Hearing officer's applying an incorrect standard in making his or her determination requires the remanding of the matter for a new hearing

Hearing officer's applying an incorrect standard in making his or her determination requires the remanding of the matter for a new hearing

McGowan v New York State & Local Police & Fire Retirement Sys., 2017 NY Slip Op 01751, Appellate Division, Third Department

James K. McGowanworked as a police officer for the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. In 2010, he applied for accidental disability retirement benefits, alleging that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties as the result of a work-related motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2005. His application was denied upon the ground that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties as a police officer, and McGowan requested a hearing and redetermination.

The Hearing Officer upheld the denial, finding that McGowan had failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was permanently incapacitated from performing his job duties and that the initial determination was supported by substantial evidence.

The Appellate Division overturned the Comptroller's adoption of the Hearing Officer's determination. The court ruled that the Hearing Officer misstated and applied the incorrect legal standard in rendering her decision.

The Hearing Officer, said the court, improperly analyzed whether the initial determination was supported by substantial evidence, "rather than undertaking a redetermination and exercising the same powers upon such hearing as upon the original application."

As the Comptroller failed to recognize this error of law prior to adopting the Hearing Officer's decision, the Appellate Division ruled that the Comptroller's the determination must be annulled and the matter remitted to the Comptroller for a new hearing.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_01751.htm

__________________

The Disability Benefits E-book: - This e-book focuses on disability benefits available to officers and employees in public service pursuant to Civil Service Law §§71, 72 and 73, General Municipal Law §207-a and §207-c, the Retirement and Social Security Law, the Workers’ Compensation Law, and similar provisions of law. For more information click on: http://booklocker.com/3916.html

__________________

Appointments Pursuant to Sections 55-b and 55-c of the Civil Service Law

Appointments Pursuant to Sections 55-b and 55-c of the Civil Service Law

Source: NYS Department of Civil Service, Division of Staffing Services

NYS Department of Civil Service, Division of Staffing Services has published Policy Bulletin 17-01, Program Guidelines and Procedures for Appointments Pursuant to Sections 55-b and 55-c of the Civil Service Law.

These guidelines were adopted by the New York State Civil Service Commission at its meeting of February 2017 to clarify the policies and procedures to ensure the greatest employment opportunities for those persons with disabilities and Veterans with disabilities whose disabilities have placed them at a disadvantage in obtaining entry into the workforce.
 

The text of Policy Bulletin 17-01 is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/Manuals/SPMM/1800Appointments/Policy%20Bulletin%2017-01.htm

A PDF version of Policy Bulletin 17-01 is available on the Internet at:

https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/pb17-01.pdf

Important Information on W-2/SSN Data Theft Scam

Important Information on W-2/SSN Data Theft Scam

Source: The Internal Revenue Service

The Internal Revenue Service has called attention to what it characterizes as "A dangerous email scam" currently circulating nationwide and targeting employers, including tax exempt entities, universities and schools, government and private-sector businesses.

The scammer poses as an internal executive requesting employee Forms W-2 and Social Security Number information from company payroll or human resources departments. They may even send an initial “Hi, are you in today” message before the request.

The IRS has established a process that will allow employers and payroll service providers to quickly report any data losses related to the W-2 scam. See details at Form W-2/SSN Data Theft: Information for Businesses and Payroll Service Providers. If notified in time, the IRS can take steps to prevent employees from being victimized by identity thieves filing fraudulent returns in their names. There also is information about how to report receiving the scam email even if you did not fall victim.

As a reminder, tax professionals who experience a data breach also should quickly report the incident to the IRS. Tax professionals may contact their local stakeholder liaison. See details at Data Theft Information for Tax Professionals.

Also note, IRS suggests that if your business received the email but did NOT fall victim to the scam, forward the email to the IRS. The IRS needs the email header from the phishing email for its investigation, which means you must do more than just forward the email to phishing@irs.gov. Here’s what to do with the W-2 email scam:

1. The email headers should be provided in plain ASCII text format. Do not print and scan
2. Save the phishing email as an email file on your computer desktop
3. Open your email and attach the phishing email file you previously saved
4. Send your email containing the attached phishing email file to phishing@irs.gov. Subject Line: W2 Scam. Do not attach any sensitive data such as employee SSNs or W-2s.
5. File a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3,) operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Dismissing a human rights complaint for "administrative convenience" and "dismissal of a human rights complaint on the merit" distinguished

Dismissing a human rights complaint for "administrative convenience" and "dismissal of a human rights complaint on the merit" distinguished

Vetro v Hampton Bays Union Free School Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 01910, Appellate Division, Second Department

In an action seeking to recover damages for his alleged wrongful termination of employment by the Hampton Bays Union Free School District, Frank J. Vetro appealed an order of the Supreme Court that denied his motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granted Hampton Bay's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court's ruling explaining that in this instance the "doctrine of election of remedies" barred Vetro from bringing an action in Supreme Court alleging the same discriminatory acts the he had advanced in his complaint filed with the New York State Division of Human [Division] in his complaint.

Executive Law §297(9) provides that in the event the Division has dismissed a complaint filed with it for "administrative convenience" the complainant is able to "maintain all rights to bring suit as if no complaint had been filed with the [Division]." In contrast, in the event the Division had dismissed the complaint or complaints on the merits and not for mere administrative convenience, recourse to Supreme Court alleging the same acts or omissions is not available to the complainant.

In particular, §297(9) provides that at  any  time  prior  to  a   hearing  before a hearing examiner, a person who has a complaint pending at the division may request that the division dismiss the complaint  and   annul his or her election of remedies so that the human rights law claim   may  be  pursued  in  court,  and  the  division may, upon such request,   dismiss the complaint on the grounds that such person's election  of  an   administrative  remedy  is  annulled.*

In this instance, said the Appellate Division, the Division of Human Rights dismissed Vetro's complaints on the "merits and not for mere administrative convenience." Thus, said the court, Supreme Court properly granted the school district's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that this action is barred by the election of remedies doctrine.

* N.B. A complaint filed by the Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission to comply with the requirements of 42 USC 2000e-5(c)and 42 USC 12117(a) and29 USC 633(b) does not constitute the filing of a complaint within the meaning of §297(9) of New York State's Executive Law.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_01910.htm

Use of excessive and inappropriate force on juvenile residents at a facility

Use of excessive and inappropriate force on juvenile residents at a facility

Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full text of the decision

 

Administrative Law Judge Kara J. Miller recommended termination of employment for a juvenile counselor who used excessive and inappropriate force on three residents.

The employee placed his arms, hand, and knee on one resident’s neck, pulled another resident backwards off a desk by his boxer shorts causing the resident to fall on his back and hit his head on a chair, and grabbed a third resident around the waist, lifting him in the air, and slamming him to the ground.

Additionally, the employee submitted a false report regarding the incident.   

Admin. for Children’s Services v. Judge, OATH Index No. 1412/16 (Jan. 20, 2017).

___________________

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

___________________