The Kyung Hee University [KHU] Library in Seoul Korea is posting NYPPL items.

The Kyung Hee University [KHU] Library in Seoul, Korea is posting NYPPL items. 

The Kyung Hee University [KHU] Library in Seoul, Korea is including postings from New York Public Personnel Law in its Serials Collection. It reports that it has posted 7679 items from this LawBlog to date.

Below is an example of a recent KHU Library post:

New York Public Personnel Law: Police confrontations with mentally impaired citizens and inmates

저널명:

New York Public Personnel Law [Public Employment Law Press - BLOG]

발행일:

2016/01/28

본 자료는 도서관에서 구독하고 있지 않는 자료입니다. 페이지 아래에 표시되어 있는 옵션(ISSN 검색 KHU Library , 서명 검색 KHU Libray)을 통해 인쇄본 구독 여부를 확인 하시거나 또는 타도서관 자료복사 서비스를 이용하시기 바랍니다. 오른쪽에 FRIC배너가 보이시는 자료는 RISS에서 제공하는 복사서비스 링크를 클릭하셔서 신청하실 수 있습니다. 이 밖에 추가 문의가 있으시다면, 오른쪽 상단에 '도서관에 도움 요청' 을 클릭하셔서 직원에게 해당내용을 전달해 주시기 바랍니다. 최대한 빠르게 답변을 드리도록 하겠습니다. 감사합니다.^^

ISSN 검색 KHU Library

서명 검색 KHU Library

타도서관 자료복사

For those NYPPL readers who may prefer to read this LawBlog in Korean, the URL is
http://khis.khu.ac.kr

The Kyung Hee University [KHU] Library in Seoul Korea is posting NYPPL items.

The Kyung Hee University [KHU] Library in Seoul, Korea is posting NYPPL items. 

The Kyung Hee University [KHU] Library in Seoul, Korea is including postings from New York Public Personnel Law in its Serials Collection. It reports that it has posted 7679 items from this LawBlog to date.

Below is an example of a recent KHU Library post:

New York Public Personnel Law: Police confrontations with mentally impaired citizens and inmates

저널명:

New York Public Personnel Law [Public Employment Law Press - BLOG]

발행일:

2016/01/28

본 자료는 도서관에서 구독하고 있지 않는 자료입니다. 페이지 아래에 표시되어 있는 옵션(ISSN 검색 KHU Library , 서명 검색 KHU Libray)을 통해 인쇄본 구독 여부를 확인 하시거나 또는 타도서관 자료복사 서비스를 이용하시기 바랍니다. 오른쪽에 FRIC배너가 보이시는 자료는 RISS에서 제공하는 복사서비스 링크를 클릭하셔서 신청하실 수 있습니다. 이 밖에 추가 문의가 있으시다면, 오른쪽 상단에 '도서관에 도움 요청' 을 클릭하셔서 직원에게 해당내용을 전달해 주시기 바랍니다. 최대한 빠르게 답변을 드리도록 하겠습니다. 감사합니다.^^

For those NYPPL readers who may prefer to read this LawBlog in Korean, the URL is
http://khis.khu.ac.kr

Selected Reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending February 6, 2016

Selected Reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending February 6, 2016

Click on text highlighted in color to access the full report

Former Monroe County Chief Information Officer enters guilty plea in bid-rigging case
Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced the guilty plea of Nelson Rivera, the former Chief Information Officer for Monroe County, for working with others to rig the bidding process for multi-million dollar public works contracts in Monroe County. Rivera entered a guilty plea before The Honorable Dennis M. Kehoe in Monroe County Court to two counts of the class “E” felony charge of Combination in Restraint of Trade and Competition in violation of General Business Law §§ 340 and 341, also known as New York State’s Donnelly Act. Based on what was stated on the record in court proceedings, it is expected that Rivera will be sentenced to five years of probation, may never again serve as a New York public employee, must pay a $25,000 fine, and will give up his government pension.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/feb16/020316a.htm?utm_source=weeklynews20160207&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=020316arelease

Florida resident to make full restitution after stealing $274,920.16 in New York State pension funds
New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli and Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced that Marc A. Eletz, 70, a resident of Boca Raton, Florida, was sentenced in Albany County Court to five months in jail, $200,000 in restitution and signed a confession of judgment in the amount of $74,920.16 for stealing $274,920.16 in New York state pension benefits. Eletz previously pleaded guilty to the crime of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a class D felony, in September 2015.

http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/feb16/020416.htm?utm_source=weeklynews20160207&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=020416release

State Audits published

Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Bus Driver Licensing

Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Railroad - Payments to On-Board Service Managers

Office of Court Administration - Reporting on Foreclosure of Real Property Funds – Kings County

Municipal Audits published

Town of Ausable - Water and Sewer District Financial Operations

Fishers Island Waste Management District – Purchasing

Town of Guilderland – Employee Compensation and Benefits

Plattsburgh Housing Authority – Tenant Rents

Town of Salem – Financial Management

Westbury Water District - Purchasing


School Audits published

East Islip Union Free School District – Financial Condition

Elizabethtown-Lewis Central School District – Claims Processing

George Junior Republic Union Free School District – Tuition Billing

Otsego Northern Catskills Board of Cooperative Educational Services – Extra Classroom Activity Fund

From the Blogs - Focusing on Unlawful Discrimination - Posted by Employment Law News

From the Blogs - Focusing on Unlawful Discrimination - Posted by Employment Law News
WK WorkDay, A service provided by Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S.[http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/] [Internet links highlighted in color]

Stretching the boundaries of federal discrimination laws by Lorene D. Park, J.D.

Religious accommodation of an atheist employee, protecting a male employee against sexual harassment, and prohibiting discrimination against white employees, are just a few recent examples of the broad reach of our federal anti-discrimination laws. Those laws may have developed in reaction to injustices against particular groups of individuals (e.g., African-Americans), but the law today is more focused on categorical discrimination (e.g., discrimination based on race—any race). Moreover, those categories, including race, gender, religion, disability, and more, are expanding. Some recent examples:

Atheist employee fired for taping over religious message on ID badge.

An atheist employee, who was fired after refusing to remove the tape covering an employer’s religious mission statement on the back of his company ID badge, can proceed to trial on his Title VII and state law failure-to-accommodate and retaliation claims, ruled a federal district court in Pennsylvania. Whether the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer will be determined at trial (Mathis v. Christian Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.).

Male victims of sexual harassment.

Recent cases indicate male employees are not taken as seriously as female employees when they complain of sexual harassment, but courts interpret Title VII to afford them the same protections. For example, when a male mechanic repeatedly complained that a male coworker followed him into the restroom, made sexually inappropriate comments, discussed homosexual sex acts, and touched him physically, his supervisor treated the complaint as a joke. The mechanic then complained to HR, which encouraged him to “do what was right for the company,” especially considering how a complaint over “gay rights” would appear. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a federal court sent his hostile work environment claim under Title VII to trial (Davis v. Gregory Poole Equipment Co.).

In another case, when a male maintenance worker complained that a female manager made unwanted advances, remarked on his looks, and sexted him, a safety director suggested the texts were meant for someone else and told the worker to confront her and work things out himself. After he was fired and filed suit, the director admitted he might have reacted differently if the alleged victim of harassment had been female. Though the employee’s sexual harassment claim failed because the misconduct wasn’t severe or pervasive, his retaliation claim survived summary judgment to the extent it was based on his complaint to the director, that had he been female and the harasser male, the employer would have reacted differently. The employer failed to oppose this argument (Gilley v. Kelly & Picerne, Inc. dba Alabaster Bay Apartment Homes).

Sexual harassment by wannabe mother-in-law.

In one rather unusual case, a court found that a TV station employee stated a plausible sexual harassment claim where she alleged not a single sexual advance. Instead, she claimed that a female supervisor had her fired after she rejected the ongoing attempts by the supervisor to get the employee marry her son, who was also the company’s CEO. At one point, on a business trip, the supervisor said “I’m going to be your mother one way or another. Either you will marry [the CEO] or I will marry your father and be your stepmother” (Allen v. TV One, LLC).

White employee fired for policy violation while minorities were not.

An employee at an early education center claimed her employer violated Title VII by firing her because she is white. She had asked an African-American coworker, who was also a student’s grandmother, to ask her daughter to call the school about substituting Almond Milk for regular milk with respect to the student. The employee was fired for allegedly discussing private information with someone other than a parent or guardian. Finding triable issues of fact on her race discrimination claim, the court noted evidence that African-American employees also violated policy but were not fired, and that the employee’s conduct may not actually have violated confidentiality requirements (Callaway v. Region 10 Education Service Center).

Associational discrimination – disability.

Another type of discrimination recognized under federal laws involves bias against an employee based on close association with someone who falls within a protected category (e.g., partner, child, other family member). These types of cases often occur under the ADA, which specifically prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual because of the disability of an individual with whom he or she is known to have a relationship or association. In one case, a senior VP’s note that an employee was “given special consideration” and her supervisor’s remark about her “retarded brother” suggested that her relationship with her blind and severely autistic brother-in-law was a factor in the decision to fire her, so her association discrimination claims would go to trial (Smith v. First Tennessee Bank, N.A.). In another case, an employee who alleged he was fired after missing several weeks to care for his ailing wife, who had spinal meningitis, stated a plausible claim for relief under the ADA’s discrimination by association provision (Pollere v. USIG Pennsylvania, Inc.).

Interracial couples and associational discrimination.

Another type of associational discrimination involves interracial couples. In one recent Title VII case, two employees were treated differently after they started dating because one was black and the other was white. They were told by their supervisors that their relationship was “disgusting” and “sickening” and supervisors started enforcing rules against them (like no personal calls at work, and no eating lunch at another employee’s work station) but did not enforce those rules against others (Autrey v. State of Maryland). In another case, a Native American employee who was dating an African-American man will have a jury decide whether her supervisors subjected her to a hostile work environment based on her association with her boyfriend. She claimed they repeatedly engaged in offensive and threatening behavior, including calling biracial couples “n***er lovers” and biracial kids “half n***er” (Maddox v. Grimmer Realty).

Age discrimination as between two older employees.

Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate based on someone’s older age (age 40 and over, to be specific) but not against someone who is younger than 40. In that respect, there really is no “reverse” age discrimination under the ADEA. However, the Act is still flexible in that, as between two employees who are both over the age of 40, employers cannot unlawfully favor the younger of the two if the age difference is “substantial” (most courts find 10 years or more to be significant). Yet difference in ages is not the only consideration. In one case, a border patrol agent in his mid-50’s who was denied a promotion given to four individuals in their 40’s did not have an age difference of more than 10 years, but other factors suggested age was considered, including the decisionmaker’s questions on the employee’s plan for retirement and an expressed preference for hiring “young, dynamic agents” for the new positions (France v. Johnson).

Sex stereotyping.

Discrimination based on a failure to conform to the stereotype of masculine and feminine is considered sex discrimination. In one case, evidence that harassment such as being threatened, physically restrained, punched, and poked in the anal region was directed at male employees of an oil and gas company crew who were considered “less manly” was enough to send one harassed employee’s Title VII claims to the jury (Arredondo v. Estrada). In another case, a federal court in Oregon held that a jury should decide the sex discrimination claims of a medical technician who alleged that her employment contract was not renewed because she was considered a “strong woman” who wanted to do things “her way” (Tornabene v. Northwest Permanente, P.C.). Similarly, a federal court in Michigan found triable issues of fact on a hotel housekeeper’s Title VII claim that she was terminated because she failed to conform to traditional gender stereotypes. Specifically, the supervisor allegedly said the housekeeper was too “mannish” and that the supervisor didn’t want to work with her because she “acted too manly” (Reed v. South Bend Nights, Inc. dba Best Western Hospitality Hotel).

Transgender discrimination.

Some interesting issues are emerging in discrimination cases by transgender employees. In one case, the Eleventh Circuit reversed summary judgment on a Title VII claim, finding that comments by a company owner that he was “very nervous” about a auto mechanic’s gender transition and the “possible ramifications” that it might affect business, as well as the imposition of discipline only after the mechanic announced her gender transition, raised triable questions on whether gender bias was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate the mechanic (Chavez v. Credit Nation Auto Sales, LLC). In another case involving claims that an employer fostered a hostile work environment by demanding an employee provide overly intrusive personal information on his anatomical changes, among other actions, the employer sought the same kind of information in discovery, including details on the employee’s surgeries and hormone therapy. Finding the requests “grossly out of proportion” to what the employer legitimately needed for its defense, the court denied its motion to compel production of the evidence (Roberts v. Clark County School District).

What about sexual orientation?

One question that crops up repeatedly is: Why do courts consider it to be sex discrimination to treat someone unfavorably because they do not fit sexual stereotypes, yet most courts don’t consider discrimination against homosexual individuals to be discrimination “based on sex?” Recently, the EEOC filed an amicus brief with the Eleventh Circuit in Burrows v. College of Central Florida, asserting that sexual orientation is equal to sex discrimination because: 1) it necessarily involves sex stereotyping; 2) it amounts to gender-based associational discrimination; and 3) Title VII generally bars sex-based considerations in employment and sexual orientation discrimination necessarily requires consideration of an individual’s gender.

I think the EEOC has it right in this case and, given the ways in which federal anti-discrimination laws have been interpreted in recent years, courts will likely adopt its reasoning. Interestingly, one federal court agreed with the EEOC while addressing a case under a New York City law, and it noted that a “change towards federal protection has been primarily a result of [the EEOC’s] sensitivity to the problem.” In the case at bar, the court refused to overturn a $100,000 award to a lesbian UPS employee who endured years of harassment due to her sexual orientation. It explained that appeals to the Bible could not justify management’s condoning the harassment and, noting the company’s “cavalier” attitude toward the employee’s repeated complaints, the court found plenty of evidence to support the verdict in the employee’s favor under the New York City Human Rights Law (Roberts v. United Parcel Service, Inc.).

Appellate Division holds Civil Service Law Article 14 trumps Second Class Cities Law Article 9 with respect to negotiating police disciplinary procedures

Appellate Division holds Civil Service Law Article 14 trumps Second Class Cities Law Article 9 with respect to negotiating police disciplinary procedures

City of Schenectady v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 00729, Appellate Division, Third Department

The City of Schenectady [Schenectady], under color of §133 of Article 9 of Second Class Cities Law,* announced that it would no longer be bound by negotiated police disciplinary procedures then set out in a collective bargaining agreement between Schenectadyand the Schenectady Police Benevolent Association [PBA]. Schenectady advised PBA that was replacing the contract disciplinary procedure, under which an employee upon whom disciplinary charges had been served had the right of appeal to an arbitrator, and, instead, unilaterally adopted disciplinary procedures that substituted the Public Safety Commissioner for the arbitrator as the ultimate administrative disciplinary decision maker.

PBA filed an improper practice charge with Public Employment Relations Board [PERB] alleging that Schenectady violated Civil Service Law §209-a(1)(d) of the Public Employees' Fair Employment Act [Article 14 of the Civil Service Law], the so-called “Taylor Law.

Following a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge agree with PBA, finding that, under the Taylor Law, police disciplinary procedures must be the product of collective bargaining, and that the Taylor Law superseded the provisions of the Second Class Cities Law upon which Schenectady had relied in unilaterally adopting that statute's police disciplinary procedures. PERB affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's ruling, holding that that Schenectady's police disciplinary procedures were a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.**

Schenectady appealed PERB’s determination. Supreme Court upheld PERB's ruling and dismissed Schlenectday's petition.

Schenectady challenged the Supreme Courts ruling, arguing that Supreme Court erred by agreeing with PERB that the enactment of the Taylor Law superseded §133 of Article 9 of the Second Class Cities Law. The Appellate Division, noting that while this is a question of pure statutory construction and it is not dependent upon any special competence of PERB, said that “its own reading of the statutes at issue here led it to agree with Supreme Court that PERB's construction of the Second Class Cities Law, as it relates to the Taylor Law, was correct.

Indicating that the Taylor Law mandates that disciplinary procedures for all public employees be the subject of good faith collective bargaining, the Appellate Division commented that “courts have long recognized the 'strong and sweeping policy of the State to support collective bargaining under the Taylor Law.’" Citing Matter of City of New York v Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of the City of N.Y., Inc., 14 NY3d 46, the Appellate Division held that "the presumption is that all terms and conditions of employment are subject to mandatory bargaining."***

That said, the court commented that because of the "competing policy ... favoring strong disciplinary authority for those in charge of police forces[, w]here legislation specifically commits police discipline to the discretion of local officials," the policy favoring collective bargaining will give way to the legislatively established disciplinary procedures, citing Police Benevolent Asso. of NY State Troopers, Inc., v Division of NY State Police, 11 NY3d 96.

It was undisputed that Second Class Cities Law §133, which was enacted prior to the Taylor Law, expressly commits police discipline to the discretion of Schenectady's Public Safety Commissioner. However, said the court, the “Second Class Cities Law [Article 2] §4 states that a provision of this statute — such as Article 9 [§133] containing its police disciplinary procedures — shall apply only ‘until such provision is superseded pursuant to the municipal home rule law, was superseded pursuant to the former city home rule law or is or was otherwise changed, repealed or superseded pursuant to law.’"

The Appellate Division noted that PERB’s decision said that such language reveals "a statutorily planned obsolescence for [the Second Class Cities Law] resulting from subsequent enactment of state or local legislation." Put differently, the court explained that it viewed “the clear and unambiguous language of Second Class Cities Law §4” as providing “the best evidence that the Legislature intended to allow any or all of the provisions of the Second Class Cities Law to be supplanted by later laws applicable to the same subject matter.”

The Appellate Division concluded that Second Class Cities Law §133 does not require "that the policy favoring collective bargaining should give way" [to it] “nor did the court view the holdings in Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 6 NY3d 563and Matter of Town of Wallkill v Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc. (Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Town of Wallkill Police Dept. Unit, Orange County Local 836) (19 NY3d 1066 to require reversal of Supreme Court's judgment.

In each of those cases, explained the court, the Court of Appeals confined its analysis to the specific language of the statutes at issue, none of which included a broad supersession provision such as the one confronting us in Second Class Cities Law §4. In view of the “clear distinction”, the Appellate Division said it could not conclude that either of these cases controls the outcome of this appeal.

* Article 9, § 133. Rules, orders and regulations, provides, in pertinent part, “The commissioner of public safety … is authorized and empowered to make, adopt, promulgate and enforce reasonable rules, orders and regulations for the government, discipline, administration and disposition of the officers and members of the police and fire departments, and for the hearing, examination, investigation, trial and determination of charges made or prepared against any officer or member of said departments for neglect of official duty or incompetency or incapacity to perform his official duties or some delinquency seriously affecting his general character or fitness for the office, and may, in his discretion, punish any such officer or member found guilty thereof by reprimand, forfeiting and withholding pay for a specified time, supension [sic] during a fixed period or dismissal from office; but no officer or member of said departments shall be removed or otherwise punished for any other cause, nor until specific charges in writing have been preferred against and served upon him, and he shall have been found guilty thereof, after reasonable notice and upon due trial before said commissioner in the form and manner prescribed by law and the rules and regulations of the department.

** See 46 PERB 3025.

*** It does not appear that the Appellate Division’s considered Civil Service Law §76.4, which provides, in pertinent part, that “Nothing contained in section seventy-five or seventy-six of this chapter shall be construed to repeal or modify any general, special or local law or charter provision relating to the removal or suspension of officers or employees in the competitive class of the civil service of the state or any civil division. Such sections may be supplemented, modified or replaced by agreements negotiated between the state and an employee organization pursuant to article fourteen of this chapter.” It could be argued that this language indicates a legislative intent that negotiating disciplinary procedures to “supplement, modify or replace” §§75 or 76 of the Civil Service Law be permissive rather than mandatory [or prohibited] subjects of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Taylor Law [Article 14 of the Civil Service Law].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_00729.htm