Disagreement with a superior’s directive not a defense to disciplinary charges alleging insubordination

Disagreement with a superior’s directive not a defense to disciplinary charges alleging insubordination

OATH Index No. 196/12

OATH Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis found that a correction officer had been insubordinate on two dates and recommended a 10-day suspension.

In the first instance, the employee refused to open a security gate when ordered to do so by a superior officer. He also he refused to relinquish his post to another officer when ordered.

The correction officer disagreed with the order to report to a different post, but ALJ Lewis found this was not a defense because respondent was required to follow direct orders. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:  

Dep’t of Correction v. Joseph (in PDF)

The filing of a timely a notice of claim -- a “condition precedent” when suing a school district – must be pleaded in the complaint

The filing of a timely a notice of claim -- a “condition precedent” when suing a school district – must be pleaded in the complaint
Munro v Ossining Union Free School Dist., 55 AD3d 697

Dianne Munro was employed as the Purchasing and Accounts Payable Manager by Ossining Union Free School District. In April 2007 she commenced this action against the District under New York State's Human Rights Law (Executive Law §296) seeking to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination on the basis of race and sex.

The District filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss Munro’s petition on the grounds that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations (see Education Law §3813[2-b]) and that she had failed to timely serve a notice of claim (see Education Law §3813[1]). Munro opposed the District’s motion and cross-moved for permission to serve a late notice of claim. The Supreme Court granted the District's motion to dismiss the complaint and Munro’s motion to for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Munro appealed.

The Appellate Division first addressed the notice of claim issue, observing that an entity wishing to sue a school district for violations of the Human Rights Law must serve a notice of claim on the district within three months after accrual of the claim. Further, compliance with this requirement is a condition precedent to such a lawsuit and must be pleaded in the complaint.
In the event the entity has not served a timely notice of claim, if the one-year statute of limitations applicable to such actions has not run, the entity may seek permission to serve a late notice of claim in accordance with Education Law § 3813[2-a]).

A court, in determining whether, in its discretion, to grant such an application, must consider (1) whether the district had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the time required for service of a timely notice of claim or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) whether the claimant had a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, and (3) whether the school district would be substantially prejudiced in its defense on the merits if the application were to be granted.

Further, the statute requires that the court consider "in particular," the first factor, and, accordingly, that factor is entitled to the greatest weight, but none is determinative.
Here Munro argued that the District had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting her claim because she allegedly reported various incidents. However, Munro did not provide any details about the substance of her alleged reports that would permit a record-based conclusion that the District was thereby put on notice of the essential facts underlying her current claims under the Human Rights Law.

Further, the Appellate Division said that Munro offered no excuse at all for failing to serve a timely notice of claim.

Accordingly, even if the District would not be prejudiced were the application to file a late notice of claim granted, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying Munro leave to serve a late notice of claim.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07886.htm

Union rather than officers or board members to acknowledge it does not assert the right to violate the Taylor Law

Union rather than officers or board members to acknowledge it does not assert the right to violate the Taylor Law
New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 55 AD3d 699

Supreme Court [see 18 Misc.3d 414] issued an order conditioning the reinstatement of the Transport Workers Union’s right to payroll deductions for union dues from the paychecks of their members employed by the New York City Transit Authority by requiring affidavits from the President and each individual member of the Executive Board of Local 100 of Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, stating that “the Union does not assert the right to strike against any government, to assist or participate in any such strike, or to impose an obligation to conduct, assist, or participate in such a strike, and that the Union has no intention, now or in the future, of conducting, assisting, participating, or imposing an obligation to conduct, assist, or participate in any such strike, or threatening to do so, against the [Transit Authority] or any governmental employer.”

The Union appealed and the Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order “on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by requiring “the Union submit a duly-authorized affirmation stating unequivocally that the Union does not assert the right to strike against any government, to assist or participate in any such strike, or to impose an obligation to conduct, assist, or participate in such a strike, and that the Union has no intention, now or in the future, of conducting, assisting, participating, or imposing an obligation to conduct, assist, or participate in any such strike, or threatening to do so, against the [Authority] or any governmental employer” rather than require the Union’s president and board members to so state.

The Appellate Division explained that the Civil Service Law Article 14, [the Taylor Law], prohibits public employees and public employee organizations from engaging in, or causing, instigating, encouraging, or condoning, a strike and in the event this prohibition is violated, the Public Employment Relations Board or the Supreme Court may order the forfeiture of the organization's right to have union dues automatically deducted from the paychecks of its members.

However, said the court, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in requiring that each member of the Union's Executive Board submit an affidavit containing the same statement that the Union does not assert the right to violate the Taylor Law. Reinstating the automatic deduction should depend, not only on the Union's full compliance with the appropriate orders of the court but “also on its willingness to state that it has no intention of engaging or supporting illegal strikes now or in the future.”

Accordingly, it is the Union, rather than its officers or board members, which is required to undertake this obligation.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07887.htm

See, also, MTA Bus Co. v Transport Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 55 AD3d 695, decided the same by the Appellate Division, Second Department concerning the same issue. The text of the MTA decision is posted on the Internet at:
thttp://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07883.htm

Audits of special education contractors by the State Comptroller reveal the use of public funds for inappropriate and unallowable expenses

Audits of special education contractors by the State Comptroller reveal the use of public funds for inappropriate and unallowable expenses 

Source: Office of the New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli

Three private contractors hired to provide special education services for pre-K children are alleged to have used public money for inappropriate and unallowable expenses according to audits released on June 25, 2012 by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

The State Department of Education [SED], through private contractors, provides special education services to children aged three to 21. Contractors are reimbursed for expenses and fees by New York City and counties in accordance with rates set by SED, which oversees special education programs statewide. 

According to the Comptroller, the probe so far has led to felony arrests of four contractors and the restitution of $610,000.

The three audits issued on June 25, 2012 are posted on the Internet at:
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093012/10s31.pdf
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093012/10s32.pdf
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093012/11s1.pdf