retaliation for having filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination

Individual must prove four elements to prevail in a claim that he or she was subjected to retaliation for having filed a complaint alleging unlawful discrimination

A correction officer employed by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision filed an action in the Court of Claims alleging that he had been subjected to retaliation and a hostile work environment in violation of Executive Law §296.

The officer had claimed that he was disciplined after engaging in an on-duty physical confrontation with another correction officer, contending that the other correction officer involved in the confrontation was not disciplined at all and that a different correction officer involved in a similar but unrelated incident received a lesser punishment. He contended that the disciplinary action taken against him was in retaliation of his having previously filed complaints against his supervisors alleging racism.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims’ ruling that the correction officer had failed to establish either claim.

Citing Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, the court explained that to establish a claim for retaliation, a claimant was required to prove the following four elements:

[1] he or she had engaged in protected activity;

[2] his or her employer was aware that he or she had engaged in such activity;

[3] he or she suffered an adverse employment action based upon his or her activity;

[4] there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.

The Appellate Division noted although the first three elements of a retaliation claim were not disputed here, the Court of Claims concluded that there was no evidence of a causal connection between the protected activity and the discipline imposed on claimant.

The Court of Claims had [1] credited the version of events reported by the witnesses to the confrontation and determined that claimant was the aggressor and [2] the confrontation in which the officer had been involved “was more serious than the unrelated incident.”

As to the officer’s “retaliatory hostile work environment claim,” the Appellate Division said that the actions giving rise to such a claim “must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute actionable harassment and stem from a retaliatory animus.”

The Appellate Division held that in determining if such a hostile work environment existed “All of the circumstances must be considered, including ‘the frequency of the [retaliatory] conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.'"  Further, said the court, "[T]he conduct must both have altered the conditions of the victim's employment by being subjectively perceived as abusive by the [claimant], and have created an objectively hostile or abusive environment — one that a reasonable person would find to be so."

Noting that the record supported the conclusion of the Court of Claims that the supervisor's conduct did not pervade claimant's work environment or rise to an actionable level, the court dismissed the correction officer’s appeal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03487.htm

Comptroller’s audit alleges that a former Village of Wolcott clerk-treasurer made unauthorized payments to herself

Comptroller’s audit alleges that a former Village of Wolcott clerk-treasurer made unauthorized payments to herself

An audit report issued by the State Comptroller's Division of Local Government and School Accountability  alleges that a former Village of Wolcott clerk-treasurer misappropriated more than $68,000 of the village's funds over a four-year period.

The village had contacted the Comptroller's office. After reviewing the village's financial records the auditors reported that the village’s accounting records indicated that unauthorized disbursements in the form of extra payroll payments, unauthorized overtime payments, excessive health insurance buyouts, unearned leave payouts, overpayment of vital statistics fees, and payments inappropriately charged to the village’s records management grant had been made.

The audit report recommended the village:

1. Ensure the village's clerk-treasurer maintains adequate, accurate and timely records and reports on an ongoing basis;

2.Require and review detailed monthly financial reports, which should include cash balances, cash receipts and disbursements made during the month, a comparison of actual revenue and expenditures to budget amounts, and bank reconciliations with copies of the bank statements.

3. Adopt and distribute a Code of Ethics, as required by law; and

4. Monitor cash disbursement records to ensure accuracy.

The Division's audit report is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/audits/villages/2012/wolcott.pdf

An internal investigation of a sexual harassment complaint prior to the filing of a complaint with EEOC not a protected activity within the meaning of Title VII

An internal investigation of a sexual harassment complaint prior to the filing of a complaint with the EEOC not a protected activity within the meaning of Title VII

In a case characterized by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, as one of “first impression,” the court ruled that internal investigations by conducted by an employee of alleged acts of unlawful discrimination in accordance with the employer's policy but initiated prior to the filing of a Title VII complaint does not qualify as a “protected activity.”

The genesis of the case was a complaint made to the employer’s Human Resources Director [HRD] by an employee alleging she had been sexually harassed by a corporate executive.

The HRD began to conduct an internal investigation of the allegations. However, before completing the investigation, the HRD was terminated by employer. Contending that her termination was in retaliation for her participation in the internal investigation, the HRD brought an action againt the employer claiming her investigation activities constituted a protected activity within the meaning of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.*

The federal district court granted the employer’s petition for summary judgment, holding that the  HRD’s participation in an internal employer investigation into the employee’s sexual harassment allegations, “an investigation that was not connected to any formal charge with the EEOC,” did not qualify as protected activity under the participation clause of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.

Citing Correa v. Mana Prods, Inc., 550 F. Supp. 2d 319, the district court said that “[i]n order to gain protection under the participation clause, the participation must be in an investigation or proceeding covered by Title VII, and thus not in an internal employer investigation.”  In this instance the court found that the HRD’s investigation was conducted pursuant to the employer’s internal procedures and were not  associated with any Title VII proceeding. 

The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s ruling.**

Noting that EEOC had submitted an amicus brief urging the court to adopt a  “contrary interpretation of the participation clause, one that embraces internal employer investigations,” the Circuit Court said that although EEOC’s views are entitled to deference to the extent they have the power to persuade, “it did not find the EEOC’s interpretation persuasive in this case and affirmed the district court’s granting of summary judgment dismissing the HRD’s Title VII retaliation claim. 

* Title VII's anti-retaliation provision extends protection both to employees who have "opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice" under Title VII (the "opposition clause") and to employees who have "made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under" Title VII (the "participation clause)." On January 24, 2011 the United States Supreme Court unanimously supported a broad reading of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. The high court said that the alleged victim of retaliation has standing to sue even if he or she was not the person who engaged in protected activity [Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, 131 S.Ct. 863, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 913]. In Thompson the court ruled that, under certain circumstances, a third-party termination may constitute an unlawful reprisal under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision and that “a person claiming to be aggrieved … by an alleged employment practice” and who 'falls within the zone of interests protected by Title VII' has standing to sue his employer." Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier, in a concurring opinion, cited Thompson and said that Congress should clarify whether the kind of investigation the HR conducted falls within the protective sweep of the participation clause.

** The court said that it expressed no opinion as to whether participation in an internal investigation that is begun after a formal charge is filed with the EEOC falls within the scope of the participation clause, noting that some courts “have answered this question in the affirmative noting that in Abbott v. Crown Motor Co., 348 F.3d 537, the USCA, 6th Circuit, held that “Title VII protects an employee’s participation in an employer’s internal investigation into allegations of unlawful discrimination where that investigation occurs pursuant to a pending EEOC charge.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/855b7c0d-e303-49c2-a5f6-399603d29346/1/doc/09-0197_complete_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/855b7c0d-e303-49c2-a5f6-399603d29346/1/hilite/

Average weekly wage based on concurrent employments may be used to determine Workers’ Compensation Law benefit

Average weekly wage based on concurrent employments may be used to determine Workers’ Compensation Law benefit

A “year-round” lifeguard employed by the Staten Island Developmental Disabilities Services Office was involved in an automobile accident in the course of his employment and applied for Workers’ Compensation Law benefits.

In determining the individual’s workers’ compensation benefits, the Workers’ Compensation Board’s administrative law judge included the employee's earnings “from concurrent seasonal employment as a lifeguard for the City of New York.” Staten Island appealed but the Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately sustained the administrative law judge’s determination.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s ruling, noting that “The record demonstrates that the claimant was employed on weekends by Staten Island year round for 12 years and had been seasonally employed for the City of New York between the months of May and September since 1978.”

As the lifeguard had worked for both employers concurrently during the previous 12 summers, participated in training and received a promotion with respect to his seasonal employment during the off season and returned to his seasonal lifeguard position following the injury, the Appellate Division concluded that “substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant was concurrently employed.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03490.htm