Terminated educator alleges that her employer breached the employment agreement and negligently terminated her

Terminated educator alleges that her employer breached the employment agreement  and negligently terminated her

Morrison v Buffalo Board of Education, et al, USCA, 2nd Circuit, No. 17-3496-cv

A school administrator, [Plaintiff] terminated from her position, sued the City of Buffalo Board of Education [District] and numerous individual administrators alleging breach of her employment agreement [Agreement] and "negligent termination."

The genesis of Plaintiff's termination was her alleged failure to obtain the professional certifications required by the Agreement. 

Although Plaintiff acknowledged that she held only a Florida certification at the time she applied for a position with the District, she contended that she “truthfully declared” her lack of a valid New York certification during the application process and was hired nonetheless." Plaintiff further alleged that when, during her first week on the job, she was directed to apply for interstate certification reciprocity, she promptly did so and said that  "the New York State Department of Education awarded her a conditional School Building Leader certificate [and] she was directed to apply for a School District Leader  internship certificate, which certificate she received in March 2014.

Accordingly, Plaintiff asserted that she was "adequately certified" at the time of her termination in April 2014.

The Circuit Court vacated that part of the district court's decision concerning Plaintiff's  breach of contract claim, affirming the lower court's ruling "in all other respects," explaining that "In dismissing the breach of contract claim, the district court here determined that [Plaintiff] failed to satisfy a contractual condition requiring her to maintain certain professional certifications and, thus, that [the District] did not violate the Agreement by terminating her employment. Because the first conclusion cannot be reached as a matter of law on the present record, [district court] dismissal was premature." 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cdbc3784-2c1b-4017-b7d6-e13c18d43d65/21/doc/17-3496_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cdbc3784-2c1b-4017-b7d6-e13c18d43d65/21/hilite/

Placing an employee on involuntary leave pursuant to Civil Service Law §72.5

Placing an employee on involuntary leave pursuant to Civil Service Law §72.5

NYC Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, OATH Index No. 1865/18

Based on statements a customer service representative [Anonymous] was reported to have made to co-workers, the Appointing Authority [Authority] placed Anonymous on involuntary leave pursuant to Civil Service Law §72.5 in consideration of safety concerns about Anonymous' presence at the work place.

Anonymous filed a timely objection to being placed on §72.5  leave, typically refered to as "emergency leave." After a two-day hearing during which Authority presented the testimony of a psychiatrist, who examined Anonymous and concluded he was unfit, as well as the testimony of two of Anonymous’ co-workers and Anonymous' testimony on his own behalf and the testimony of a psychiatrist called by Anonymous a witness, OATH John B. Spooner found that Authority's failed to meet the standard justifying its placing Anonymous on emergency leave.

Judge Spooner said the Authority did not prove that [1] it had probable cause to believe that Anonymous was dangerous or [2] his presence in the workplace would “severely interfere" with its operations, or [3] Anonymous was likely to be violent. Accordingly, said the ALJ, Authority failed to demonstrate that placing Anonymous on an “extraordinary” pre-hearing suspension authorized by §72.5 was necessary.

Judge Spooner recommended that Authority's petition be dismissed and that Anonymous be awarded back pay for the period of pre-trial leave. Authority, however, rejected the ALJ’s recommendation, finding that it had proved that, due to his psychiatric disorders, Anonymous was unfit to work. Authority also found that Anonymous was not entitled to back pay for the period of prior to his hearing as it had a sufficient basis to institute emergency leave.*

The "standard Section 72 procedure" is triggered by the appointing officer's determina­tion that the individual is physically or mentally unable to perform his or her duties and should be placed on leave of absence and CSL Section 72.1 requires completing a number of procedural steps before the individual may actually be placed on Section 72 leave over his or her objections.

 
In contrast, Section 72.5 relied upon by Authority in Anonymous' situation, essentially sets out an exception to the "standard procedure" that allows it to be truncated only in the event the appointing authority determines that there is probable cause to believe that the continuation of the individual on the job poses a danger to persons, property or the agency's operation.

The "standard procedure" followed under Section 72 may be summarized as follows:

1. The appointing authority determines than an employee is unable to perform the duties of his or her position by reason of an ordinary disability.

2. The appointing authority requires such employee to undergo a medical examination to be conducted by a medical officer selected by the civil service department or munici­pal commission having jurisdiction.

3. The appointing authority provides the employee and the civil service department or commission, in writing, the facts that constitute the basis for the judgment that the employee is not fit to perform the duties of his or her position prior to the medical examination.

4. If the medical officer certifies that the employee is not physically or mentally fit to perform the duties of his or her position, the appointing authority notifies the em­ployee of any proposed Section 72 leave and the proposed date on which such leave is to commence.

5. The employee is also advised of his or her right to object to his or her placement on the proposed Section 72 leave of absence and to request a hearing.

6. If the employee requests a hearing, the appointing authority is to give the employee a hearing within 30 days of the receipt of the request. The appointing authority is also required to provide the employee and the employee's personal physician or authorized representative, with copies of all diagnoses, test results, observations and other data supporting the appointing authority's decision.

7. The employee is not to be placed on leave until a final determination is made by the appointing authority after the hearing is held.

As is typical in administrative actions of this type, the appointing authority has the burden of proof and must provide the evidence that the employee is mentally or physically unfit to perform his or her duties.

Following the receipt of the hearing officer's findings and recommendations, the ap­pointing authority may decide to (1) uphold the original proposed notice of leave of absence, (2) withdraw such notice or (3) modify the notice as may be appropriate.

If the final determination is to place the individual on Section 72 leave, the employee is to be advised of his or her right to appeal the determination to the civil service commis­sion having jurisdiction as provided by CSL Section 72.3.

* §75.2, in pertinent part, provides "5. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, if the appointing authority determines that there is probable cause to believe that the continued presence of the employee on the job represents a potential danger to persons or property or would severely interfere with operations, it may place such employee on involuntary leave of absence immediately; provided, however, that the employee shall be entitled to draw all accumulated unused sick leave, vacation, overtime and other time allowances standing to his or her credit...."

The Anonymous decision, including Authority's justification for rejecting the OATH ALJ's recommendation, is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/18_cases/18-1865.pdf

Separation of Powers

Separation of Powers

Garcia v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2018 NY Slip Op 04778, Court of Appeals

Among the issues addressed by the Court of Appeals in this action was an alleged violation of the doctrine of Separation of Powers.

In response to the Appellate Division's holding that the adoption of certain administrative rules violated the separation of powers doctrine, New York City argued that the legislature has properly delegated to New York City's Board of Health, through Administrative Code §17-109, the necessary authority to promulgate the rules at issue.* The City contended that the Appellate Division inappropriately applied the so-called Boreali factors** "to second-guess the manner in which the Board exercised its regulatory authority, instead of merely determining whether the Board possessed the requisite authority to promulgate the rules in the first instance."

The Court of Appeals agreed. Citing Matter of NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preserv., 27 NY3d 174, the court explained that "The concept of the separation of powers is the bedrock of the system of government adopted by this State in establishing three coordinate and coequal branches of government, each charged with performing particular functions." This principle, "implied by the separate grants of power to each of the coordinate branches of government, requires that the Legislature make the critical policy decisions, while the executive branch's responsibility is to implement those policies."

Separation of powers challenges, noted the court, "often involve the question of whether a regulatory body has exceeded the scope of its delegated powers and encroached upon the legislative domain of policymaking."

In this regard an administrative agency can adopt regulations that go beyond the text of the relevant legislation, "provided they are not inconsistent with the statutory language or its underlying purposes." On the other hand, as it ruled in Greater N.Y. Taxi Assn., 25 NY3d at 609, the Court of Appeal said that "The guiding legislation 'need not be detailed or precise as to the agency's role' and, as an overarching principle, 'common sense must be applied when reviewing a separation of powers challenge.'"

The "difficult-to-define line between administrative rule-making and legislative policy-making" was clarified [by Boreali] by articulating four "coalescing circumstances" relevant to rendering such a determination as follows:

1. Did the regulatory agency balanced costs and benefits according to preexisting guidelines rather than make value judgments requiring difficult and complex choices between broad policy goals to resolve social problems;

2. Did the regulatory agency "merely filled in details of a broad policy" or did it create its own comprehensive set of rules without benefit of legislative guidance;

3. Had the legislature been unsuccessful in its efforts to enact laws pertaining to the issue; and

4. Did the regulatory agency use "special technical expertise in the applicable field."

Ultimately any Boreali analysis, said the court, "should center on the theme that it is the province of the people's elected representatives, rather than appointed administrators, to resolve difficult social problems by making choices among competing ends" as "A rule has the force of law, but it is not a law; rather, it implements or applies law or policy" and the administrative body must act within the limitations of its legislatively-delegated powers.

Rejecting the Petitioners' separation of powers challenge, the Court of Appeals emphasized that a Boreali analysis is not aimed at determining whether a regulatory agency adopted the most desirable method or type of regulation and the factors enumerated in Boreali "are not designed to second-guess agency regulations that properly falls within the agency's purview." In the event the Boreali factors indicate that the agency has been empowered to regulate the matter in question, the court said that the separation of powers analysis "goes no farther in reviewing the agency's methods."***

* The challenged rules: The City's Board of Health's amendments to the New York City Health Code mandating that children between the ages of 6 months and 59 months who attend city-regulated child care or school-based programs receive annual influenza vaccinations.

** Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1.

*** The Court of Appeals also rejected Petitioner's alternative theory, that the City's flu vaccine rules were invalid because they conflicted with the State's Public Health Law and thus violated the Premption Doctrine which expresses "a fundamental limitation on home rule powers" and "embodies the untrammeled primacy of the [l]egislature to act with respect to matters of State concern."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_04778.htm