ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

September 16, 2015

Proposals for trustee services and/or funding of a deferred compensation plan for employees of the City of Batavia requested


Proposals for trustee services and/or funding of a deferred compensation plan for employees of the City of Batavia requested
Source: The New York State Register dated September 16, 2015

The City of Batavia is requesting proposals from qualified administrative services agencies, and/or financial organizations relating to administration, trustee services and/or funding of a deferred compensation plan for employees of the City of Batavia meeting the requirements of Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 5 of the State Finance Law, including all rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

All proposals must be submitted no later than 30 days from the date of publication in the New York State Register no later than 4:30 p.m.

A copy of the proposal questionnaire may be obtained by e-mailing fairbank@batavianewyork.com .

September 15, 2015

Time required to research and prepare an appeal not a "good cause” sufficient to excuse an untimely filing of the appeal with the Commissioner of Education


Time required to research and prepare an appeal not a "good cause” sufficient to excuse petitioner's untimely filing of the appeal with the Commissioner of Education
Appeal to the Commissioner of Education, Decision #16,823

Among the issues presented to the Commissioner of Education in this appeal seeking the removal of certain members of a school board was the representation that the petitioners had “good cause” for the late filing of certain elements of their appeal in that it was necessary to “go through” Commissioner’s decisions and other public records in order to proceed with the matter. 

While the Commissioner noted that “It is unclear from the application and record, however, what exactly petitioners needed to “go through” and how this caused a delay,” the Commissioner, citing a number of rulings,* said that “To the extent petitioners may be claiming that they needed time to gather documents and evidence, perform research, and prepare their application, it is well settled that these reasons do not constitute ‘good cause’ upon which to excuse an untimely filing.”

* See, for example, Appeal of Bentley, et al., Decision No. 16,750; Appeal of Levendusky, Decision No. 16,455; Appeal of Thompson, Decision No. 15,706; and Appeal of Bayer, Decision No. 13,561).

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

September 14, 2015

School audits by the State Comptroller issued during the week ending September 12, 2015


School audits by the State Comptroller issued during the week ending September 12, 2015
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following reports were issued during the week ending September 12, 2015. Click on the material highlighted in color below to access the full report.

Canandaigua City School District [Procurement of Professional Services]

Fonda- Fultonville Central School District [Payroll]

and the 

Newcomb Central School District [Extra classroom activity fund]

Pre-suit investigations by EEOC


Pre-suit investigations by EEOC
EEOC v Sterling Jewelers, Inc., USCA, 2ndCircuit, Docket 14-1782

Before the EEOC may bring an enforcement action under Title VII against an employer, it must comply with certain administrative obligations, including receiving a formal charge of unlawful discrimination, provide notice of the charge to the employer, investigate the charge and give the employer notice of its determination that there was “reasonable cause” to believe that a violation of Title VII had occurred. EEOC must then make a “good faith effort” to conciliate the matter.*

In this Title VII action a magistrate judge issued a “Report and Recommendation” finding that EEOC not prove that it satisfied its statutory obligation to conduct a pre-suit investigation of allegations that Sterling Jewelers “engaged in a nationwide practice of sex-based pay and promotion discrimination. The magistrate judge recommended that the federal district court grant Sterling’s motion for “summary judgment” dismissing EEOC’s action.

The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and granted Sterling’s motion seeking summary judgment. EEOC appealed.

Citing EEOC v Keco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal district court was incorrect in granting Sterling motion for summary judgment, explaining that the magistrate judge improperly reviewed the sufficiency of the EEOC investigation rather than simply whether there was an investigation. Under Title VII, said the Circuit Court, “courts may review whether the EEOC conducted an investigation, but not the sufficiency of an investigation.”

The court noted that only EEOC’s statutory pre-suit investigation obligation was at issue as the parties agreed that EEOC’s participation in the mediation would have satisfied its obligation to conciliate in the matter if it brought an enforcement action. Further, there were no allegations the EEOC had not satisfied any of its other pre-suit obligation in this instance.

As EEOC had, in fact, conducted an investigation in this case, the Circuit Court vacated the summary judgment order and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings.

* See 42 U.S.C. §2000e–5(b)

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.