Invoking the attorney – client privilege

Invoking the attorney - client privilege

The primary issue in this appeal is whether attorneys who have sought the advice of their law firm's in-house general counsel on their ethical obligations in representing a firm client may successfully invoke attorney-client privilege to resist the client's demand for the disclosure of communications seeking or giving such advice.

Stock v Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis LLP, 2016 NY Slip Op 05247, Appellate Division, First Department

Claiming absolute privileges and immunities as a defense in litigation

Claiming absolute privileges and immunities as a defense in litigation

The plaintiff in this Article 78 action, Crvelin, alleged that the Board of Education of City School District of City of Niagara Falls undertook an investigation and ultimately passed a resolution concluding that she had violated the residency policy and directed that the process to terminate Crvelin’s employment be commenced. Crvelin contended that the School District had defamed her and that as a result of the School District’s action she had suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

In addition, Crvelin claimed that during the litigation of the proceeding, legal counsel for the School District made written statements in a memorandum of law submitted to the court that, according to Crvelin, were defamatory.

The School District, in its defense, claimed various absolute privileges and immunities.

Addressing the merits of plaintiff’s Article 78 complaint, the Appellate Division said:

1. “It is well settled that government officials are absolutely immune for discretionary acts carried out in the course of official duties and that immunity attaches ‘however erroneous or wrong [such conduct] may be, or however malicious even the motive which produced it.’”

2. “Statements made by government officials in the context of a quasi-judicial proceeding such as that at issue here are absolutely privileged and immunize the communicants from liability in a defamation action.” and

3. As the alleged defamatory statements made by the School District’s attorney were contained in a writing submitted to a court on behalf of the School District in the context of Crvelin's Article 78 proceeding “they are absolutely privileged.”

Crvelin v Board of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 2016 NY Slip Op 07783, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The obligation to arbitrate the matter arising through a statutory mandate set out in Education Law §3020-a requires that the arbitrator’s determination be subject to "closer judicial scrutiny."

The obligation to arbitrate the matter arising through a statutory mandate set out in Education Law §3020-a requires that the arbitrator’s determination be subject to "closer judicial scrutiny."

Razzano v Remsenburg-Speonk Union Free Sch. Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 07329, Appellate Division, Second Department

Insubordinate and discourteous conduct

Insubordinate and discourteous conduct

OATH Administrative Law Judge Astrid B. Gloade recommended a 25-day suspension without pay as penalty after a job opportunity specialist was found guilty of refusing to interview clients on a number of occasions, was insubordinate, was discourteous to his supervisors, and was absent without leave.

NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, OATH Index No. 2340/16

______________

A Reasonable Penalty Under The Circumstances - a 618-page volume focusing on New York Statecourt 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

______________

Crediting allegations of sexual orientation-based discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law as suspension and demotion are, on their faces, adverse employment actions

Crediting allegations of sexual orientation-based discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law as suspension and demotion are, on their faces, adverse employment actions.

James v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 07400, Appellate Division, First Department