Delay in terminating an employee

Delay in terminating an employee
2014 NY Slip Op 00265, Appellate Division, Third Department

In Mendez v Valenti, 101 AD2d 612, the Appellate Division held that retaining Mendez, a probationary employee, on the payroll after the maximum period of his probation until the end of payroll period for administrative convenience did not result in his attaining tenure in the position.

The Court decided that, under the circumstances, keeping Mendez on the payroll was permissible in view of the fact that it was of a short duration; was for "administrative convenience;" and Mendez had been provided with timely prior notice of that he would be terminated at the end of his probationary period.

In Cappello the Appellate Division applied a similar rationale in overturning a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board granting an individual [Claimant] unemployment insurance benefits.

According to the decision, the employer dismissed Claimant after determining that she had violated the employer's policy and committed theft. Claimant was initially disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she lost her employment through misconduct, and this decision was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge following a hearing.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, however, reversed this decision and found that claimant was entitled to receive benefits. The Board ruled that Claimant did not lose her employment due to misconduct because the employer delayed in terminating her after learning of her actions and did not provide a reasonable excuse for the delay.

The employer appealed and the Appellate Division vacated the Board’s ruling.

The Court explained that the Board’s conclusion was not supported by the record as upon the employer becoming aware of Claimant's inappropriate conduct it immediately proceeded to conduct an investigation, obtaining a statement from one employee and subsequently obtained a statement from Claimant about a month later  “as part of its continuing investigation.” Less than two weeks after obtaining Claimant’s statement the employer terminated for violating the employer’s policy.

The Appellate Division said that “[u]nder the circumstances presented” it did not find that the employer had engaged in an inordinate delay in terminating Claimant such that it could not rely upon her misconduct as the reason for her discharge.

Noting that it is well settled that an employee's dishonesty or failure to comply with an employer's policy and procedures constitutes disqualifying misconduct, here, said the Appellate Division, the evidence is undisputed that Claimant violated the employer's relevant policy. Accordingly, explained the court, “[g]iven [Claimant’s] misconduct, substantial evidence does not support the Board's decision that she was entitled to receive benefits” and reversed the Board’s decision.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_00265.htm

.

The doctrine of Absolute Privileged attaches to an allegedly defamatory memorandum published in the context of ongoing litigation

The doctrine of Absolute Privileged attaches to an allegedly defamatory memorandum published in the context of ongoing litigation

2013 NY Slip Op 52290(U), Court of Claims [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

An individual [Petitioner] who worked at a state correctional facility filed a claim “sounding in defamation per se” alleging that an article appeared in the print and the on-line versions of a newspaper included statements attributed to a State official that disparaged Petitioner.

Eventually it was determined that alleged defamatory statements were made by a state employee and had been “acquired by a non-State actor,” which person gave it to one of the newspaper’s reporters.

According to the decision, an Assistant Attorney General involved in the instant matter provided a copy of the employee’s memorandum to an attorney, apparently the alleged “non-State actor,” involved in a related matter then pending in federal court.

The Court of Claims “assumed without deciding” that Petitioner’s proposed amended claim satisfied the threshold jurisdictional requirements of being timely filing and served within the relevant statute of limitations and that it satisfies the substantive pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act §11(b).

The court then denied Petitioner’s motion to amend his claim explaining that the alleged tortious conduct — the Assistant Attorney General’s “publication (or republication) of the [State employee’s] memorandum to [the attorney in the federal action] is not actionable because it was absolutely privileged,”* as “Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged … and absolute privilege will attach if the allegedly defamatory statements were ‘pertinent’ to the questions involved in the judicial proceeding.”

Further, explained the court, "Whether a statement is at all pertinent . . . is determined by an extremely liberal test" and  "To be actionable, a statement . . . must be so outrageously out of context as to permit one to conclude, from the mere fact that the statement was uttered, that it was motivated by no other desire than to defame."

As the Court of Appeals held in Youmans v Smith, 153 NY 214, “The purpose of the absolute privilege afforded to communications made in the course of judicial proceedings is well established and clearly stated: the due process of ‘clients should not be imperiled by subjecting their legal advisers to the constant fear of suits for libel or slander.’"

Accordingly, said the court, the Assistant Attorney General’s actions in turning over the allegedly defamatory memorandum in the context of ongoing litigation are entitled to the absolute privileged, provided that the alleged defamatory statements were pertinent to the litigation, which, in this instance, the court found were so pertinent.

* The Court of Claims noted that "Absolute privilege has been recognized in a very few situations where there is an obvious policy in favor of permitting complete freedom of expression, without any inquiry as to the defendant's motives.” However, in Amato v. Welsh, 2013 ONCA 258, a decision handed down by Canada’s Court of Appeals for Ontario, suggests an exception to the doctrine. The Amato decision suggests that it may be possible for a court to find that the doctrine of absolute immunity yields to the attorney’s duty of loyalty to a client [see paragraphs 61 et seq. set out in the decision].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_52290.htm

.

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announces new appointments within his administration

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announces new appointments within his administration.
Source: Office of the Governor

Governor Cuomo on Tuesday, February 25, 2014, announced the appointments of Margaret Egan and Linda Cohen to his administration.

Margaret Egan will serve as Assistant Secretary for Public Safety. Ms. Egan served as the Director of Policy & Government Affairs to Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart from 2012 to 2014. In that role Ms. Egan was responsible for developing and managing crime policy, social services and the legislative strategy for the nation’s largest single site jail and one of the largest police departments in Illinois. She developed and led the implementation of the Affordable Care Act for the Sheriff making the Cook County Jail the first jail in the nation to enroll detainees under Medicaid expansion, which has now become a model for jails across the country. Additionally she led efforts to improve correctional based education programming for school aged and adult detainees. She also developed projects around firearms tracing and trafficking throughout suburban Cook County.

Linda J. Cohen, Esq., will serve as Executive Director for the State Commission on National and Community Service. Prior to joining the Commission, Ms. Cohen served for a dozen years as Executive Director of the New York State Corps Collaboration, where she was responsible for one of the nation’s largest AmeriCorps programs. She also served as Executive Director of the New York State Dispute Resolution Association, as a contributing writer for Inside Sports Magazine and in various positions within all three branches of New York state government. She is a graduate of Union College, Albany Law School and the National Law Center at George Washington University.
.

Defense for tenured administrators and faculty rated "ineffective" based on “Common Core”student performance proposed

Defense for tenured administrators and faculty rated "ineffective"  based on “Common Core”student performance proposed

Proposed Action: Amend 8 NYCRR 82-1.10(j) with respect to hearings on charges of tenured school employees [I.D. No.EDU-08-14-00020-P]

The following summarizes a proposed amendment to 8 NYCRR 82-1, Hearings of Charges Against Employees on Tenure

Purpose: To allow, under certain circumstances, tenured teachers and principals to raise as a defense in a section 3020-a hearing that their school district failed to timely implement the Common Core in the 2012-2013 and/or 2013-2014 school year.

Summary of the text of proposed rule: Subdivision (j) of section 82-1.10 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education is added, effective May 14, 2014, as follows:

(j) Where an expedited hearing brought based solely upon a charge of a pattern of ineffective teaching or performance of a classroom teacher or principal, or a hearing brought on a charge of incompetency, is based on an ineffective rating on the state growth and/or locally selected measures subcomponents of the teacher’s or principal’s annual professional performance review resulting from student performance on the Common Core state assessments administered in the 2012-2013 and/or 2013-2014 school years, the employee may raise as a defense an alleged failure by the employer to timely implement the Common Core by providing adequate professional development, guidance on curriculum or other supports to the employee.

The notice of this proposed amendment in the State Register explains that "the proposed amendment would thus protect tenured teachers and principals from termination based on an ineffective Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) rating resulting from student performance on the Common Core assessments where they can prove that the district did not provide the professional development, curriculum materials or other supports needed for Common Core implementation during the 2012-2013 and/or 2013-2014 school years.”

The text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from: Mary Gammon, State Education Department, Office of Counsel, State Education Building, Room 148, 89 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12234, (518) 474-6400, email: legal@mail.nysed.gov

Data, views or arguments may be submitted to: Peg Rivers, State Education Department, Office of Higher Education, Room 979 EBA, 89 Washington Ave., Albany, NY 12234, (518) 486-3633, email: regcomments@mail.nysed.gov

Public comment will be received until 45 days after publication [February 26, 2014] of this notice.
.