ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

May 16, 2018

The statutory rights of employees of the State and political subdivisions of the State absent from work as the result of a work-related injury or disease


The statutory rights of employees of the State and political subdivisions of the State absent from work as the result of a work-related injury or disease
Singleton v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2018 NY Slip Op 03411, Appellate Division, Third Department

The employee in this action, Charles Singleton, was injured on the job and was placed on leave pursuant to §71 of the Civil Service Law, commonly referred to as "Workers' Compensation Leave."

Essentially Mr. Singleton's employer, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, OCFS, wrote to him indicating that he had the "right to a leave of absence from [his] position during [his] disability for a period of one cumulative year or sooner if found to be permanently disabled" and that if he did not return to work prior to the expiration of his workers' compensation leave his employment could be terminated as a matter of law."*

This, however, was not a pejorative termination in the nature of "termination for cause" as the individual placed on §71 has significant rights to reinstatement to his or her position, or to a similar position. Indeed, §71 does not use the word "termination" to describe the status of the individual on "Workers' Compensation Leave" upon the expiration of his or her §71 leave but rather refers to his or her status as having be "separated" from service as demonstrated by reference in the law to his or her rights to "Reinstatement after separation for disability."

Clearly the employee may return to work prior to the expiration of his or her leave of absence if medically qualified to perform the duties of his or her position.

If the employee does not return to work prior to the expiration of his or her §71 leave of absence, he or she may be separated from service but becomes eligible for reinstatement to his or her former position, or a similar position if his or former position is not available, upon his or her making [1] a timely request to return to duty and [2] being certified as being medically qualified to perform the duties of the position.

In the words of §71, "Such employee may, within one year after the termination of such disability,** make application to the [NYS] civil service department or municipal commission having jurisdiction over the position last held by such employee for a medical examination to be conducted by a medical officer selected for that purpose by such department or commission."

In the event the individual is found medically qualified to return to work and no suitable position is available, §71 further provides that "If no appropriate vacancy shall exist to which reinstatement may be made, or if the work load does not warrant the filling of such vacancy, the name of such person shall be placed upon a preferred list for his or her former position, and he or she shall be eligible for reinstatement from such preferred list for a period of four years."

* Mr. Singleton had contended that he had sustained injuries from an assault-related injury at work which entitled him to a two-year leave pursuant to §71. OCFS notified petitioner that he had been placed on workers' compensation leave and that his injuries had been classified as a "non-assault injury," and thus was only entitled to a one-year leave of absence pursuant to §71.

** N.B. It is the date of  termination of  the individual's disability, in contrast the effective date of  the individual's "separation" upon the expiration of his or her "Workers' Compensation Leave," that triggers the running of the one-year statute of limitation for the purpose of the individual applying for reinstatement to his or her former, or a similar, employment. If the individual is determined not to be qualified to return to work, he or she continues as "separated" and may apply for reinstatement and a medical re-examination at some  future date.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

May 15, 2018

Determining if a communication sent to the employee constitutes a "letter of reasonable assurance of continued employment" within the meaning of Labor Law §590[10] and [11]


Determining if a communication sent to the employee constitutes a "letter of reasonable assurance of continued employment" within the meaning of Labor Law §590[10] and [11]
Matter of Enman (New York City Dept. of Educ. -- Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 03416, Appellate Division, Third Department

Labor Law §590(11), which is analogous to Labor Law §590(10) dealing with teachers and other educational professionals, bars nonprofessionals who are employed by educational institutions from receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the time between two academic periods if they have received a reasonable assurance of continued employment. In Matter of Murphy [Copake-Taconic Cent. School Dist.-Commissioner of Labor], 17 AD3d 762, and in other cases addressing this issue, the courts have stated that "A reasonable assurance . . . has been interpreted as a representation by the employer that substantially the same economic terms and conditions will continue to apply to the extent that the claimant will receive at least 90% of the earnings received during the first academic period."

The New York City Department of Education challenged the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's determination that Shaniqua Enman, who worked as a per diem substitute paraprofessional for the New York City Department of Education, had not received a letter of reasonable assurance within the meaning of Labor Law §590(11) between two academic periods.  

Ms. Enman worked at schools within the New York City School District and was registered to receive assignments through the SubCentral Registry, an automated system for filling vacancies. During the 2015-2016 school year, Ms. Enman worked 161 days of the 179 days that were in the school year. She received 153 of her assignments directly from administrators at the schools where she worked and the remaining eight assignments through the SubCentral Registry.  

In June 2016, NYCDOE sent Ms. Enman a communication, which it contended constituted "a letter of reasonable assurance," indicating that for the 2016-2017 school year  it anticipated the same amount of work for her as a per diem substitute paraprofessional as in the previous year on substantially the same economic terms and conditions.

Notwithstanding this letter, Ms. Enman filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits and the Department of Labor found her entitled to receive such benefits. This  determination was later upheld by an Administrative Law Judge following a hearing.

On appeal, the NYCDOE objected to Ms. Enman's receipt of unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that it had provided her with a letter of reasonable assurance pursuant to Labor Law §590(11). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board overruled NYCDOE's objection and sustained the Administrative Law Judge's decision. NYCDOE appealed the Board's ruling.

The Appellate Division disagreed with the Board's decision, noting that the Board had initially found that the June 2016 letter sent by the NYCDOE to Ms. Enman constituted a reasonable assurance of continued employment for the 2016-2017 school year. But, said the court, instead of ending the inquiry at that point, the Board "went on to ascertain whether the reasonable assurance was bona fide in light of the testimony presented at the hearing."

The Board ultimately found that the testimony of the NYCDOE's witness was not competent with respect to assignments that Ms. Enman obtained through means other than the SubCentral Registry and declined to count such assignments in projecting those that would be made available to her during the 2016-2017 school year. Rather, it decided that Ms. Enman would have to be offered 145 assignments during the 2016-2017 school year in order to meet the 90% threshold, and considering that she had obtained most of her previous assignments through direct contact with school administrators, the Board concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the NYCDOE provided Ms. Enman with a reasonable assurance of continued employment.*

The Appellate Division ruled, based on its review of the record, the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The court explained that, in reaching its conclusion, the Board essentially imposed a requirement that a reasonable assurance be a guarantee of earnings during the following school year, an interpretation that finds no support in the statute or case law.

Further, said the court, "the Board erroneously failed to include in its projection the assignments that [Ms. Enman] obtained directly from school administrators during the 2015-2016 school year, as these assignments were reflected in the SubCentral Registry after [she had] accepted them."

The decision indicates that the SubCentral Registry identified paraprofessionals who were working as well those who were not, a critical factor in ascertaining those paraprofessionals who were available and would be likely to accept future assignments. In the words of the Appellate Division, "As long as a paraprofessional was registered in the SubCentral Registry, as was claimant, his or her assignments and/or availability were monitored" and "the 153 assignments that [Ms. Enman] obtained directly through school administrators during the 2015-2016 school year exceeded the 145 needed to satisfy the 90% threshold and should have been counted in determining whether she received a reasonable assurance of continued employment."

The court also noted that the NYCDOE's witness testified that no changes were anticipated with respect to the budget, salary or number of students and paraprofessionals needed for the upcoming school year and further stated that 14% of jobs go unfilled, providing ample opportunity for substitutes to find openings.

In view of the foregoing, opined the Appellate Division, the record establishes that the NYCDOE provided Ms. Enman with a reasonable assurance of continued employment within the meaning of Labor Law §590(11), thereby precluding her from receiving Unemployment Insurance Law benefits.

* The Appellate Division commented that "The Board appears to have erroneously referenced the 2015-2016 school year in its decision."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Justia lists 7,050 Law Blogs now on line in 74 subcategories


Justia lists 7,050 Law Blogs now on line in 74 subcategories*
 
Click on the text highlighted in blue to access the  Administrative Law Blog listed. 

* N.B. - Following Justia's Administrative Law Blog listing is Justia's listing of  7,050 "Blawgs" in the 74 Practice Areas of Law currently being maintained by Justia.

Top 40 Administrative Law Blogs in order of current popularity

Provides summary and commentary on selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State. By Harvey Randall, Esq.
Last Updated: May 11, 2018 - Rank this Week: 36

Covers the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and its Specially Designated Nationals list. By McNabb Associates, P.C.
Last Updated: November 27, 2014 - Rank this Week: 219

A regulation blog, in affiliation with the Penn Program on Regulation. From the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
Last Updated: May 10, 2018 - Rank this Week: 272

Addresses issues faced by license professionals and regulated businesses in civil, business, administrative and criminal matters with an emphasis on health care. By Green & Associates.
Last Updated: May 9, 2018 - Rank this Week: 364

Distilling a million label approvals down to the ones that affect you. Tracks legal trends in beer, wine and spirits product approvals. By Lehrman Beverage Law.
Last Updated: January 26, 2018 - Rank this Week: 435

Analysis and commentary on trends and developments in life sciences and health care law. By Reed Smith.
Last Updated: May 2, 2018 - Rank this Week: 483

Covers professional licensing matters and related regulatory issues for health care professionals. By the Leichter Law Firm.
Last Updated: February 21, 2018 - Rank this Week: 484

Edited by University of Miami School of Law Professor Michael Froomkin, The Journal of Things We Like (Lots)–JOTWELL–invites law professors to join us in filling a telling gap in legal scholarship by creating a space where legal academics will go to identify, celebrate, and discuss the best new legal scholarship.
Last Updated: May 11, 2018 - Rank this Week: 628

Covers futures, commodities and forex regulation. By Shipkevich Law Firm.
Last Updated: May 9, 2018 - Rank this Week: 589

Covers Social Security disability law and special needs trusts. By Sheri R. Abrams.
Last Updated: April 30, 2018 - Rank this Week: 644

Covers business, employment, trust & estates family, real estate, regulatory compliance and utility law. By Sullivan & Ward, PC.
Last Updated: April 14, 2015 - Rank this Week: 578

Covers Mexican law.
Last Updated: May 11, 2018 - Rank this Week: 819

Examines the Medicare administrative appeals process and covers issues related to the appeal of ZPIC, PSC and RAC audits of Medical claims. By Lilies Parker.
Last Updated: January 29, 2013 - Rank this Week: 772

Provides breaking news and analysis of communications law and business. By Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.
Last Updated: April 30, 2018 - Rank this Week: 1454

Covers health law and nursing law. By George F. Indest III, P.A.
Last Updated: April 9, 2018 - Rank this Week: 1220

Covers aviation law issues, including federal environmental and transportation regulations. By Chevalier, Allen and Lichman, LLP.
Last Updated: April 20, 2018 - Rank this Week: 1932

Covers cases, legislation, and developments regarding patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, FDA regulatory, life science, Paragraph IV, ANDA, Hatch-Waxman, pharma, branded & generic drugs, Lanham Act, unfair competition, false advertising, Internet, domain name, and e-commerce law.
Last Updated: January 25, 2018 - Rank this Week: 1983

Covers administrative rulemaking processes and administrative law issues. For members of the Administrative Codes and Registers (ACR).
Last Updated: December 1, 2014 - Rank this Week: 1912

Covers administrative law and the public sector. By E.L. Lipman.
Last Updated: December 19, 2011 - Rank this Week: 1828

Analyzes the substantive and procedural aspects of international enforcement law.
Last Updated: May 11, 2018 - Rank this Week: 2605

Swiss blawg covering a broad range of Swiss and international laws.
Last Updated: May 9, 2018 - Rank this Week: 2708

Covers Swiss, European and international legal news. It focuses on data protection, privacy, technology law, IT/IP law, criminal law, administrative law, civil law, tax law, banking and finance law, bankruptcy, competition law and construction as well as real estate law.
Last Updated: May 9, 2018 - Rank this Week: 2924

Covers the intersection of customs law and asset seizures, with a particular focus on reporting on news of U.S. Customs & Border Protection currency seizures from international travelers for failure to report, bulk cash smuggling, or structuring.
Last Updated: May 4, 2018 - Rank this Week: 2992

Covers case law, developments and changes in the veterans law. Provide practical information to improve advocacy skills before VA Regional Offices and the BVA, and teaches lawyers the business of veterans law. By Attig Steel PLLC.
Last Updated: May 2, 2018 - Rank this Week: 2886

Looks at white collar, congressional, SEC, energy enforcement and other government inquiries. By McGuireWoods.
Last Updated: May 2, 2018 - Rank this Week: 2832

Covers disability and social security, elder law, and VA benefits.
Last Updated: April 23, 2018 - Rank this Week: 4104

By Fox Rothschild LLP.
Last Updated: April 12, 2018 - Rank this Week: 3103

Covers False Claims Act (FCA) and other civil and criminal health care fraud, regulatory compliance, and litigation and investigations. By Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.
Last Updated: April 5, 2018 - Rank this Week: 2988

Covers aviation and airport development, with a focus on the industry\'s legal and regulatory issues. By Taber Law Group.
Last Updated: March 28, 2018 - Rank this Week: 2726

Covers Wisconsin unemployment law. By Victor Forberger.
Last Updated: March 14, 2018 - Rank this Week: 3335

Covers New Jersey expungement law and record clearing and sealing services and New Jersey name change law.
Last Updated: March 12, 2018 - Rank this Week: 3159

By George F. Indest III, P.A.
Last Updated: March 5, 2018 - Rank this Week: 2981

By George F. Indest III.
Last Updated: February 28, 2018 - Rank this Week: 3192

Covers the Social Security disability process and strategies for winning cases. By Jonathan Ginsberg.
Last Updated: January 26, 2018 - Rank this Week: 3842

Covers government contract bid protests. By Whitcomb, Selinsky, McAuliffe PC.
Last Updated: January 16, 2018 - Rank this Week: 3470

Covers regulatory and statutory updates from the healthcare industry. By O'Connell & Aronowitz.
Last Updated: December 5, 2017 - Rank this Week: 4598

Covers the history of both international and domestic wine laws and developing legal issues in the wine industry. By Lindsey A. Zahn.
Last Updated: November 8, 2017 - Rank this Week: 2865

Covers health care legislation, enforcement and regulation. By George F. Indest III, P.A.
Last Updated: June 16, 2016 - Rank this Week: 4161

Covers health law.
Last Updated: July 22, 2013 - Rank this Week: 3074

Provides information for professional and occupational licensees and license applicants in California who have been denied a license, credential, or certificate or who are at risk for disciplinary action (revocation, suspension, probation) against the license by the State.
Last Updated: March 30, 2011 - Rank this Week: 3761
http://licenseadvocateslawgroup.blogspot.com/


The 74 Practice Areas of Law currently being maintained by Justia. 
The number of blogs in each area is shown in "parenthesis".

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the blogs in each subcategory. 
 Administrative Law (63)
Art Law (16)
Copyright(103)
Elder Law(168)
Probate(120)
Qui Tam (38)
Tax Law(188)

May 14, 2018

Refusal to be an "informant" protected by the First Amendment


Refusal to be an  "informant" protected by the First Amendment
Burns v Martuscello, USCA Second Circuit, Docket No. 15-1631

This decision appears to be one of "first impression" concerning "speech and speech-related activity as protected by the First Amendment" by the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, and while the parties involved were, respectively, a prisoner and prison administrators, it may signal that public employees may not suffer retaliation if the individual refuses to "become an informer" or give "false information" when asked to do so by his or her employer.

Mark Burns was placed in restricted custody after he refused (i) to serve as a prison informant, or (ii) to provide false information regarding an incident within the correction facility. 

Burns filed an action with a United States District Court contending that his being placed in restricted custody constituted retaliation in violation of his rights under the First Amendment, the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and Burns appealed.

The Court of Appeals held the First Amendment protects a prisoner's right not to serve as a prison informant or provide false information to prison officials. However, said the court, because it had not previously recognized this speech and speech-related activity as protected by the First Amendment, it affirmed the judgment of the district court on qualified immunity grounds.

This ruling, however, raises a question: Is a public employee's refusal to serve as an informant and, or, his or her refusal to provide false information if asked to do so in the course of his or her employment protected "non-speech" by the First Amendment precluding the individual being served with disciplinary charges because of his or her so refusing to do so or otherwise suffering retaliation?

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/14a47a7f-a2ed-4eec-abb6-a3eb8ea3bf62/2/doc/15-1631_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/14a47a7f-a2ed-4eec-abb6-a3eb8ea3bf62/2/hilite/ 

Addendum: 

In response to an inquiry concerning false testimony given at a disciplinary hearing, NYPPL files indicate that in Alarcon v Board of Education of South Orangetown Central School District, 85 AD3d 780, the Appellate Division directed the reopening of the disciplinary hearing after the recantation of testimony given at the hearing by a witness against Alarcon.

The witness, Ramon Reyes, after testifying, but prior to the issuance of the hearing officer's report and recommendation, recanted his testimony stating that the testimony he had given at the disciplinary hearing was false and that "he gave such false testimony because his supervisor directed him to lie."

The Alarcon decision is posted on the Internet at: 
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_05055.htm


 

May 11, 2018

A delay in a disciplinary hearing resulting from an employee’s adjournment request may be properly counted against the employee for purposes of determining his or her entitlement to back pay


A delay in a disciplinary hearing resulting from an employee’s adjournment request may be properly counted against the employee for purposes of determining his or her entitlement to back pay
OATH Index No. 1355/17

A civil engineer failed to report for a mandatory overtime shift and a medical assessment of her fitness for duty, and refused to submit documentation concerning these matters when directed to do so.

One of the issues considered by the ALJ was the employee claim that she was entitled to be paid for certain absence without pay in excess of the statutory 30-days suspension without pay authorized by Section 75 of the Civil Service Law notwithstanding the fact that she was place on such leave without pay in excess of 30 days when her disciplinary hearing was adjourned at her request because her attorney was not available.

The Civil Service Law provides that an employee may be suspended without pay for a period not exceeding thirty days pending the determination of charges of incompetency or misconduct and the employee may recover back pay for any such suspension exceeding 30 days, provided that the delay is not the employee’s fault. In this instance the appointing authority argued that the employee should not be paid for delays resulting from its agreeing to an adjournment of the hearing at the employee's request.

The appointing authority contended that it did not object to the employee's hearing adjournment request "provided that there was no pay liability" against the employer attributable to the employee's  request for the adjournment. Thus, argued the appointing authority, the employee is not entitled to back pay for any period of suspension without pay attributable the adjournment of the hearing.

Judge Gloade, explained that "This tribunal may recommend restoration of pay for any period of pre-trial suspension that exceeds 30 days," citing Teachers’ Retirement System v. Barrett, , OATH Index No. 1210/99," and, citing Dep’t of Environmental Protection v. D’Amore, OATH Index No. 1307/17, said that an Administrative Law Judge may recommend payment of back pay if employee was placed on an involuntary disability leave prior to a hearing without justification. Further, said the ALJ, "Where an employee is suspended for more than 30 days, he or she may recover back pay for the period of suspension exceeding 30 days, provided that the delay in disposing of the charges is not the employee’s fault.

In contrast, said Judge Gloade, a delay occasioned by an employee’s adjournment request may be properly counted against the employee for purposes of determining his or her entitlement to back pay. "While the employee's request for adjournment appears to be bona fide, that does not exempt her from the general rule that the party responsible for the delay bears the cost."

Citing Transit Auth. v. Danese, OATH Index No. 1043/95, ALJ Gloade concluded that it was unclear from the record whether the employee was entitled to back pay and declined to undertake an accounting to determine how much, if any, back pay the employee would be entitled to receive "as it was beyond the purview of the tribunal."

The appointing authority adopted the findings, and the penalty recommended, by the ALJ.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:


CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.