The failure to name the parties appealing a lower court’s ruling held a fatal jurisdictional defect

The failure to name the parties appealing a lower court’s ruling held a fatal jurisdictional defect

Gusler v. City of Long Beach, USCA, Docket #11-4493-cv

Jay Gusler, acting pro se, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that the defendants* unlawfully retaliated against him.

The district court dismissed claims against some of the defendants but then dismissed a motion by the remaining individual defendants' raising a defense of qualified immunity. The remaining defendants then appealed the district court's dismissal of their motion.

The Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal filed by the remaining individual defendants, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal as they had not filed a timely notice of appeal.

Although the notice of appeal contained the full caption of the action, the body of the appeal stated: “Notice is hereby given that the defendant Nassau County hereby appeals.” However, said the court, while The City of Long Beach is in Nassau County, Nassau County itself is not a party in the action.

The Circuit Court said that the appeal as initially filed did not “provide notice to the court [or] to the opposing parties of the identity of the appellant or appellants” so that neither the Circuit Court, nor the district court, nor the plaintiff  “know . . . which parties are bound by the district court’s [decision] [and] which parties may be held liable for costs or sanctions on the appeal.”

Further, noted the Circuit Court, the amended notice of appeal did not cure the problem as the amended notice was filed after the time to appeal had run.**

The Circuit Court dismissed the appeal, explaining that “Because the notice of appeal did not specify which defendants were taking an appeal of the district court’s decision, we lack jurisdiction to consider their appeal.”

* Gusler had named as the defendants in his action The City Of Long Beach, The Long Beach Volunteer Fire Department, The Long Beach Police Department, and twelve individuals.

** The Circuit Court also pointed out that the defendants “did not seek an extension of time to amend and correct the notice of appeal … and the time to do so has long since passed….”

The Circuit Court's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/67fcaa5c-1014-4d83-957a-173edf363d85/1/doc/11-4493_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/67fcaa5c-1014-4d83-957a-173edf363d85/1/hilite/

Releasing medical records

Releasing medical records

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a motion to mandate that the plaintiff authorize the release of all of his medical records preceding the accident in which he alleged he was injured.

Supreme Court directed that the plaintiff provide authorizations to release his medical records but limited the release of his medical records to the five years preceding the accident.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s order, holding that the Authority “failed to demonstrate that all plaintiff's pre-accident medical records were material and necessary in the defense of this action,” explaining that the plaintiff did not allege that the accident “aggravated or exacerbated a preexisting injury or condition.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07898.htm

Challenging the employee's dismissal during his or her probationary period

Challenging the employee's dismissal during his or her probationary period

Supreme Court dismissed a former probationary employee’s petition seeking to annul his termination from his position, the revocation of his New York City Department of Education [DOE] teaching certification, his placement of his name on the DOE's Ineligible/Inquiry list,* and his overall unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 school year.

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court’s actions, explaining that the probationer had failed to establish that his termination, the revocation of his teaching certificate and his placement on the DOE's ineligible/inquiry list, was done in bad faith.

Addressing the individual’s allegation of bad faith, the court noted the record contained evidence of good faith on DOE’s part. For example, said the Appellate Division, the school principal’s "intention was not to terminate [the] petitioner's employment but to extend his probation for an additional year."

In addition, said the court, the record contained evidence of deficiencies in individual's performance during the probationary period.

As to the individual’s challenge to the revocation of his teaching certification and the placement of his name on the ineligible/inquiry list, the Appellate Division ruled that those challenges were not untimely but that Supreme Court had correctly sustained those administrative determinations.

Finally the Appellate Division pointed out that the lower court had correctly dismissed the individual’s challenge to his “U-rating” as it was premature because he had not yet exhausted his administrative remedies.

*Placing an individual’s name on the "Ineligible/Inquiry" list maintained by the New York Department of Education bars that individual from employment at any DOE school while his or her name remains on such list [McPherson v. New York City Dep't of Education, 457 F.3d 211].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07888.htm

Reassignment of “exclusive duties” being performed by negotiating unit employees to non-unit employees

Reassignment of “exclusive duties” being performed by negotiating unit employees to non-unit employees

Stony Point Police Benevolent Association v Town of Stony Point, PERB Case #U-29118

Attorney Brian D. Nugent* advised NYPPL of a November 14, 2012 ruling by the Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] that considered “exclusivity of unit work” in the context of the employer's reassigning certain duties and functions being performed by employees in a negotiating unit to non-unit employees.

The Stony Point Police Benevolent Association [PBA] filed an improper practice charge with PERB contending that the Town of Stony Point violated §209-a.1(d) of the Civil Service Law [The Taylor Law] when it unilaterally reassigned certain security duties that had been performed exclusively by employees in the  negotiating unit represented by the PBA to non-unit employees.

PERB agreed with the Town that the parties' past practice established a discernible boundary between the work assignment at issue: the reassignment of certain security duties being performed by PBA unit members at the Town's Justice Court to non-unit part-time personnel who were not sworn officers.**

PERB, noting that the duties at issue were transferred from sworn police officers to civilian employees, ruled that under its precedents “it is well-settled that an employer’s civilianization of uniformed services constitutes a de facto change in job qualifications.”

PERB then considered the "balancing test" set out in its decision in Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority, 18 PERB 3083.

Finding that there had been a significant change in the "job qualifications" with respect to the "at-issue" duties, PERB said that the only loss suffered by the PBA and its unit members was the “loss of at-issue work” in contrast to a loss in the number of positions in the unit or a loss of unit member benefits.

PERB's conclusion: the Town had not violated §209-a.1(d) of the Taylor Law, explaining that the Town’s interests associated with the civilianization of the at-issue work outweigh the interests of the unit employees.

* Brian D. Nugent, Esq., Feerick Lynch MacCartney Pllc, http://www.flmpllc.com, represented the Town in this proceeding. 

** See Criminal Procedures Law §1.20.34

No legal obligation to initiate disciplinary charges against an individual

No legal obligation to initiate disciplinary charges against an individual

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision #16,427

A tenured high school teacher alleged that the high school superintendent neglected her duty to ensure the integrity of the school system by failing to initiate disciplinary charges against the principal of the high school at which he was serving.

The teacher alleged that he reported the school’s principal for alleged violations including failure to identify at-risk students as required by Title I of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (20 USC §6301, et seq.) and scoring irregularities on New York State Regents mathematics examinations.

Following his reporting these alleged violations, the teacher claimed that the principal retaliated against him by [1] placing several disciplinary letters in his personnel file, [2] his being ordered to undergo medical examination and [3] his removal from the school to a “temporary assignment center.”*

The teacher asked the Commissioner to remove the high school superintendent and the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education from their respective positions because they failed to take disciplinary action against the principal.

After considering a number of procedural issued, the Commissioner said that the teacher’s application “must be dismissed on the merits.”

The Commissioner explained that a member of the board of education or a school officer may be removed from office pursuant to Education Law §306 when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the board member or school officer has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule or regulation of the Board of Regents or Commissioner of Education.

The teacher alleged that the high school superintendent “neglected her duty to ensure the integrity of the school system by failing to initiate disciplinary charges against [the principal].” However, said the Commissioner, the teacher s failed to meet his burden of proof as he did not establish how the superintendent’s failure to file an Education Law §3020-a charge against the principal, at his request, constituted a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law, requiring her removal under Education Law §306 nor did the teacher show that the superintendent “was under a legal obligation to initiate Education Law §3020-a charges against [the principal].”

The Commissioner ruled that “On the record before me, I find that [the teacher] has failed to demonstrate that [the high school superintendent] has willfully neglected her duties [and] failed to establish any basis for [the superintendent’s] removal” and denied the teacher’s application.

* The teacher was later restored to service at the school..

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume52/d16427.html

A school district may sue its board members, employees, former board members and former employees for alleged mismanagement or misconduct

A school district may sue its board members, former board members, employees, and former employees for alleged mismanagement or misconduct

Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist. v Barkan, 2012 NY Slip Op 07652, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Roslyn Union Free School District initiated a lawsuit  against Michael Barkan, Karen Bodner, William Costigan, Mary Ann Combs Ronna Niederman, Ellen Siegel, and Patricia Schissel to recover damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and negligence.

Supreme Court denied their respective motions to dismiss the complaints insofar as asserted against each of them and they appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court's decision, rejecting their argument that, in the absence of specific enabling legislation, a school district may not commence an action against current or former members of its board of education.

Citing a decision by the Court of Appeals in a prior appeal in this action, Roslyn Union Free School Dist. v Barkan, 16 NY3d 643,the court explained that the plaintiff here – the Roslyn Union Free School District -- is a "corporation" and a corporation has the right to sue and be sued.

Accordingly, said the court, the school district has the right to prosecute an action "for injury and damages sustained by it by reason of mismanagement or misconduct in its affairs, waste of assets, or derelictions in duty by the directors, officers, agents or employees of the corporation."

Finding that the school district’s complaint “adequately alleges causes of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence,” the Appellate Division dismissed the appeal.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07652.htm