The employer and individual employees of the employer may be named defendants in an action alleging unlawful discrimination under a "condonation theory"

The employer and individual employees of the employer may be named defendants in an action alleging unlawful discrimination under a "condonation theory"

Emengo v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06734, Appellate Division, First Department

Benedict O. Emengo filed a  CPLR Article 78 petition in Supreme Court alleging that he was adversely treated by his employer, the New York State Insurance Fund and certain NYSIF administrator* [NYSIF] because his color, national origin and that although he was well-qualified for promotion to positions he sought, was refused promotion to these positions.

Supreme Court granted NYSIF’s motion to dismiss Emengo’s petition but the Appellate Division unanimously modified, on the law, certain of Emengo’s causes of action dismissed by the lower court.

The Appellate Division said the Emengo’s allegations that one administrator told him that “he was an ‘immigrant’ who ‘should be content’ with his current job title, ‘since, as an immigrant, he would never be promoted beyond’ his current title” and that another administrator “was previously found to have discriminated against black NYSIF** employees” constitute sufficient evidence of discriminatory animus.

The court also held that Emengo had “sufficiently alleges that each individual defendant was an ‘employer’ for purposes of his claims, broadly asserting that each individual defendant was a high-ranking manager with, at least inferentially, supervisory powers, including the power to promote, discipline and terminate employees.”

The Appellate Division also noted that Emengo had alleged that “there was a long-standing policy of refusing to promote black NYSIF employees above the title of Supervising Insurance Field Investigator, that all of the individual defendants were at least aware of this policy, that all of the individual defendants were aware that [Emengo] was being refused promotions in accordance with this policy, and that none of the defendants took any action in response to this conduct.” Citing State Div. of Human Rights v St. Elizabeth's Hosp., 66 NY2d 684, and Patrowich v Chemical Bank, 63 NY2d 541, the court ruled that Emengo had “adequately pleaded employer liability as to all of the individual defendants, under a condonation theory”***within the meaning of Executive Law §296[1][a].

NYSIF agreed that Emengo’s claims against the State of New York and NYSIF "rise or fall with his claims against the six individual defendants," his claims against the State and NYSIF under the State’s Human Rights Law, including his causes of action for retaliation and for aiding and abetting discrimination, should be reinstated.

Emengo has also asked the Appellate Division to reinstate his claims under the New York City Human Rights Law [City HRL]. Supreme Court had dismissed his City HRL claims on the independent ground of sovereign immunity. Emengo, said the Appellate Division, was required on the independent ground of sovereign immunity, whether or not the failed to address this aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision and deemed him to have abandoned his appeal with respect to Supreme Court’s dismissal of his City HRL claims.

* The NYSIF administrators are denominated “John and Jane Doe” in the caption of the decision.

** The decision notes that Emengo “was a black man of Nigerian national origin.”

*** An essential ingredient of condonation is knowledge of the infraction alleged to have been condoned. In Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v St. Elizabeth's Hosp., 66 NY2d 684, the court held that “An employer will be liable for ‘an employee's discriminatory act [where] the employer became a party to it by encouraging, condoning, or approving it.’” Further, said the court, “the term condonation includes … ‘[a]n employer's calculated inaction in response to discriminatory conduct.’”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_06734.htm

Audits of School Districts posted during the week ending October 15, 2016

Audits of School Districts posted during the week ending October 15, 2016

Source: Office of the State Comptroller

[Internet links highlighted in color]

Bradford Central School District – Financial Management (2016M-253)

Purpose of Audit

The purpose of our audit was to evaluate the District's financial management for the period July 1, 2012 through April 15, 2016.

Background

The Bradford Central School District is located in the Towns of Bath, Bradford, Urbana and Wayne in Steuben County and the Towns of Orange and Tyrone in Schuyler County. The District, which operates one school with approximately 275 students, is governed by an elected five-member Board of Education. Budgeted appropriations for the 2015-16 fiscal year totaled approximately $8.8 million.

Key Findings

The Board and District officials have not adopted realistic budgets or effectively managed fund balance and, despite the significant amount of accumulated fund balance, continued to raise the tax levy by an average of 2 percent each year or a total of $350,000 over the last three years.

When unused appropriated fund balance is added back, unrestricted fund balance exceeded the statutory limit by amounts ranging from $1.4 million to $1.9 million or 12.8 to 17.5 percentage points.

Key Recommendations

Ensure budgets include realistic appropriations based on actual needs and planned use of fund balance to avoid levying taxes at a level greater than needed.

Ensure that unrestricted fund balance is in compliance with the statutory limit and develop a plan to use excess fund balance in a manner that benefits District residents.

___________

Corning City School District – Procurement (2016M-222)

Purpose of Audit

The purpose of our audit was to review the District's procurement practices for the period July 1, 2014 through April 26, 2016.

Background

The Corning City School District is located in the Towns of Big Flats and Catlin in Chemung County; the Towns of Dix and Orange in Schuyler County; and the City of Corning and the Towns of Bradford, Campbell, Caton, Corning, Erwin, Hornby and Lindley in Steuben County. The District, which operates eight schools with approximately 4,800 students, is governed by an elected nine-member Board of Education. Budgeted appropriations for the 2015-16 fiscal year totaled approximately $102.5 million.

Key Findings

The District's procurement policy does not include procedures for the procurement of professional services.

District officials did not always solicit competition through requests for proposals or obtain or retain quotes or bids.

Key Recommendations

Revise the procurement policy to include clear language addressing the procurement of professional services and require strict adherence to the requirements of the procurement policy.

Solicit competition for professional service contracts and ensure that written or verbal quotes are obtained for purchases that are under bidding thresholds.

___________

East Moriches Union Free School District – Claims Processing (2016M-273)

Purpose of Audit

The purpose of our audit was to examine claims processing for the period July 1, 2014 through May 31, 2016.

Background

The East Moriches Union Free School District is located in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County. The District, which operates two schools with approximately 730 students, is governed by an elected five-member Board of Education. Budgeted appropriations for the 2015-16 fiscal year totaled approximately $25.8 million.

Key Findings

The claims auditor did not properly identify and report all confirming purchase orders to the Board.

The Treasurer did not supervise an account clerk typist's use of her electronic signature to sign the District’s checks.

Key Recommendations

Properly identify and report to the Board all instances of confirming purchase orders.

Discontinue the practice of allowing the Treasurer's electronic signature to be affixed to checks without direct authorization or supervision.

___________

Merrick Union Free School District – Financial Condition (2016M-240)

Purpose of Audit

The purpose of our audit was to evaluate the District's financial operations and use of fund balance for the period July 1, 2014 through December 31, 2015.

Background

The Merrick Union Free School District is located in the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County. The District, which operates three schools with approximately 1,480 students, is governed by an elected seven-member Board of Education. Budgeted appropriations for the 2015-16 fiscal year totaled approximately $46.9 million.

Key Findings

The Board adopted budgets that overestimated expenditures by a total of $9.3 million and underestimated revenues by a total of $2.8 million from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2015.

The District's unrestricted fund balance exceeded the statutory maximum for each of the three years reviewed.

Fund balance appropriated by the Board was not used.

The district did not use its reserve funds during the audit period but instead used operating funds to pay for related costs.

Key Recommendations

Adopt budgets that realistically reflect the District’s operating needs based on historical trends or other identified analysis.

Develop a written plan to reduce the level of unrestricted fund balance to legal limits and consider revising the District’s fund balance policy to require compliance.

Discontinue the practice of appropriating unexpended surplus funds that are not needed and not used to fund District operations.

Ensure that reserve funds are used for their intended purpose.

___________

Local Government and School Accountability Contact Information:

Phone: (518) 474-4037; Email: localgov@osc.state.ny.us
Address: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Local Government and School Accountability 110 State Street, 12th Floor; Albany, NY 12236

New York State Comptroller audit reveals the State’s Health Department overpaid certain Medicaid Managed Care premiums

New York StateComptroller audit reveals the State’s Health Department overpaid certain Medicaid Managed Care premiums

Source: Office of the State Comptroller [Internet links highlighted in color]

The state Department of Health (DOH) overpaid managed care organizations nearly $19 million for the state fiscal year 2014-15, in part, because of a flaw in how it calculated premiums, according to an auditreleased on October 13, 2016 by New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli. Auditors warned that another $56.8 million was at risk of overpayment over the next three years due to the flaw.

Additionally, DiNapoli’s auditors found DOH, because it had not provided sufficient cost reporting guidance, is missing out on millions in annual savings it is supposed to realize through reforms recommended by the state’s Medicaid Redesign Team. The department also failed to collect $38.6 million in actuarial costs, incurred since 2009, from managed care organizations (MCOs).

For the state fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, New York’s Medicaid program had approximately 7.1 million enrollees and Medicaid claim costs totaled about $53 billion. The federal government funded about 52 percent of New York’s Medicaid claim costs; the state funded about 30 percent; and localities funded the rest.

Most of New York’s Medicaid recipients receive their services through mainstream Medicaid managed care. Medicaid pays MCOs a monthly premium payment for each enrolled Medicaid recipient and the MCOs arrange for the recipients’ health services. Mainstream managed care provides hospital care, physician services, dental services, pharmacy benefits, and many others. Of the $53 billion in Medicaid costs, MCOs received $17.8 billion in mainstream managed care premiums for nearly 5.2 million Medicaid enrollees.

DiNapoli’s auditors found that the approximate $19 million in premium overpayments largely occurred because DOH incorrectly factored in the cost of certain taxes – a franchise tax imposed on insurance corporations and the Metropolitan Transportation Business Tax (MTA surcharge) – levied against for-profit MCOs into DOH’s rate-setting calculations. This resulted in higher premiums for all MCOs, including those MCOs that did not pay these taxes. In response to the audit, DOH officials told auditors they updated the methodology.

Auditors also reviewed the expenses submitted by one MCO to DOH and determined the MCO claimed certain non-allowable administrative expenses, which also contributed to the overpayments.

DOH’s cost reporting instructions failed to provide clear and specific instructions for reporting some expenses, such as fines and penalties and certain legal expenses. DOH also provided poor reporting guidance that allowed MCOs to misreport non-allowable marketing expenses, contrary to the intent of a policy change initiated from a Medicaid Redesign Team (MRT) proposal. As a result, DOH is not fully realizing the MRT’s estimated $45 million in annual savings from the change.

DiNapoli’s auditors also found that since October 2009, DOH has contracted with Mercer Health and Benefits, LLC to provide actuarial services and guidance in setting all managed care premium rates. As of January 2015, the total cost of the contract was $38.6 million. Under state law, DOH is required to charge the MCOs for those services, but had not done so.

DiNapoli recommended DOH:

1. Modify the rate-setting methodology to ensure that franchise taxes and MTA surcharges are properly factored into the methodology;

2. Determine the extent to which the MCOs’ reported expenses include non-allowable marketing expenses, and assess whether planned cost savings can be achieved under current MCO reporting practices;

3. Revise the Medicaid Managed Care Operating Report (MMCOR) instructions to ensure adequate guidance is given for reporting marketing and facilitated enrollment expenses, fines, and legal costs;

4. Recalculate the administrative cost cap and the base administrative premium rate based on the audit’s findings and apply the recalculations to the premiums paid for the state fiscal year 2014-15 and forward;

5. Recover overpayments;

6. Assess the cost of the current actuary contract, and any future contracts and amendments, to MCOs; and

7. Include MCOs in the future selection of the actuary.

Department officials generally concurred with some of the audit recommendations, and indicated that actions have been and will be taken to address them. DOH’s full response is included in the complete audit.

The complete report is posted on the Internet at: report

Employee’s misuse of employer’s email results in dismissal

Employee’s misuse of employer’s email results in dismissal
Posted by Employment Law News, WK WorkDay - A service provided by Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S.

[Internet links highlighted in color]

Fire Captain terminated after using Department’s internal email system to transmit religious messages

By Dave Strausfeld, J.D.

A fire department captain who was discharged for sending Christian messages to coworkers via the department’s internal email system was unable to prove that his First Amendment free speech rights were violated, held a Washington Court of Appeals, affirming a lower court’s grant of summary judgment. The email system was a nonpublic forum, and limiting its usage to fire department business was reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Judge Lawrence-Berrey filed a separate concurring opinion.

In dissent, Chief Judge Fearing argued the department had opened the email system to religious messages by forwarding newsletters from its health insurer about solving personal problems and living a healthy lifestyle, because the government may not “prefer secular chatter over religious oration” (Sprague v. Spokane Valley Fire Department).

The text of Mr. Strausfeld summary is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/index.php/news/fired-for-using-internal-email-system-to-send-religious-messages-fire-captain-loses-free-speech-claim/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CCH-Workday+%28WK+WorkDay%29

Employee’s termination for sending 900 company emails to personal account did not constitute reverse discrimination

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

Sending over 900 company emails to his personal or other outside account, including over 100 containing confidential client information, was a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for firing a 59-year-old employee, notwithstanding that he was allowed to work at home on the company’s secure network and that an NLRB law judge found some of the employer’s confidentiality rules overbroad.

Accordingly a federal district court in Michigan granted summary judgment against his federal and state law reverse race and gender discrimination claims as well as his age bias claim under the ADEA. His FLSA claim for unpaid overtime also failed (MacEachern v. Quicken Loans, Inc., September 21, 2016, Steeh, G.).

The text of Ms. Kapusta’s summary is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/index.php/news/employee-fired-for-sending-over-900-emails-to-personal-account-not-for-reverse-discrimination/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CCH-Workday+%28WK+WorkDay%29

N.B. No part of the above materials may be copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated, reduced to any electronic medium or machine-readable form, or retransmitted, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of WK. Any other reproduction in any form without the prior written consent of WK is prohibited. Written consent may be obtained from WK. Please click here for more information.

Other decisions addressing an employee’s alleged misuse of an employer’s electronic equipment include:

Fraser v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.

USDC, 135 F. Supp. 2d 623

The court held that an employee using his or her employer's computer equipment for personal business does not enjoy any "right to privacy" barring the employer’s reviewing the employee's e-mail that is stored in its computer system. Federal District Court Judge Anita B. Brody decided that an employer may peruse an employee's e-mail files that are stored in the system without violating either federal or Pennsylvania wiretap laws.

On appeal the USCA, Third Circuit, affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide on Fraser's wrongful termination claim but vacated and remand the state claims, and his bad-faith claim and forfeiture-for-competition claim for consideration in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in Hess v. Gebhard and Co., Inc., 570 Pa. 148.

Leo Gustafson v Town of N. Castle, 

45 A.D.3d 766

The employee, an assistant building inspector with the Town of North Castle, was charged and found guilty of falsifying official records with respect to where he was while on duty. The individual was assigned a town vehicle for the purpose of making field inspections in connection with his employment. The vehicle had a global positioning system installed that transmitted information to the town’s computer reporting the vehicle’s location and movements. Based on this information, the Town charged the employee with falsifying town records as to his whereabouts. This, said the Appellate Division, constituted substantial evidence to support the determination that the employee was guilty of falsifying town records.

Ghita v Department of Education of the City of New York

2008 NY Slip Op 30706(U), Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 0110481/2007 [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports]

The employee challenged an arbitrator’s determination terminating his employment with the New York City Department of Education after finding him guilty of downloading a file of pornographic material from his AOL email account and openly viewed such pornographic material from a school computer. Supreme Court rejected the individual’s claim that [1] the arbitrator exceeded his authority under Education Law §3020-a, and [2] the award terminating Ghita's employment is a violation of public policy and New York State Law.

Perry v Comm. of Labor,

App. Div. 3rd Dept., 283 A.D.2d 754

This unemployment insurance claimant challenged a determination by the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board denying him benefits after finding that his employment was terminated due to his misconduct. The nature of the individual's alleged misconduct: his misuse of his employer's computer equipment. The employee, a human resource specialist, was terminated after his employer discovered that he used his computer terminal to frequently access pornographic websites during working hours.

Fraser v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.

USDC, 135 F. Supp. 2d 623

The court held that an employee using his or her employer's computer equipment for personal business does not enjoy any "right to privacy" barring the employer’s reviewing the employee's e-mail that is stored in its computer system. Federal District Court Judge Anita B. Brody decided that an employer may peruse an employee's e-mail files that are stored in the system without violating either federal or Pennsylvania wiretap laws.

As to the issue of the expectation of privacy, the appointing authority may wish to periodically advise its officers and employees that they have no right to privacy with respect to any data retrieved from the employer's computers, servers, video tapes, message tapes or other storage devices, electronic or otherwise.

The full text of the Wilkinson - Casey decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2008/06/searching-employers-computer-for.html

______________

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York State court and administrative decisions addressing an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/7401.html

______________