Fraudulent entities alleging a philanthropic status undercut the trust of corporate and individual donors wishing to contribute to legitimate charitable organizations

Fraudulent entities alleging a philanthropic status undercut the trust of corporate and individual donors wishing to contribute to legitimate charitable organizations

Source: Charity Navigator and posted as a public service

Charity Navigator [CN] has posted a list of organizations soliciting funds for various purposes it characterizes as fraudulent and scams that undercut the trust of donors to social sector charitable organizations.

Such solicitations prey upon the emotions and positive intentions of the public by posing as a legitimate charity. However, said CN, “[t]hey are not registered with the IRS, and many are under investigation for fraud.”

CN at http://www.charitynavigator.org/ is itself a 501(c)(3) organization, seeks to guide intelligent giving by rating various charitable organizations in order to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace in which givers and the charities they support work in tandem to overcome our nation’s and the world’s most persistent challenges. CN evaluations are made available on the Internet without charge.

Organizations on Charity Navigator’s list of “fraudulent” entities is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=2228&utm_source=Charity+Navigator%27s+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=da54cbb57a-July16InactiveNewsletter7_8_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b21df0343b-da54cbb57a-94922261

A staffing requirement for safety purposes and job security provisions set out in a collective bargaining agreement distinguished

A staffing requirement for safety purposes and job security provisions set out in a collective bargaining agreement distinguished

Matter of City of Lockport (Lockport Professional Firefighters Assn., Inc.), 2016 NY Slip Op 05254, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The collective bargaining agreement [CBA] between the City of Lockport [City] and the Lockport Professional Firefighters Assn., Inc. [LPFA], the exclusive bargaining representative for all firefighters employed by the City except the fire chief, included the following:

1. The City agreed to "staff all equipment with adequate firefighters to assure that any evolutions the firefighters are called upon to perform can be conducted with enough firefighters to assure the safety of the staff performing the evolution;"

2. LPFA, in exchange for the City’s agreement to maintain a minimum staffing level of nine firefighters per shift,* agreed to the relocate dispatch communication duties out of the department;

3. The parties agreed that the City, subject to the terms of the CBA and applicable law, could adjust staffing levels "to account for changes in population, technology, apparatus, or other relevant circumstances;" and;

4. The parties agreed to "meet cooperatively for the purpose of discussing issues relating to firefighter and public safety issues[,] and logistical issues[,] associated with the transfer of dispatch duties."

The Board of Fire Commissioners subsequently voted to remove an ambulance from service and to reduce the minimum staffing level from nine firefighters per shift to seven firefighters per shift, which changes were then implemented by the fire chief.

LPFA filed a grievance contending that the City had violated the CBA by reducing the number of firefighters per shift from nine to seven and demanded the restoration of the minimum staffing level to nine firefighters per shift. The City denied the grievance and LPFA demanded that the matter be submitted to arbitration. 

The City objected to submitting the issue to arbitration and initiated a CPLR Article 75 proceeding seeking a permanent stay of arbitration. Supreme Court denied the City’s petition and granted LPFA’s "cross-motion" compel arbitration.  The City appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Affirming the lower court’s determination, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Alden Cent. Sch. Dist. [Alden Cent. Schs. Administrators' Assn.], 115 AD3d 1340, held that "It is well settled that, in deciding an application to stay or compel arbitration under CPLR 7503, the court is concerned only with the threshold determination of arbitrability, and not with the merits of the underlying claim." In making that determination, the court conducts a two-part analysis: first it must determine if there is public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance. Second, if no such prohibition is found to exist, the court must determine if the parties did, in fact, agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining the provisions of the relevant collective bargaining agreement.

The City had contended that the staffing provision in the CBA constituted a job security provision** and job security provisions are not arbitrable as a matter of public policy.

The Appellate Division, however, rejected the City’s public policy argument, explaining that New York State “has a strong public policy favoring arbitration of public sector labor disputes …, and judicial intervention on public policy grounds constitutes a narrow exception to the otherwise broad power of parties to agree to arbitrate all of the disputes arising out of their juridical relationships'."***As a general principal in determining the arbitrability of the issue, said the court, "any doubts as to whether [an] issue is arbitrable will be resolved in favor of arbitration."

Further, opined the Appellate Division, Supreme Court did not err in determining that the staffing provision at issue constituted a safety provision, i.e., a condition of employment, rather than a job security provision that could be subject to the public policy exception to arbitration.

In contrast to a job security provision in a CBA, which typically provides for “no layoff" during the life of the agreement, the Appellate Division said that the staffing provision relied upon by the City “does not operate to mandate a total number of firefighters that must be employed, nor does its stated intent relate to job protection; rather, the staffing provision relates solely to the minimum number of firefighters required to be present for each shift.”

Significantly, said the court, in drafting and agreeing to the staffing provision, “the parties expressly sought to ensure firefighter and public safety associated with the transfer of dispatch communication duties that allowed for the reduction in the minimum per shift staffing level” to nine firefighters per shift.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court properly determined that the staffing provision is not a job security provision, and therefore not subject to analysis under the narrow public policy exception to arbitration.

Turning to the second branch of the analysis, the arbitrability of the issue, the Appellate Division said that “it is undisputed that the parties agreed to arbitrate all grievances arising from the CBA.” Accordingly, the question “Does the reduction of the minimum staffing level from nine firefighters per shift to seven firefighters per shift based on the elimination of an ambulance from service constitutes a violation of the CBA?” goes to the merits of the grievance itself, not to its arbitrability and thus is a matter for the arbitrator to resolve.

* This minimum staffing level of nine firefighters per shift was less than the minimum level set in a prior arbitration award, which award had provided for a minimum staffing level of ten firefighters per shift.

** A job security provision essentially provides that, at least for the duration of the agreement, an employee need not fear losing his or her job except as otherwise permitted by law.

*** See Matter of City of Lockport [Lockport Professional Firefighters Assn., Inc.], 133 AD3d 1358

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_05254.htm

An individual is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits if he or she lost his or her employment as a result of acts constituting a felony

An individual is disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits if he or she lost his or her employment as a result of acts constituting a felony

Matter of Valvo (Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 05017, Appellate Division, Third Department

Labor Law §593 (4) provides that a person who loses his or her employment as a result of an act constituting a felony in connection with such employment is disqualified from receiving benefits for 12 months following the end of such employment. As the Court of Appeals explained in Matter of Sinker [Sweeney], 89 NY2d 485, "a felony is 'in connection with' employment for purposes of Labor Law §593(4) if it results in breach of a duty, express or implied, [a] claimant owes an employer."

Nicholas Valvo, a sanitation worker for a municipal employer, was arrested on charges of grand larceny in the third degree and scheme to defraud in the second degree. His employment with the municipality was terminated on February 28, 2013 based upon his disciplinary history and the arrest. He then applied for, and received unemployment insurance benefits, including regular and emergency unemployment insurance compensation benefits, totaling $16,488.

Valvo subsequently resolved the criminal charges filed against him by pleading guilty to two counts of grand larceny in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree.

The Department of Labor, however, issued an initial determination finding that, among other things, that Valvo was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits under Labor Law §593(4) because he had lost his employment as a result of acts constituting a felony. The Department charged him with a recoverable overpayment of the unemployment insurance benefits he had received and assessed a penalty of $2,473 due to his willful misrepresentations to obtain such benefits.The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the Department’s decisions and Valvo its ruling.

The Appellate Division upheld the Appeal Board’s decision, explaining that Valvo’s “larcenous conduct raised serious questions as to his integrity and suitability for municipal employment … given the detrimental impact his continued employment could have had upon the public's trust in municipal employees.” Accordingly, said the court, it saw no reason to disturb the Board's determination that Valvo’s misconduct was sufficiently connected to his employment as to disqualify him for unemployment insurance benefits.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_05017.htm

Kelly Cummings appointed Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the Governor

Kelly Cummings appointed Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the Governor

Source: Executive Chamber

On July 6, 2016, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced the appointment of Kelly Cummings as deputy chief of staff and senior advisor and will be reporting to the governor. The Governor said “Kelly is a proven leader who for years has operated at the highest levels of state government and I am proud to have her join this administration. With her talent, experience and expertise, she will be a great addition to our team and we look forward to working with her to move New York forward."

Ms. Cummings was the Director of Communications for the Senate Majority since 2011. In that position she has managed overall communications and press inquiries for the Senate Majority Conference and acted as chief spokesperson for the Senate Majority Leader.

In her more than 20 years in the State Legislature, Ms. Cummings has held a number of communications and policy positions in both the Senate and Assembly. Ms. Cummings previously served as director of policy development for the Senate Minority where she assisted senators and their staff in developing, drafting and publicizing new legislative initiatives. 

Earlier Ms. Cummings served as chief of staff to Senator Charles Fuschillo where she managed operations, developed legislation and directed press and communications. Ms. Cummings also worked as communications director and director of public affairs for the Assembly Minority from 2002-2005.

Maintaining a proper chain of custody of evidence to be used in a disciplinary action

Maintaining a proper chain of custody of evidence to be used in a disciplinary action

OATH Index No. 1389/16

A New York City sanitation worker tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine in the course of a random drug test. He contended that the test should have been voided because his urine sample was not in his view the entire time before the specimen was sealed. The sample, however, did remain within the exclusive control of the specimen collector the entire time.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Noel R. Garcia found that this error in the collection process did not significantly affect the sanitation worker’s right to a fair and accurate test and that the appointing authority established a proper chain of custody.

As this was the employee’s third violation of the Department’s substance abuse policy, Judge Garcia recommended termination of employment. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/16_cases/16-1389.pdf

Unless it is shown that a performance evaluation was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith, the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority

Unless it is shown that a performance evaluation was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith, the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority

Van Rabenswaay v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 05051, Appellate Division, First Department

In this appeal of an unsatisfactory performance rating for the school year, the Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court’s dismissal of Anne Van Rabenswaay’s CPLR Article 78 petition. The court explaining that Rabenswaay failed to demonstrate that her U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith.

The Appellate Division found that the record showed that Rabenswaay had failed to timely complete individualized education plans (IEPs) for at least five of her students, notwithstanding repeated warnings and offers of assistance from the IEP coordinator. This, said the court, provided a rational basis for appointing authority’s rating Rabenswaay’s performance for the school year as unsatisfactory.

Rabenswaay had offered various excuses in her defense. The Appellate Division, however, said that even if the excuses tendered by the educator were valid, they would not warrant a finding that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious under the circumstances. Citing Maas v Cornell Univ., 94 NY2d 87, the court explained that “[t]o accept [the excuses] would amount to second-guessing the determination that [Rabenswaay’s] repeated failure to timely complete the IEPs reflected a pedagogical deficiency that merited the U-rating.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_05051.htm

From the LawBlogs -- for the week ending July 2, 2016

From the LawBlogs -- for the week ending July 2, 2016

Internet links highlighted in color 

Employment Law Daily Blog 
Case summaries published in WK's Employment Law News 

Justices leave public-sector agency fee battle for another day

by Pamela Wolf, J.D.

Whether CDL was essential function of diabetic’s job properly put to jury

by Ronald Miller, J.D.

FMLA notice’s failure to include job restoration rights might be interference if employee prejudiced

by Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

Texas has standing to challenge EEOC Guidance on criminal background checks as final agency action

by Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

PA’s pre-leave failure to stay up-to-date on patient charts suggests firing unrelated to FMLA

by Brandi O. Brown, J.D. 

The five most popular NYPPL LawBlog Postings

Health insurance company’s claim for reimbursement...

A probationary employee may not be dismissed from ...

Where the collective bargaining agreement so provi...

Essentials of the "Pickering Balancing Test”

Guide to regulatory enforcement publ

Summaries of articles published in the Fire, Police and Corrections Personnel Reporter 

Posted by AELE  

Disciplinary Interviews and Compelled Reports -- Garrity Warnings - Despite the protections in Garrity, a state employee can waive those rights after he is fired and allow his prior compelled statements to be used by the federal government in a criminal investigation concerning the death and beating of an inmate, provided the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Further, in this case, the statements made by a corrections officer were not compelled because he did not show that he subjectively believed that his statements were compelled on threat of job loss, and that this belief was "objectively reasonable." But even if they were compelled, he adequately waived his Garrityprotections, United States v. Smith, #13-15476, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7762 (11th Cir.). 

Disciplinary Procedures - In General - A female tenth grader took a pie to firefighters. One male firefighter gave her a tour of the station and took a picture of her next to a fire engine. He got her email address to send her the picture and subsequently engaged in a risqué exchange of emails. After the girl's father complained, the firefighter was assigned to a training center where he allegedly touched a female co-worker in an unwelcome manner and made "inappropriate" remarks about their private lives. After an investigation, he was fired. In reviewing the disciplinary action, the trial court did not err in finding that the email exchange, if with a willing unmarried adult, would not violate any existing policy, and it was not alleged in any charge that the firefighter knew the girl was a minor, but the question could be further reconsidered on remand. The trial court, which set aside the termination, did err in failing to consider interview transcripts regarding the firefighter's behavior towards the female co-worker. Seibert v. City of San Jose, #H040268, 2016 Cal. App. Lexis 435. 

Fair Labor Standards Act - Overtime in General - Current and former police officers claimed that the city violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-19 by failing to include payments of unused portions of their benefit allowances when calculating their regular rate of pay, resulting in lower overtime pay. The federal appeals court agreed with this claim as the money paid for unused benefits was payment for work. The plaintiffs were entitled to liquidated damages because the city failed to show that it attempted in good faith to comply with the law. Flores v. City of San Gabriel, #14-56421, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 10018 (8th Cir.). 

Firearms Related - Editor's Case Alert - Four retired correctional officers claimed that the District of Columbia improperly deprived them of their federal right to carry a concealed weapon under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), 18 U.S.C. 926C. They claimed that they met the statutory requirements but that they were unable to obtain firearms training because the District refused to certify that, as corrections officers, they had the power to arrest, specifically to arrest parole violators. The federal appeals court found that the complaint sufficiently alleged that they had been unlawfully deprived of a concrete individual right designed to benefit them, which could be remedied under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Duberry v. District of Columbia, #15-7062, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 10096 (D.C. Cir.). 

First Amendment Related - A federal employee failed to show that she was not promoted because of comments in her performance evaluation when that evaluation was not shown to be actually used in the promotion process. Accordingly, even if comments in the evaluation referred to her protected First Amendment speech (being quoted in a newspaper article about race discrimination within the agency employing her), she could not show that she was not promoted because she exercised her First Amendment rights. Performance ratings that have a negative impact on promotion potential do not constitute an adverse employment action unless the rating actually led to the denial of the promotion. Wilson v. Miller, #15-1415, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7401, 41 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 469 (8th Cir.). 

Handicap/Abilities Discrimination – Disability - A courthouse employee who assisted pro se litigators claimed that before she left to take a better job she was discriminated against because of her black race and her disability of chronic fatigue syndrome. Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, the court noted that the county was her employer and that all alleged discriminatory acts had been committed by state employees, and could not impose liability on her employer. Further, the two specific requests she had made on account of disability--seeking time off--had both been granted. Wells v. Winnebago County, #15-1805, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7647, 129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) (7th Cir.). 

Handicap/Abilities Discrimination -- Reasonable Accommodation [Editor's Case Alert] - A firefighter injured his back during a training exercise. A functional capacity evaluation limited his lifting capabilities. After two years on paid leave, he received a workers' comp award saying the limit was permanent. He retired, but argued that his retirement was a constructive discharge in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), with him forced to choose between retirement and termination. Rejecting the claim, the court said that "Even if the City regarded Adair as having an impairment, Adair cannot show that he was qualified to meet the physical demands required of firefighters or that the City could reasonably accommodate his lifting restrictions." Adair v. City of Muskogee, #15-7067, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 9636 (10th Cir.). 

Political Activity - Patronage Employment - The chief deputy clerk in a courthouse asserted that her firing constituted unlawful retaliation for political affiliations as well as gender discrimination. Rejecting the political affiliation claim, the appeals court found it was permissible to fire her on that basis as she was in a job where it was appropriate to require personal and political loyalty. She also failed to provide any evidence that the reasons given for her termination were a pretext for sex discrimination. DePriest v. Milligan, #15-1365, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 9630 (8th Cir.). 

Retaliatory Personnel Action - An employee of a state agency claimed that she suffered unlawful retaliation for opposing an employment practice prohibited by Title VII and other employment discrimination laws. The conduct she opposed - the amendment of internal procedures in a manner that, she believed, would permit political considerations to influence the evaluation of discrimination claims - was not a “practice made an unlawful employment practice” by Title VII. Cooper v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Labor, #15-3392, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 7588, 100 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45543, 129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 44 (2nd Cir.). 

Whistleblower Protection - An employee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claimed that agency officials violated the whistleblower protections of 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A) by retaliating against him for disclosures about agency practices, including that the Pocket PCs were outdated, had bad batteries, lost data, and presented data-entry problems. Because of this he was allegedly not invited to certain meetings, and discouraged from participating in certain projects to which he was assigned. Various supervisors also allegedly treated and evaluated him poorly and placed him on a Performance Action Plan. A federal appeals court reversed the dismissal of the claim, finding that the employee had adequately alleged that at least one of his supervisors knew of the disclosure at issue. Cahill v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., #15-3152, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 8554 (Fed. Cir.).

Summaries of government, administrative and related law decisions posted by Justia

People ex rel. Feuer v. Progressive Horizon
Business Law, Government Administrative Law
California Court of Appeal

McIntyre v. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist.
Constitutional Law, Education Law, Government & Administrative Law
Supreme Court of Texas

Tex. Dep’t of Ins., Div. of Workers’ Comp. v. Jones
Labor and Employment Law, Government and Administrative Law, Insurance Law
Supreme Court of Texas

McDonnell v. United States
Criminal Law, Government and Administrative Law, White Collar Crime
U.S. Supreme Court

State of Texas v. EEOC
Civil Procedure, Government and Administrative Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Open Door Ministries v. Lipschuetz
Government and Administrative Law, Injury Law, Real Estate and Property Law, Zoning, Planning and Land Use
Colorado Supreme Court

Appeal of Carlos Marti
Labor and Employment Law, Government and Administrative Law, Injury Law
New Hampshire Supreme Court

Appeal of Thomas Phillips
Labor and Employment Law, Government and Administrative Law
New Hampshire Supreme Court

Signal Aviation Services, Inc. v. City of Lebanon
Aviation, Government and Administrative Law, Tax Law
New Hampshire Supreme Court

Indian Spring Land Co. v. Inland Wetlands Watercourses Agency
Government and Administrative Law, Real Estate and Property Law

Connecticut Supreme Court

Laut v. City of Arnold
Government and Administrative Law, Legal Ethics
Supreme Court of Missouri

Mo. Real Estate Appraisers Comm'n v. Funk
Government and Administrative Law, Legal Ethics
Supreme Court of Missouri

Malam v. State, Dep’t of Corr.
Labor and Employment Law, Government and Administrative Law
Supreme Court of Missouri

Warner v. Idaho Transportation Dept
Criminal Law, Government and Administrative Law
Idaho Supreme Court - Civil

Vannoy v. Federal Reserve Bank
Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Government and Administrative Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Bayala v. DHS
Government and Administrative Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

National Fed. of the Blind v. DOT
Civil Procedure, Government and Administrative Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Lake Hendricks Improvement Ass’n v. Brookings County Planning Zoning Comm’n
Government and; Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning and Land Use
South DakotaSupreme Court

Dept. of Rev. v. River's Edge Investments, LLC
Government and Administrative Law, Tax Law
Oregon Supreme Court

Oakmont, LLC v. Dept. of Rev.
Government and Administrative Law, Real Estate and Property Law, Tax Law
Oregon Supreme Court

City of Richmond v. Va. Elec. and Power Co.
Government and Administrative Law, Tax Law
Supreme Court of Virginia

Bay Area Citizens v. Ass'n Bay Area Gov'ts
Environmental Law, Government and Administrative Law

Jangula v. N.D. Dep't of Transportation
Criminal Law, Government Administrative Law
North Dakota Supreme Court

Solers, Inc. v. IRS
Government and Administrative Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit  

Zajac v. Traill County Water Resource District
Civil Procedure, Government and Administrative Law, Real Estate and Property Law
North Dakota Supreme Court

Independence Day Proclamation

Independence Day Proclamation

Source: New York State Executive Chamber, Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor

New York State Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, noting that on “this day 240 years ago, the United States of America was founded on the principles of equality, liberty and the right of self-governance,” has issued an Independence Day Proclamation  commemorating this critical event in the history of the United States of America.

This Proclamation is posted on the Internet at:  https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/IndependenceDay2016.pdf?elqTrackId=eb84fca5a24243b186999780fc770de6&elq=91e8e168ba414cdcab1f2fad71436fe2&elqaid=137&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=41

Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending July 2, 2016

Selected reports issued by the Office of the State Comptroller during the week ending July 2, 2016

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

Click on text highlighted in color to access the entire report 

Former Alexandria Town Clerk Pleads Guilty in Theft

Former Alexandria Town Clerk Ellen Peck pleaded guilty in Jefferson County Court to stealing $26,285 in public funds. Peck pocketed cash paid by residents for fines, fees and surcharges, according to State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse.  Individuals can report allegations of fraud involving public funds by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by transmitting an e-mail to investigations@osc.state.ny.us, by filing a complaint online athttp://osc.state.ny.us/investigations/complaintform2.htm or by mailing a complaint to Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 14th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

CDTA Overtime Expenses and Ridership Growing

The Capital District Transportation Authority’s reported overtime payments accounted for 20 percent of the authority’s total employee compensation in the 2015 fiscal year, more than twice the proportion of other upstate regional transit agencies, amid steady ridership growth in recent years, according to a reportreleased by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

Guide to regulatory enforcement published by McGraw-Hill Education

Guide to regulatory enforcement published by McGraw-Hill Education

Source: Marissa Madill, Smith Publicity, Inc.

In their recently published book, The New Era of Regulatory Enforcement: A Comprehensive Guide for Raising the Bar to Manage Risk, authors Richard H. Girgenti, J.D., [National and Americas Leader for KPMG LLP’s Forensic Advisory Services], and Dr. Timothy P. Hedley, [KPMG’s Global Lead for Fraud Risk Management Services], provide insights into challenges organizations may face in conducting business in a rapidly changing regulatory environment. 

Noting that "In today’s global and digital world, the increasingly complex regulatory and business landscape has created unprecedented challenges and risks for businesses in all industries,” Girgenti and Hedley, supported by KPMG professionals with varied areas of regulatory and enforcement knowledge, explore government policies, strategies and tactics driving enforcement activity, and the most effective approaches for identifying, detecting, avoiding and responding to enterprise and industry risks. 

The New Era of Regulatory Enforcement provides clear guidance on what organizations need to do to mitigate risks, as well as insight into:

Public policies driving increased enforcement activity;

Government expectations for organizational compliance and integrity;

Tools and techniques deployed by the government to identify, investigate and ensure organizational compliance; and

Steps prudent organizations must take to prevent, detect and, as necessary, respond to regulatory enforcement risks.

Girgenti and Hedley also co-authored Managing the Risk of Fraud and Misconduct: Meeting the Challenges of a Global, Regulated, and Digital Environment [McGraw-Hill, 2011]. 

The New Era of Regulatory Enforcement is available in both hardcover and Kindle versions at  bookstores and through the Internet.

Recent decisions by Administrative Law Judges of the NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings

Recent decisions by Administrative Law Judges of the NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings

Human Resources Administration v Smart, OATH Index No. 1325/16

NYC Dept. of Transportation v Harris, OATH Index No. 1531/16 

Matter of Smart: In the Smart case, OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin F. Casey found that a job opportunity specialist, Averyl Smart, guilty of charges of [1] speaking on her cell phone while a client was waiting, [2] refusing to set up her work voicemail, and [3] burning the edges of a disciplinary memorandum. Judge Casey, however, dismissed the allegation charging that Smith had made disrespectful comments to a supervisor.

Finding that was Smart guilty of three of the four charges alleged against her, the ALJ recommended that a 15-day suspension without pay be imposed as her penalty.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/16_cases/16-1325.pdf

Matter of Harris: The New York Department of Transportation alleged that Maurice Harris, a highway repairer, intentionally pushed and cursed his supervisor.

Administrative Law Judge Alessandra F. Zorgniotti found that Harris had intentionally pushed his supervisor but had been provoked by the supervisor but that the Department of Transportation had filed to prove that Harris had cursed him.

Considering Harris’ 18 years of service with the Department and his a minor disciplinary record – in 2006 he was given a written reprimand for failing to notify his work location that he was unable to report to work and in 2012 he was suspended for five days for using in appropriate language towards a supervisor -- ALJ Zorgniotti recommended a ten-day suspension without pay.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/16_cases/16-1531.pdf

_______________

The Discipline Book - A 458 page guide focusing on New York State laws, rules, regulations, disciplinary grievances procedures set out in collective bargaining agreements and selected court and administrative decisions concerning disciplinary actions and the termination of permanent, provisional, temporary and term state and municipal public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/5215.html

_______________

Determining whether a collective bargaining agreement provides for the arbitration of an alleged violation of the agreement

Determining whether a collective bargaining agreement provides for the arbitration of an alleged violation of the agreement

In the Matter of Wilson Cent. Sch. Dist. (Wilson Teachers' Assn.), 2016 NY Slip Op 04866, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The Wilson Central School District appealed Supreme Court’s decision denying its CPLR Article 75 petition to stay the arbitration of a grievance concerning the transfer of a physical education teacher from its high school to its elementary school and granted the Wilson Teachers’ Association’s cross petition to compel arbitration.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

The sole issue to be resolved in this appeal, explained the Appellate Division, is whether the parties "have agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue" pursuant to their collective bargaining agreement (CBA).” A court’s review of that question, however, is limited.  

Holding that Supreme Court “properly determined that, because the CBA contains a broad arbitration clause, and there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute, i.e., the transfer of a teacher to another position, and the general subject matter of the CBA," whether the grievance falls within the scope of the arbitration provision set out in the CBA is for the arbitrator, and not the court, to determine.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_04866.htm

Daughter admits stealing over $148,000 of New York State Public Employees’ Retirement System funds after failing to report her retired father’s death

Daughter admits stealing over $148,000 of New York State Public Employees’ Retirement System funds after failing to report her retired father’s death

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced that Renee Kanas, 63, a resident of Tamarac, Florida, pleaded guilty today to Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a Class D felony, for stealing over $148,000 in pension payments from the New York State and Local Employees Retirement System paid to her father, Jacob Yudenfreund, a New York State pensioner who died in March 2010.

By failing to notify the New York Stateand Local Employees Retirement System of her father’s passing in March 2010, Kanas she continued to collect his pension benefits for approximately five years. During this time period, Kanas lived off the stolen money and, among other things, took multiple cruises, including to the Caribbean.

In May 2016, Kanas was arrested on a warrant by City of Tamarac Road Patroland Broward County Sheriff’s in Florida. Having been brought to Albany Countyto face these charges, on June 30, 2016, Kanas today pleaded guilty before Honorable Thomas A. Breslin in Albany Supreme Court. As part of her plea, Kanas signed a confession of judgment in favor of New York Statein the amount of $148,092.24 and now faces up six years in state prison when she is sentenced.

The investigation was conducted by the New York State Comptroller’s Division of Investigations and the Attorney General. This case is the latest joint investigation under the Operation Integrity partnership of the Comptroller and Attorney General, which to date has resulted in dozens of convictions and more than $11 million in restitution. Comptroller DiNapoli and the Attorney General thank the City of Tamarac Road Patrol and Broward County Sheriff’s in Floridafor their assistance.

The Comptroller’s investigation was conducted by the Comptroller’s Division of Investigations, working with the New York Stateand Local Retirement System.

The Attorney General’s investigation was conducted by Investigator Mark Spencer, Investigator Casey Quinlan and Deputy Chief Antoine Karam. Forensic accounting was performed by Associate Forensic Auditor Meaghan Scovello. The Investigations Bureau is led by Chief Dominick Zarrella. The Forensic Audit Section is led by Chief Auditor Edward J. Keegan.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant Attorney General Philip V. Apruzzese of the Criminal Enforcement and Financial Crimes Bureau. The Criminal Enforcement and Financial Crimes Bureau is led by Bureau Chief Gary T. Fishman and Deputy Bureau Chief Stephanie Swenton. The Division of Criminal Justice is led by Executive Deputy Attorney General Kelly Donovan.

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse.  Individuals can report allegations of fraud involving public funds by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by transmitting an e-mail to investigations@osc.state.ny.us, by filing a complaint online athttp://osc.state.ny.us/investigations/complaintform2.htm or by mailing a complaint to Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 14th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

State Division of Human Rights’ complaint alleging discriminatory housing practices filed in Supreme Court held untimely

State Division of Human Rights’ complaint alleging discriminatory housing practices filed in Supreme Court held untimely

New York State Div. of Human Rights v Folino, 2016 NY Slip Op 04821, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR), on the complaint of Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Inc. (HOME), commenced an action in Supreme Court seeking damages from Anthony and Carmeline Folino for their alleged discriminatory housing practices. Supreme Court denied the Folino’s motion to dismiss SDHR’s complaint as untimely and the Folinos appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Appellate Division said that it agreed with the Folinos that Supreme Court erred in denying their pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred pursuant to CPLR §214(2). 

The court's decision noted that HOME had filed an administrative complaint with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, which then forwarded the matter to SDHR pursuant to a work-sharing agreement. Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, the running of the statute of limitations was tolled upon the filing of the administrative complaint, and during its pendency, until the administrative proceeding was terminated.

The Appellate Division explained that the last discriminatory act set forth in the SDHR’s complaint occurred on November 8, 2010, and thus the cause of action accrued and the three-year statute of limitations for the New York State Human Rights Law began to run on that date.

Following a probable cause determination by SDHR, the Folinos had submitted a notice of their election to terminate the administrative proceeding and instead "to have an action commenced in the civil court" by SDHR as authorized by Executive Law §297[9].* 

That election triggered the continuation of the running of the Statute of Limitations, the running of which had been tolled upon the filing of the administrative complaint by HOME.

The Appellate Division, noting that 143 days elapsed after the cause of action accrued and before the tolling period commenced upon HOME's filing of its administrative complaint, found that SDHR had two years and 222 days within which to commence the civil action after the tolling period ended. 

This period, said the court, ended on February 22, 2014. SDHR, however, did not commence its civil action until July 3, 2014. Accordingly, said the court, it was untimely, sustaining the Folino’s motion to dismiss complaint filed by SDHR in a civil court.

*§297[9] of the Executive Law, a statutory exception to the Doctrine of Election of Remedies, in pertinent part provides “…. Any party to a housing discrimination complaint shall have the right within twenty days following a determination of probable cause pursuant to subdivision two of this section to elect to have an action commenced in a civil court, and an attorney representing the division of human rights will be appointed to present the complaint in court, or, with the consent of the division, the case may be presented by complainant's attorney.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_04821.htm