Fair Labor Standards Act not applicable to personnel employed by an "educational establishment"

Fair Labor Standards Act not applicable to personnel employed by an "educational establishment"

Fernandez v Zoni Language Center, USCA, 2nd Circuit, Docket #16-1689-cv

Zhara Fernandez and certain others [Plaintiffs] were employed as English teachers by the Zoni Language Center. Acting on their own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs alleged that Zoni was in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law because it failed to pay them the statutory minimum wage for hours worked out of the classroom and the statutory overtime required when Plaintiffs' classroom and out-of-classroom work exceeded 40 hours per week. 

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, holding that Zoni was exempt from the FLSA's mandatory minimum wage and overtime requirements as they were not applicable to teachers working as bona fide professionals. Zoni, said the court, was an "educational establishment" within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. 541.204(b).

Professional employees employed at elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher education, or other educational institutions are deemed employees excluded from claiming compensation consistent with the mandatory provisions of the FLSA. In addition, for purposes of this exclusion, no distinction is drawn between public and private schools, or between those operated for profit and those that are not for profit.

The professional exclusion applies to employees who have as a primary duty, teaching, tutoring, instructing, or lecturing in the activity of "imparting knowledge and [who] do so in an educational establishment." Accordingly, employers of such personnel are not mandated to pay such employees minimum wages, overtime or similar compensation related rates otherwise required by Federal or New York State law with respect to its non-professional personnel.

An employee on leave from work due to a reasonable fear of domestic violence is not "unavailable" or unwilling to work for the purposes of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits

An employee on leave from work due to a reasonable fear of domestic violence is not "unavailable" or unwilling to work for the purposes of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits

Matter of Derfert (Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 04016, Appellate Division, Third Department

To be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, claimant must be "ready, willing and able to work." Further, whether a claimant is available for work ordinarily presents a question of fact for the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board [Board] to determine and its decision will be sustained provided it is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The uncontroverted evidence in this appeal from the Board's denial of claimant's application for unemployment insurance benefits for the period May 2, 2015 through June 7, 2015, was that claimant did not report to work, with the employer's approval, because a former boyfriend was physically and verbally abusing her. Such abuse included calling claimant on a daily basis and leaving threatening and disparaging voicemail messages and regularly sat in a car outside or near her home waiting for her to emerge.*

Although the Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not available for employment, the Appellate Division said that it disagreed with the Board ruling that claimant's leave of absence "necessitated by the actions of a perpetrator of domestic abuse rendered her legally unavailable for work."

The court, citing Labor Law §593(1)(b)(i), explained that the Legislature had provided that an employee may not be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for separating from employment "due to any compelling family reason," which includes "domestic violence . . . which causes the individual reasonably to believe that such individual's continued employment would jeopardize his or her safety or the safety of any member of his or her immediate family."

The genesis of §593(1)(b)(i) was a ruling by a New Jersey appeals court that a woman who was forced to quit her job due to domestic violence was not entitled to collect unemployment benefits. The Appellate Division said that §593(1)(b)(i) indicated "the legislative intent remained to ensure that 'individuals who are voluntarily separated from employment due to compelling family reasons are eligible for [unemployment insurance] benefits.'"

The Board had, in this instance, rejected the claimant's application for benefits notwithstanding the claimant's uncontroverted testimony that she was the victim of domestic violence, stalking and harassment, as well as her testimony that she was willing and able to work during the period in issue but was prevented from leaving her home to get to work due to her justifiable fear of further violence by her former boyfriend.  

The Appellate Division disagreed with the Board's holding that an employee who takes a leave from work due to a reasonable fear of domestic violence, a "compelling family reason" under Labor Law §593(1)(b), is "unavailable" for or unwilling to work and is, therefore, ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits under Labor Law §591(2). The court said such a ruling "contradicts the intent underlying the protection afforded to domestic violence victims from disqualification for unemployment insurance benefits."

Accordingly, the court ruled the Board should not have found claimant to be ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits due to unavailability. It then reversed the Board's determination and remanded that matter to the Board "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision."

* The decision notes that such abuse commenced after a "stay-away order of protection" expired and claimant had been unsuccessful in obtaining a new order.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_04016.htm

____________________________

Challenging Adverse Personnel Decisions - A 765 page electronic book [e-book] focusing on penalties imposed on public employees of New York State and its political subdivisions found guilty of misconduct or incompetence by hearing officers and arbitrators and the judicial review of such penalties. More information is available on the Internet at http://nypplarchives.blogspot.com.

____________________________  

Mere speculation and bare legal conclusions without any factual support set out in an Article 78 petition are ineffective in rebutting a defendant's motion to dismiss

Mere speculation and bare legal conclusions without any factual support set out in an Article 78 petition are ineffective in rebutting a defendant's motion to dismiss

England v New York City Dept. of Envtl. Protection, 2017 NY Slip Op 03948, Appellate Division, Second Department

The petitioner [Petitioner] in this Article 78 action had completed and passed a civil service exam for appointment to the position of Watershed Maintainer with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection [Department]. The Petitioner's name was placed  on an eligible list of candidates by the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services. Petitioner was subsequently considered, but not selected, for three separate vacancies for the position of Watershed Maintainer. Petitioner was then declared ineligible for further certification or appointment from the list established for the Department.

Petitioner then filed an Article 78 petition seeking a review a determination of the Department's decisions declining to select Petitioner for appointment to the position. Supreme Court granted the Department's motion to dismiss the Article 78 petition "for failure to state a cause of action and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding. Petitioner appealed.

Pointing out that although in an Article 78 motion to dismiss "only the petition is considered," the Appellate Division noted that all of allegations set out in the petition "are deemed true, and the petitioner is accorded the benefit of every possible favorable inference."

In contrast, said the court, "bare legal conclusions are not entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded every favorable inference."

Applying these principles, the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court properly granted the Department's motion to dismiss the petition filed by Appellate Division, Second Department because it failed to state a discrimination claim and offered no more than "speculation and bare legal conclusions without any factual support."

Further, said the court, Petitioner's allegations that the Department refused to hire him because of a prior arrest history was unsupported by any factual contentions and constituted "mere legal conclusions, and are insufficient to state a claim."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_03948.htm