Employment Law News from WK WorkDay Source: Wolters Kulwer

Employment Law News from WK WorkDay 

Source: Wolters Kulwer

Selected reports posted in WK Workday distributed July 19, 2017

Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full report

Per CBA, Teamsters had sole right to integrate pilot seniority lists post-merger

Macy’s ‘offer’ to decline ‘benefits of arbitration’ was no offer; employee’s silence was no acceptance

Fired medical marijuana user can sue Massachusetts employer for disability discrimination

  

Petitioning the Commissioner of Education to remove a member of a school board from his or her office

Petitioning the Commissioner of Education to remove a member of a school board from his or her office 

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision #17,055

A number of district residents, taxpayers and current or former members of the Board of Education [Petitioners] sought to have a sitting member of the Board of Education [Respondent] removed from his office by action of the Commissioner of Education pursuant to §306 Education Law. Petitioners alleged that the Respondent was guilty of "willful violation of the Education Law, General Municipal Law §805-a(1)(b) and Public Officers Law §105, and engaging in acts of willful misconduct in violation of the [school] district's code of ethics and policies concerning the confidential nature of the board's executive sessions."

Finding that there were a number of procedural defects in their appeal, the Commissioner dismissed Petitioners' complaint without reaching its merits.

First, said the Commissioner, Petitioners' application must be denied as moot as only matters in actual controversy will be considered and no decision will be rendered "on a state of facts which no longer exist or which subsequent events have laid to rest." In arriving at this ruling the Commissioner took "administrative notice that the official website" of the school district indicated that the Respondent "no longer serves on the board of education." Thus the issue of his removal from office was a  matter that had been "laid to rest."

The Commissioner then said that even if the Petitioners' application had not been dismissed as moot, it would have been denied because of the following procedural error or omissions:

1. Lack of proper service" as Petitioners did not personally serve their complaint "upon each named respondent;" and

2. The notice of petition was defective as it did not specifically advise a school officer that an application was being made for his or her removal from office by using the notice prescribed under 8 NCYRR §275.11(a) for appeals brought pursuant to Education Law §310.  

The Commissioner explained that "A notice of petition which fails to contain the language required by the Commissioner’s regulation is fatally defective and does not secure jurisdiction over the intended respondent" as it is the notice of petition that alerts a party to the fact that he or she is the subject of removal proceedings. Thus the Petitioners' "failure to comply with 8 NYCRR §277.1(b) necessarily results in a jurisdictional failure and requires dismissal."

That said, the Commissioner noted that although the Petitioners' application must be dismissed on procedural grounds, there was yet "one administrative matter" to be consider.

The Respondent in this action had requested that the Commissioner issue a "certificate of good faith" pursuant to Education Law §3811(1) thereby authorizing the Board to indemnify him for "legal fees and expenses incurred in defending a proceeding arising out of the exercise of his powers or performance of duties as a board member."

The Commissioner explained that it was appropriate to issue such certification "unless it is established on the record that the requesting board member acted in bad faith."

As the Petitioners' application in this action was denied on procedural grounds and there had been no finding that Respondent acted in bad faith, the Commissioner certified, "solely for the purpose of Education Law §3811(1)" that the Respondent is entitled to a certificate of good faith.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume56/d17055

An employer may be vicariously liable for an allegedly slanderous statement made by its employee

An employer may be vicariously liable for an allegedly slanderous statement made by its employee

2017 NY Slip Op 05353, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The Plaintiff in this action against a village and an employee of the village [Defendants] alleged that an employee of the village made defamatory remarks*concerning the Plaintiff in the course of her employment as an administrative assistant of the village.

Addressing appeals concerning the disposition of motions for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's petition filed by the Defendants, the Appellate Division said:

1. It is well established that, although "[s]lander as a rule is not actionable unless the plaintiff suffers special damage," where, as here, a statement charges plaintiff with a serious crime, the statement constitutes "slander per se" and special damage is not required.

2. In situations involving "slander per se," the defendants may claim a qualified privilege contending that there was a good faith, bona fidecommunication upon a subject in which the individual has an interest, or a legal, moral or societal interest to speak, and the communication is made to a person with a corresponding interest.

3. In the event the defendants in such an action meet their initial burden of establishing that any of the alleged disparaging statements are protected by a qualified privilege inasmuch as they were made between members of the organization in connection with the plaintiff's application for employment, membership or a similar relationship, "the burden shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact whether the statements were motivated solely by malice."

4. In the event the plaintiff raises an issue where a jury could reasonably conclude that malice was the one and only cause for the publication of the statements claimed by the plaintiff to constitute slander, the plaintiff has raised an issue of fact whether statements were motivated solely by malice and thus are not protected by a qualified privilege.

5. Citing Seymour v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 215 AD2d 971, the Appellate Division noted that an employer may be held vicariously liable for an allegedly slanderous statement made by an employee only if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time that the statement was made.

In this action the Appellate Division concluded that the village failed to establish its  entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on the theory that the administrative assistant was not acting within the scope of her employment when she allegedly made disparaging statements concerning Plaintiff to other officials or employees of the village.

* A false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion or disgrace constitutes defamation. An oral utterance that inaccurately accuses a person of a serious crime can be slander per se as can oral statements alleging an individual's being infected with some disease that would result in his or her being ostracized from society, or being unfit to perform of his or her duties as an officer or employee. Defamatory words that could prejudice the individual in his or her profession or trade or the chastity of the individual have been held to constitute slander per se.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_05353.htm

Exploring claimed procedural obstacles to demands for certain records pursuant to New York's Freedom of Information Law

Exploring claimed procedural obstacles to demands for certain records pursuant to New York's Freedom of Information Law
Kirsch v Board of Educ. of Williamsville Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 05547, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Kim A. Kirsch filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order directing the Williamsville Central School District's Board of Education [Board] to comply with her Freedom of Information Law [FOIL] request. Kirsch's FOIL request sought certain email records.

In its review of a Supreme Court's ruling directing the Board to provide the records demanded by Kirsch the Appellate Division addressed the following objections raised by the Board:

1. Standing to submit a FOIL request.

The Board contended that Kirsch's attorney, Michael A. Starvaggi, Esq., the individual submitting the FOIL request, "lacked standing" to maintain the Article 78 action. The Appellate Division rejected this claim, explaining FOIL provides that "Any person denied access to a record may appeal and seek judicial review of any adverse appeal determination," and "any person on whose behalf a FOIL request was made has standing to maintain a proceeding to review the denial of disclosure of the records requested."

The court noted that the administrative appeal letter expressly stated that Starvaggi was making the request on behalf of Kirsch and concluded that Kirsch had "standing to maintain this proceeding."

2. Statute of Limitations.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Board's claim that the action was untimely was not "preserved for [the Appellate Division's] review," the court elected to consider the merits of its argument that the proceeding is barred by the statute of limitations. In so doing, the Appellate Division opined that the Board "failed to meet [its] burden of establishing that petitioners received notice of the final decision denying the administrative appeal more than four months before the proceeding was commenced.

3. Adding another party to the action.

The Board objected to Supreme Court's granting Starvaggi's oral motion to amend Kirsch's Article 78 petition "to add Starvaggi as a petitioner." The Appellate Division sustained the lower court's granting his oral motion "under the circumstances" in this action. Significantly, the court said that the relation back doctrine* permited the addition of Starvaggi after the expiration of the statute of limitations as the claims brought by Starvaggi and Kirsch are identical in substance - i.e., that Board improperly denied the FOIL request made by Starvaggi on behalf of Kirsch, and Starvaggi and Kirsch are united in interest in seeking compliance with that request.

4. Exemptions from disclosure.

The Board contended that the emails may contain "exempt material." The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court directing the Board to provide Kirsch and Starvaggi  with the requested emails, "with any claimed exemptions from disclosure documented in a privilege log that may be reviewed by the court."

Addressing the Board's "broad allegation here that the [emails may] contain exempt material," the Appellate Division said that such a representation "is insufficient to overcome the presumption that the records are open for inspection . . . and categorically to deny petitioner[s] all access to the requested material."

Further, said the court, should the Board establish that a requested email contains exempt material, "the appropriate remedy is an in camera** review and disclosure of all nonexempt, appropriately redacted material."

5. Identification of the records demanded.

Noting that Kirsch and Starvaggi had "reasonably described" the requested emails thus enabling the Board to identify and produce the records, the Appellate Division, citing Konigsberg v Coughlin, 68 NY2d 245, held that the Board "cannot evade the broad disclosure provisions of [the] statute . . . upon the naked allegation that the request will require review of thousands of records."

It should be remembered that the basic concept underlying FOIL is that all government documents and records, other than those having access specifically limited by statute, are available to the public. The release of certain public records, such as those identified in Civil Rights Law §50-a, Education Law §1127 - Confidentiality of records and §33.13 Mental Hygiene Law - Clinical records, are examples of records to which access has been limited by statute. 

Otherwise, an individual is not required to submit a FOIL request as a condition precedent to obtaining public records where access is not barred by statute. Submitting a "formal" FOIL request becomes necessary only in the event the custodian of the public record[s] sought declines to “voluntarily” provide the information or record requested. In such cases the individual or organization is required to file a formal FOIL request to obtain the information.

It should also be noted that there is no bar to providing information pursuant to a FOIL request, or otherwise, that falls within one or more of the exceptions that the custodian of the record could rely upon in denying a FOIL request, in whole or in part, for the information or records sought.

* Apply the Doctrine of Relation Back permits "something done today" to be treated as though it "were done earlier" notwithstanding the fact that the otherwise controlling statute of limitations had already expired.

** A hearing held conducted by the court or hearing officer in private or when the public is excluded from the proceeding to consider a particular issue is referred to as being held in camera.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_05547.htm

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending July 14, 2017

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending July 14, 2017

Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full report

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports have been issued:

DiNapoli report highlights local government reliance on federal aid

On July 14, 2017, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli issued a report  detailing the impact of federal aid on New York’s municipalities and school districts. In 2015, local governments and school districts outside New York City received $4.7 billion in direct federal aid. Separately, New York City received $7 billion, of which $1.7 billion went to funding the city’s public schools. “Local governments receive much-needed federal aid that supports our schools, fixes our roads and keeps our communities safe,” said DiNapoli. “But potential policy changes in Washington could have a considerable impact on local government operations. In today’s political climate, it’s important for New Yorkers to get a sense of how much funding is at stake and what programs might be at risk.”

How heavily local governments rely on federal aid as part of their individual revenue mix varies by class.  In 2015, federal aid as a share of total revenue was the highest for counties (11.2 percent), followed by New York City (10.1 percent), New York City schools (6.5 percent), other cities in the state (5.7 percent), other school districts (4.1 percent), villages (2.9 percent) and towns (2.7 percent). Reliance on federal aid can also vary widely within these classes of government. Specific data on each county, city, town, village and school district for 2015 is available through a new, interactive feature on DiNapoli’s website.

Generally, the type of federal aid New York’s local governments received in 2015 supported a broad range of purposes, which includes social services, education, transportation, public safety, economic development, health, community services, culture and recreation, utilities and sanitation.

To read DiNapoli’s report “The Impact of Federal Aid on New York’s Local Governments,” go to:

 http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/pubs/research/federal-aid-impact.pdf

To view the interactive data, go to: http://wwe1.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/fedaid/fedaid.cfm 


State audits and examinations issued:

Department of Health (DOH): Medicaid Program: Medicaid Payments for Pharmacy Claims - Joia Pharmacy and a Related Prescriber (2013-S-4)

Based on a statistical projection, auditors determined DOH overpaid Joia $1,485,121 for improper pharmacy claims. Disallowances included: claims billed for excess quantities of drugs; claims for drugs in which the prescriptions were missing or invalid; and claims for unauthorized and inappropriate refills. The audit also identified a range of practices by both Joia and a doctor that warrant further review. The doctor was listed as the prescriber on 63 percent of Joia’s claims; among these claims, auditors found high volumes of prescriptions for individual patients on single days, and instances of drug conflicts and prescriptions that exceeded utilization.

Department of Health (DOH): Inappropriate Payments for Recipients not Enrolled in Medicaid Mainstream Managed Care or Family Health Plus (2015-S-47)  
For the period Oct. 1, 2010 through Dec. 31, 2014, DOH made 190,686 improper or questionable premium payments, totaling about $72.6 million, on behalf of 105,358 recipients who were subsequently disenrolled retroactively from managed care plans and who did not receive medical services during the disenrollment periods. This included more than $10.5 million related to 7,415 deceased recipients. During the six-month period after auditors provided the claim details to DOH, 14,209 claims totaling more than $7.4 million in improper premium payments had been voided, leaving 176,477 premium payments totaling about $65.2 million that still needed to be reviewed and, if warranted, recovered.

New York State Health Insurance Program: Empire BlueCross BlueShield (Empire): Controls over Payments for Special Items (2016-S-67)
In response to prior audits, Empire improved its controls over the identification and recovery of overpayments for special items. As a result of Empire’s efforts, including contracts with two vendors, Empire recovered overpayments totaling $6,313,534 for special items. Nonetheless, auditors concluded that Empire needs to further enhance its reviews of special item payments by incorporating steps and techniques that result in additional recoveries.

New York State Liquor Authority (SLA): Statewide Compliance with Administrative Requirements for Retail Liquor License Approvals, Renewals, and Enforcement Actions (2016-S-32)
On a statewide basis, SLA generally approved new liquor licenses and license renewals consistent with state law and its prescribed administrative protocols. SLA adequately ensured that license applicants and parties seeking renewals complied with the prescribed documentation requirements. For the new license applications selected for review, SLA had 99 percent of the required documentation on file. SLA also complied with its administrative requirements pertaining to license revocations, cancellations, and suspensions.

Department of Health, Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation - Department of Environmental Conservation Oversight of Health and Safety Regulations at Public Pools, Beaches, and Spray Grounds (2016-S-55)
All three agencies have appropriate controls in place and are providing adequate oversight to ensure that public pools, beaches, and spray grounds under their jurisdiction are safe for public use. Each agency has developed procedures to address health and safety issues at each of the facilities it operates or oversees.

New York City Department of Finance: Selected Controls over Property Tax Assessments (2015-N-1)
Auditors reviewed 508 parcels valued during fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2016 and found the agency  did not conduct necessary inspections for 276 (54 percent) of them. Without the required inspections, DOF cannot be certain such changes are adequately considered when valuing a property.

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA):  Electronic Benefit Transfer Card Transactions and Prohibited Locations(2016-S-52)
OTDA has adopted appropriate policies and practices to avoid the risk of federal financial penalties. In addition, auditors found the office’s monitoring of EBT transactions to generally be adequate, but identified certain strategic refinements that could help the office to better monitor transactions and identify violations. Auditors analyzed client card usage at prohibited locations and identified 15 recipients with 20 or more EBT transactions. Of these, seven recipients had 20 or more transactions at the Turning Stone Casino, including one recipient with 71 EBT card transactions totaling more than $3,360.

Department of State (DOS): Monitoring of Not-for-Profit Cemetery Corporations for Fiscal Stability and Adequate Facility Maintenance (2016-S-79)
As of Sept. 30, 2016, DOS records indicate 642 cemeteries (37 percent) had overdue audits and 285 (16 percent) had delinquent annual reports. For 145 cemeteries (8 percent), audits were overdue and annual reports were delinquent as well. As of Dec. 1, 2016, 391 cemeteries (22 percent) had not been inspected in over seven years.

Municipal audits and examinations issued:

Village of Fleischmanns – Financial Condition and Clerk-Treasurer’s Duties (Delaware County)
The board has not developed a multiyear financial plan and did not adopt effective budgets because it did not receive accurate and sufficient financial information from the clerk-treasurer. Unpaid property taxes ($101,000) and water bills ($64,000) have severely impacted the village’s financial condition. The board also did not conduct an annual audit of the clerk-treasurer’s records and reports.

Village of Old Westbury – Justice Court (Nassau County)
The justices correctly reported financial activities to the Justice Court Fund on a monthly basis. However, they did not perform bank reconciliations or accountability analyses on a monthly basis during the audit period. As a result, two of the three judges had cash overages totaling $1,743.

Town of Orangetown – Overtime (Rockland County)
The board did not develop overtime budgets based on known needs and historical trends. Officials did not adequately monitor adopted budgets and allowed them to be over-expended each year. Auditors also found that although the police department’s collective bargaining agreement allows officers to accumulate up to 80 hours of overtime during the year, town officials did not adhere to those limits.

Town of Portland – Water Operations (Chautauqua County)
The town’s unaccounted-for water during the past two years was approximately 38 million gallons, or 40 percent of total production. Inaccurate master meters and customer meters have contributed to the unaccounted-for water. Water Districts 1, 3 and 7 reported deficit fund balances as of December 31, 2016, and all but two water districts realized operating deficits in 2016.

Rockville Centre Housing Authority – Claims Auditing and Cash Receipts (Nassau County)
The board needs to improve the claims auditing process to ensure all claims are properly audited, adequately supported and for legitimate authority purposes. The board also needs to improve its cash receipt process to ensure cash receipt functions are adequately segregated to safeguard authority assets.

Village of Southampton – Fire Department Length of Service Award Program (Suffolk County)
The village’s length of service award program (LOSAP) records for 47 of the department’s 138 active volunteers showed that at least 27 of these volunteers did not receive accurate LOSAP points. This may result in the loss of future benefits for volunteers or, conversely, in the village incurring more LOSAP costs than necessary.

Westchester Community College – Fixed Assets (Westchester County)
College officials have adopted effective fixed asset policies and procedures. The fixed asset policies and procedures establish the minimum cost to determine when assets should be recorded in the inventory records.

City of Yonkers – Budget Review (Westchester County)
The 2017-18 budget relies on nonrecurring revenue, such as fund balance, to balance its budget. The city could potentially face a shortfall of approximately $1.7 million in revenue if income tax surcharges remain at 2016-17 levels and a shortfall of $515,000 if revenue estimates from the Parking Violations Bureau are not realized. Police overtime costs could potentially be over budget by as much as $2.6 million based on the 2016-17 fiscal year overtime costs.

For access to state and local government spending and 50,000 state contracts, visit OpenBookNY. The easy-to-use website was created by Comptroller DiNapoli to promote openness in government and provide taxpayers with better access to the financial workings of government.

 

Attempting to vacate an adverse arbitration award rendered after a consensual arbitration process

Attempting to vacate an adverse arbitration award rendered after a consensual arbitration process

Transit Workers Union, Local 100 v New York City Tr. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 05446, Appellate Division, Second Department

The New York City Transit Authority [CTA] terminated the employment of a member of the Transit Workers Union, Local 100 [Local 100], a bus CTA driver, who had been involved in an incident with a pedestrian. Local 100 filed an Article 75 action seeking a court order vacating an arbitration award that held that CTA had just cause to terminate Local 100's member's employment because of the incident.

The Supreme Court denied the petition and Local 100 appealed.

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court's decision, explaining that "Where, as here, an arbitration award was rendered after a consensual arbitration process pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, the award may not be vacated unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator's power."

Contrary to Local 100's contention that the arbitrator's award was irrational, the Appellate Division ruled that "the arbitrator's award was supported by evidence in the record and is, therefore, rational."

Local 100 also argued that the penalty imposed, termination from employment, was irrational. The Appellate Division said it disagreed and sustained the dismissal of the bus driver from employment by CTA, concluding that the penalty did not violate any strong public policy or clearly exceed an enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_05446.htm

________________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - The text of this publication focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Now available in two formats - as a large, paperback print edition, and as an e-book. For more information click onhttp://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

________________ 

Suspension of a tenured teacher requires the timely filing of written charges and specifications with the clerk or secretary of the board of education

Suspension of a tenured teacher requires the timely filing of written charges and specifications with the clerk or secretary of the board of education

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,054

After disposing of a number of procedural issues, the Commissioner of Education addressed Petitioner's allegations that she was unlawfully placed on administrative leave with pay without any disciplinary charges having been preferred against her pursuant to Education Law §3020-a in violation of her rights to administrative due process. Holding that this aspect of the appeal submitted by Educator was timely, the Commissioner explained that the "Suspension of a tenured teacher requires a board of education to file written charges with the clerk or secretary of the board (see Education Law §3020-a). Suspension of a tenured teacher without the filing of such charges within a reasonable time is ultra vires and constitutes a continuing wrong.

Turning to the merits of Petitioner's appeal, the Commissioner found that although Petitioner was advised that she was being placed on “paid administrative leave,” there was nothing in the record indicating the reason for her placement on such leave beyond the initial two days. In any event, the Commissioner found that Petitioner had been suspended for more than a year without any charges being preferred against her and that during that time she has been prohibited from coming onto school property. 

The only reason provided by the district for the continuation of Petitioner on such leave was her failure to submit a HIPAA-compliant release and submit to an independent medical examination as requested more than three months after she was placed on such "administrative leave."  However, said the Commissioner, there is nothing in the record to show that the district preferred charges alleging insubordination against Petitioner based on her alleged failure to comply with the district’s directive "to submit to a medical examination, as it is clearly empowered to do."

The Commissioner agreed that a board of education has the right to place an employee on administrative leave pending an investigation and, or pending disciplinary charges being filed against the employee and has the right to require a teacher to submit to a medical examination. However, on this record, the Commissioner ruled that the district’s actions constitute an unlawful suspension in the absence of its timely filing of disciplinary charges against Petitioner. Further, said the Commissioner, the board of education did not introduce any evidence that it was conducting an active investigation during the period of such administrative leave and had not established that it took action to file charges within a reasonable time in compliance with Education Law §2566(6). Further, the Commissioner noted that there was no "viable explanation" for the board's delay in bringing disciplinary charges against Petitioner.

The Commissioner concluded that as Petitioner's suspension was not acted upon in a timely manner, it must be deemed null and void and directed that all references to the suspension challenged by Petitioner be expunged from her record.

Finally, the Commissioner ordered that Petitioner be deemed to be on involuntary sick leave pursuant to Education Law §913 until she submits to a medical examination, indicating "that nothing in this decision precludes [the] board from filing [disciplinary] charges [against Petitioner] in accordance with Education Law §3020-a within the period of limitation prescribed in Education Law §3020-a(1).

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume56/d17054 

_______________

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State set out as an e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

_______________

Imposing a lesser disciplinary penalty than the one recommended by the disciplinary hearing officer

Imposing a lesser disciplinary penalty than the one recommended by the disciplinary hearing officer

2017 NY Slip Op 01628, Appellate Division, First Department

The penalty of termination of employment was imposed by a disciplinary hearing officer upon the petitioner in the Article 78 action [Petitioner], a special education home instruction teacher. The hearing officer found that Petitioner had submitted time sheets falsely stating that she had provided instruction to a disabled student and inaccurately indicated that she had reported to certain New York City Department of Education [DOE] schools and libraries over the two-month period in the aftermath of the impact of Hurricane Sandy on New York City and its surrounding area.

There was no question that the hearing officers findings were correct; Petitioner was guilty of all charges and specifications. Petitioner, however, appealed, seeking a court order not to setting aside the findings of misconduct but only an order modifying the penalty imposed on her. Further, Petitioner had acknowledged her error in judgment and pledged to change her practices and never to repeat the error.

Notwithstanding Petitioner's guilt of the charges misconduct filed against her, the Appellate Division ruled that under the circumstances the penalty of termination shocked its sense of fairness and applied the so-called Pell Doctrine [see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 233.

The Appellate Division explained that here there were extraordinary conditions to consider, as well as certain attempts at mitigation undertaken by Petitioner, including the following:

1. Petitioner and her student had been displaced from their homes as a result of Hurricane Sandy and Petitioner, although she had contacted her student's mother, did not provide any educational services to her student.

2. The Department of Education had not provided teachers such as Petitioner with any guidance or information as to the instruction of students displaced by Hurricane Sandy, other than that displaced students would not be penalized.

3. Petitioner had filled out the time sheets in question in advance of the dates to which those time sheets pertained and although she had  no provided instruction to the disabled student on the days indicated in those time sheets, she had instructed other students on each of the dates in question and she would have received the same salary regardless of how many students she had instructed or how many hours she had spent with them, and thus derived no extraordinary benefit from her actions.

4. Prior to Hurricane Sandy Petitioner had an unblemished record over a 17-year period as a special education home instruction teacher and the disabled student's mother had  testified at the disciplinary hearing that Petitioner was a good teacher who worked well with her son and had served his needs more successfully than had other teachers.

The Appellate Division characterized Petitioner's misconduct as "more a matter of lax bookkeeping than implementation of any venal scheme" and no intent to defraud or harm to the public. and any harm to DOE was mitigated. It then explained that "a [disciplinary] result is shocking to one's sense of fairness if the sanction imposed is so grave in its impact on the individual subjected to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence, failure or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally visited or threatened by the derelictions of the individuals."

Additional factors to be considered, said the court, "would be the prospect of deterrence of the individual or of others in like situations, and therefore a reasonable prospect of recurrence of derelictions by the individual or persons similarly employed."

Noting that at the hearing Petitioner admitted guilt and acknowledges that her misconduct warrants punishment since the disabled student was deprived of the services of a teacher for two months, the Appellate Division,  . Petitioner does not seek to set aside the findings of misconduct contained in the hearing officer's opinion, but only to modify the penalty imposed on her. She has acknowledged her error in judgment and has pledged to change her practices and never to repeat the error.

Citing Bolt v New York City Dept. of Education, 145 AD3d 450, the Appellate Division said that "There is no evidence that '[Petitioner] could not remedy her behavior'" and that it believed that the penalty of termination, "is disproportionate to the level of [Petitioner's] misconduct and exceeds the standards that society requires to be applied to this offense."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_01628.htm

 _______________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - The text of this publication focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Now available in two formats - as a large, paperback print edition, and as an e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

_______________

 

Guidelines applicable when police officer being sued in a civil action seeks to have his or her employer provide for his or her defense and indemnification in the civil action

Guidelines applicable when police officer being sued in a civil action seeks to have his or her employer provide for his or her defense and indemnification in the civil action

2017 NY Slip Op 01549,  Appellate Division, Second Department

A federal civil rights action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against, among others, a Nassau County police officer [Petitioner]. The claims in the federal action against Petitioner arose from an off-duty altercation caused by a traffic dispute, during which the Petitioner allegedly fired a gun at the plaintiff in the federal action. Petitioner sought to have his employer, Nassau County, defend and indemnify him in the federal action.

The Nassau County Police Officer Indemnification Board* concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to defense or indemnification by Nassau County because the alleged acts underlying the federal action were not committed "while [Petitioner was engaged] in the proper discharge of his duties and were not within the scope of his employment."

Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner's challenge of the Board's determination and he appealed its ruling.

Citing General Municipal Law §50-l, the Appellate Division said that question of whether a police officer's acts which formed the basis of the civil action were committed in the proper discharge of his or her duties and within the scope of his or her employment is to be determined in the first instance by the Board.

The Board's determination that Petitioner was not acting in the proper discharge of his duties and within the scope of his employment may be set aside by a court only if it was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.

The Appellate Division, sustaining Supreme Court's ruling, concluded that the record supported the Board's determination that Petitioner "was not acting while in the proper discharge of his duties or within the scope of his employment, since there is a factual basis for the conclusion that the alleged misconduct arose from an altercation that was personal in nature" and was not undertaken in the exercise of his "public responsibility as a police officer."

* General Municipal Law §50-l, in pertinent part, provides for "the defense of any civil action or proceeding brought against a duly appointed police officer of the Nassau county police arising out of a negligent act or other tort of such police officer committed while in the proper discharge of his duties and within the scope of his employment. Such proper discharge and scope shall be determined by a majority vote of a panel ...."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_01549.htm

A contingent permanent appointment made pursuant to §64.4 of the Civil Service Law must be specifically so identified by the appointing authority

A contingent permanent appointment made pursuant to §64.4 of the Civil Service Law must be specifically so identified by the appointing authority

2017 NY Slip Op 04740, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The employee [Petitioner] in this CPLR Article 78 proceeding sought a court order vacating the appointing authority's decision to reinstate her to her lower grade position, contending that she had been appointed to the higher grade position as a permanent or contingent permanent employee and thus was entitled to the procedural protections of Civil Service Law §75 as a condition precedent to her being returned to her lower grade position.

The Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court had properly dismissed her petition as the record indicated that Petitioner had been given a "temporary appointment ... [to fill] a position that was encumbered by an employee on leave of absence."

Accordingly, there was nothing to support Petitioner's claim that she had been appointed to the higher grade position on a contingent permanent basis in the record.

As the Court of Appeals indicated in Snyder v Civil Service Commission, 72 NY2d 981, an employee, even if otherwise eligible for appointment as a contingent permanent employee pursuant to §64.4 of the Civil Service Law, must be specifically designated as being appointed as a contingent permanent employee by the appointing authority, which status is granted solely at the discretion of the appointing authority.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_04740.htm

Unlawful discrimination complaint sustained notwithstanding respondent's failing to appear at the administrative hearing conducted by the NYS Division of Human Rights

Unlawful discrimination complaint sustained notwithstanding respondent's failing to appear at the administrative hearing conducted by the NYS Division of Human Rights

New York State Div. of Human Rights v Milan Maintenance, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05508, Appellate Division, First Department

The Appellate Division unanimously sustained the New York State Division of Human Rights' (DHR) determination holding that  Milan Maintenance, Inc., [Milan] had unlawfully discriminated against an individual that it rejected for employment and DHR's awarding the complainant $10,000 for mental anguish and humiliation.

Noting that Milan defaulted at the administrative hearing held by DHR,* thus failing to rebut a prima facie showing that it had unlawfully discriminated against the complainant, the court said that DHR's findings were supported by substantial evidence and DHR's "award of compensatory damages for mental anguish" was proper.

Mari v Safir, 291 AD2d 298, sets out the tests typically applied by New York courts in resolving litigation challenging the decision of an administrative agency arrived at as the result of having conducted an administrative hearing in absentia. 

* In Hall v Environmental Conservation, 235 AD2d 757, the Appellate Division upheld an arbitrator's award in favor of the employee after Environmental Conservation boycotted the arbitration because if believed that the employee was not entitled to arbitrate the dispute.

The Milan decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_05508.htm

Hearsay may constitute "substantial evidence" supporting the tribunal's findings in an administrative hearing

Hearsay may constitute "substantial evidence" supporting the tribunal's findings in an administrative hearing
2017 NY Slip Op 05147, Appellate Division, Third Department

An employee [Employee] at a residential facility operated by the Office of People with Developmental Disabilities [OPWDD] was alleged to have physically abused a resident.

An investigator conducted interviews of several witnesses and found the report of physical abuse to be substantiated. After a hearing, Employee's request that report be amended to unsubstantiated and that the report be sealed was rejected and a final determination sustaining the report of physical abuse was made.

Employee then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination which was made following an administrative hearing as unsupported by substantial evidence. Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division found that the final determination was supported by substantial evidence. Addressing Employee's contention that the hearsay statements in the record cannot constitute substantial evidence, the Appellate Division said that "it is well established that, in an administrative hearing, hearsay is admissible and may support a finding of substantial evidence."

Citing Matter of Today's Lounge of Oneonta, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 103 AD3d 1082, the court commented that hearsay evidence may, "under appropriate circumstances, form the sole basis of an agency's determination, unless the hearsay evidence is seriously controverted."

In this instance, said the court, the corroborated description of the incident by the eyewitness was only controverted by Employee's denial.  Consequently, the corroborated description by the eyewitness could be viewed as not seriously controverted and "sufficiently reliable" so as to constitute substantial evidence.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_05147.htm

Disqualifying an employee for employment in the public service and revoking his or her appointment based on a finding of fraud of a substantial nature in his or her application for employment

Disqualifying an employee for employment in the public service and revoking his or her appointment based on a finding of fraud of a substantial nature in his or her application for employment  

2017 NY Slip Op 05151, Appellate Division, Third Department

In 2009 the petitioner [Petitioner] in this Article 78 action had completed an application for employment with a public employer [Employer A] that included the question, "Have you ever resigned from employment rather than face discharge?" Petitioner answered "no" and signed an affirmation that the statements in the application "[were] true under the penalties of perjury and that a material misstatement or fraud may disqualify [her] from appointment." Petitioner was subsequently appointed by Employer A.

In 2015, Employer A issued a notice of charges alleging several acts of misconduct and notifying Petitioner that it would seek her dismissal if she was found guilty after a hearing. After obtaining additional information, the notice of discipline was revised to add a charge that Petitioner had made a false statement in her application for employment.

A disciplinary hearing was conducted and the hearing officer found, among other things, that Petitioner had withheld relevant information regarding her previous employment with another public employer, Employer B. As a result of this additional information, Petitioner was sent a notice of revocation of eligible certification, appointment and termination of employment pursuant to Civil Service Law §50(4). Petitioner requested, and was provided with a due process hearing. Ultimately Petitioner's "eligible certification and appointment" was revoked and Petitioner was terminated from her position.

Petitioner then commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order annulling Employer A's determination and reinstate to her former position. Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner's action and she appealed the court's determination.

The Appellate Division noted that evidence and hearing testimony resulting Employer A terminating Petitioner revealed that Employer B, her former employer, had issued six disciplinary charges against her in 2008, which carried a maximum penalty of dismissal. After being served with these disciplinary charges, Petitioner had filed various claims against Employer B and her union, including charges with the Public Employment Relations Board. In September 2008, the parties entered into a separation agreement, by which Petitioner agreed to resign from her employment and withdraw her claims and Employer B, among other things, agreed to withdraw the disciplinary charges* against her, to issue a letter of reference using agreed-upon language, and to pay Petitioner $100,000 in settlement of her claims. In addition, the parties agreed not to discuss "the terms of [the agreement] or any fact concerning its negotiation, execution or implementation with anyone," unless "required to do so by law or legal process."

Acknowledging that she had resigned her position with Employer B while the charges were still pending, and that the maximum penalty sought by Employer B was dismissal, Petitioner gave several reasons for her "no" answer to the application question, stating that:

1. She acted upon the advice of counsel;**

2. She believed that she could not discuss the agreement because of its confidentiality provisions, and;

3. She expected to prevail on the disciplinary charges and therefore believed that she was not facing discharge.

Pursuant to the Civil Service Law §50[4], the State Civil Service Commission, with respect employee of the State as the employer and a county civil service department with respect to employers within its jurisdiction, may investigate the background and qualifications of an eligible individual after he or she has been appointed, and may revoke a certificate of appointment and direct the termination of employment, as pertinent here, "upon finding facts which if known prior to appointment, would have warranted his [or her] disqualification, or upon a finding of . . . fraud of a substantial nature in his [or her] application, examination or appointment."

Here, said the Appellate Division, Employer A's Personnel Officer found that Petitioner had resigned her position with Employer B rather than face discharge, that this resignation would have warranted Petitioner's disqualification from eligibility and, in the alternative, that Petitioner's failure to disclose the circumstances of her resignation constituted, as relevant here, a fraud of a substantial nature in her application. The Personnel Officer further found that Petitioner's failure to disclose her resignation had prevented Employer A from inquiring into the circumstances and discovering information material to her qualifications and background, and that her failure to disclose her resignation amounted to fraud.

The court noted that Employer A appointed Petitioner almost six years before it brought charges against her. Thus, said the Appellate Division, "Supreme Court correctly determined that [Employer A] is time-barred by the three-year statutory limitations period from enforcing Civil Service Law §50 on grounds other than fraud, and the sole issue to be resolved here 'is whether fraud of a substantial nature existed in connection with petitioner's application.'"

In the words of the Appellate Division, [Employer A] has "[w]ide discretion" to determine the fitness of candidates for civil service eligibility and employment and, in the absence of clear abuse, this Court will sustain such a determination."

Further, said the court, "Our review is limited to whether [Employer A's] determination was an abuse of discretion or arbitrary and capricious." Considering the affirmation that the statements in Petitioner's application were true in light of her acknowledgment that she resigned while charges that could have resulted in her dismissal were pending against her, the Appellate Division did not find Employer A's inference that Petitioner acted intentionally to be arbitrary and capricious. As Petitioner's resignation was an express requirement of the agreement by which Employer B agreed to withdraw the charges, "it was not arbitrary and capricious for [Employer B] to discredit Petitioner's assertion that she resigned, not for the purpose of avoiding dismissal, but instead to obtain payment for settling her claims against [Employer B].

The Appellate Division also rejected Petitioner's assertions related to the provisions of the agreement that prohibited her from disclosing its terms and related facts, explaining that the language in the agreement did not preclude her from disclosing the fact that she had resigned pursuant to an agreement. As Supreme Court had noted, said the court, Petitioner could have completed the employment application truthfully while complying with the agreement's confidentiality requirements by answering the question about previous resignations "yes" and indicating in the application's explanatory section that she had resigned from her employment with [Employer B] pursuant to an agreement, but could not disclose its details.

Such an acknowledgment would have allowed Employer A an opportunity to inquire further into circumstances surrounding her resignation, "as it did promptly when it later learned of her resignation." The Appellate Division said it found nothing arbitrary and capricious and no abuse of discretion in Employer A's determination that Petitioner committed fraud of a substantial nature.

* 4 NYCRR 5.3(b), which applies to employees of the State as the employer, in pertinent part, provides that, Resignation, provides: that “… when charges of incompetency or misconduct have been or are about to be filed against an employee, the appointing authority may elect to disregard a resignation filed by such employee and to prosecute such charges and, in the event that such employee is found guilty of such charges and dismissed from the service, his termination shall be recorded as a dismissal rather than as a resignation." Many local civil service commissions have adopted a similar rule.

** Petitioner, said the Appellate Division, clarified that she did not consult with counsel while completing the application, and that her understanding of the issue was based upon a conversation that she had previously had with her counsel when she entered into the separation agreement.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_05151.htm

______________________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - The text of this publication focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Now available in two formats - as a large, paperback print edition, and as an e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

______________________ 

  

The actions of an employee prior to his or her promotion may properly form the basis for terminating the individual prior to the completion of his or her probationary period

The actions of an employee prior to his or her promotion may properly form the basis for terminating the individual prior to the completion of his or her probationary period

2017 NY Slip Op 05145, Appellate Division, Third Department

An individual [Probationer]  serving with the  New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision was promoted to a higher grade position subject to his satisfactory completion of a 52-week probationary period. Shortly after Probationer had completed the minimum period of probation he was terminated from his probationary appointment and reinstated to his former, lower grade, position.

Probationer contending that the termination of his probationary period was made in bad faith as the appointing authority "waited to demote him to his former position until just after he completed the eighth week of his probationary period — the minimum probationary service period — to avoid having to establish under Civil Service Law §75 that the demotion was based on incompetence or misconduct," filed an Article 78 petition in Supreme Court seeking reinstatement to the higher grade position with back salary.

Supreme Court dismissed Probationer's petition and he appealed the court's ruling.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's determination, explaining that "An employee's probationary appointment may be terminated without a hearing for any reason or no reason at all, so long as the termination was not "in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason."*

To warrant a hearing after completing his or her minimum period of probation, the employee bears the burden of raising a material issue of fact as to whether the termination was made in bad faith or for an impermissible reason; allegations of a conclusory or speculative nature are insufficient to meet this burden.

Here, said the Appellate Division, Probationer's submissions were insufficient to raise a material issue of fact as to whether his discharge from the higher grade position was made in bad faith or based on an improper or impermissible motive.

The court noted that in answering Probationer's petition, the appointing authority submitted, among other things, the affidavit of the Personnel Director "which established that the decision to terminate [Probationer's] probationary promotion was made in good faith." The affidavit of the Personnel Director cited an investigative report in which it was concluded that the most credible version of certain events that occurred prior to Probationer's promotion "pointed to [Probationer] having observed and/or participated in threatening [a] particular inmate and then denying such observation or participation."

In addition, "as found by Supreme Court," the Appellate Division said that Probationer's allegations of bad faith "were too conclusory and speculative to warrant a hearing on the matter" as there was no evidentiary support that the Director waited to demote him to his former position until just after he completed the minimum probationary period.

* "Probationary employees" typically hold permanent appointment in the position and may enjoy limited tenure rights. For example, courts have ruled that probationers are entitled to notice and hearing if the appointing authority seeks to dismiss the individual during his or her minimum period of probation. In contrast, a probationer may be dismissed without notice and hearing after completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to the expiration of his or her maximum period of probation.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_05145.htm

______________

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State set out as an e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

 ______________

As the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education's do not define full-time status for the purpose determining compensation, a collective bargaining agreement may control such a determination

As the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education's do not define full-time status for the purpose determining compensation, a collective bargaining agreement may control such a determination

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,062

Susan Ford-Gambee Wilhelm filed a appeal with the Commissioner of Education challenging the action of the Board of Education of the Eden Central School District assigning her to teach five classes following a reduction in her position from a full-time position to a .83 full time equivalent [FTE] position. 

Wilhelm contended that she was a full-time teacher within the meaning of §100.2(i) of the Commissioner’s regulations "because she continued to teach five classes each day, which she contended is a 1.0 FTE." She claimed that Eden has improperly treated her position as a .83 FTE and compensated her on that basis, even though she contended that she was a full-time teacher.

The Commissioner said that the essence of Wilhelm's argument appeared to be that §100.2(i) defines a full-time teaching load as five classes and thus that she is entitled to compensation as a full-time teacher based on the classes she was assigned to teach by the school district.

§100.2(i), relating to teaching assignments, provides that, with respect to teaching staff in public schools, the number of daily periods of classroom instruction for a teacher should not exceed five. Further, said the Commissioner, pursuant to the regulation, "a school requiring of any teacher more than six teaching periods a day, or a daily teaching load of more than 150 pupils, should be able to justify the deviation from this policy."

The Commissioner said that a petitioner, here Wilhelm, has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief.

Wilhelm, however, did not contend that her number of daily periods of classroom instruction exceeds five; admitted that she only taught five classes for the 2016-2017 school year; and did not claim that she was assigned a daily teaching load in excess of 150 students. Rather she argued that §100.2(i) defines a full-time teaching load as five classes and thus she was entitled to compensation as a full-time teacher. 

The Commissioner disagreed, explaining that §100.2(i) "merely establishes a policy that teachers should not be assigned more than five classes or a teaching load of 150 pupils and requires that a board of education be able to justify any such assignment, for the purpose of maintaining quality instruction for students." Further, said the Commissioner, the regulation does not define full-time status for purposes of compensation, noting that in Wilhelm's case, was governed by the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume56/d17062

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board may apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel to a disciplinary determination made after a hearing in determining if an individual is disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board may apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel to a disciplinary determination made after a hearing in determining if an individual is disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits
Matter of Telemaque (Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 02109, Appellate Division, Third Department

Veronica Telemaque appealed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Telemaque had been found guilty and dismissed from her position after a hearing on disciplinary charges filed against her pursuant to Education Law §3020-a for allegedly engaging in misconduct, conduct unbecoming and/or prejudicial, insubordination and violating the employer's rules.

The Appellate Division said that Telemaque's primary challenge concerns the disciplinary Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations and alleged evidentiary errors were made at the disciplinary hearing. The Board noted that it did not appear that Telemaqueappealed that disciplinary determination and "her challenges to the merits of that determination may not be raised in this unemployment insurance proceeding."

As Telemaque had "a full and fair opportunity to litigate the charges of misconduct at [her §3020-a disciplinary] hearing, the Appellate Division said that the Board had "properly gave collateral estoppel effect to the Hearing Officer's factual determinations" in that proceeding and sustained the Board's determination.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_02109.htm