Failing to call the trial court's attention to a law, rule or regulation may preclude citing such provisions in an appeal from an adverse decision by the lower court

The New York State Department of Financial Services [DFS] appeal the District Court denial of its post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, alternatively, for a new trial, after a jury found DFS liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., for unlawfully discriminating against an individual [Petitioner] based on his national origin when it failed to promote him.

On the issue of liability, DFS argued that the jury’s answer to a special interrogatory on the verdict form demonstrated [1] a level of jury confusion that warranted a new trial and that [2] the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support Petitioner’s claims. After reviewing the record, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, reject DFS' arguments and affirm the judgment substantially for reasons stated in the District Court opinion and order.

Addressing DFS' challenge to the damages awarded by the District Court, the Circuit Court said that DFS contended that the District Court erred in calculating the Petitioner's  damages award when it used "a comparator hired from outside of the civil service," citing for the first time the New York State Department of Civil Service’s State Personnel Management Manual [Manual], which, in pertinent part, states that §131.1-a of the State Civil Service Law* applies only to external candidates hired from outside the New York Civil Service.

Finding that DFS failed to make the District Court aware of these provisions set out in the Manual and relying on §131.1-a for the first time on appeal, the Circuit Court, noting that the District Court had some discretion in using the salaries of comparators to determine back pay in this case, the affirmed the District Court’s damages award.

* Civil Service Law §131.1-a, Appointment above minimum salary in certain cases, provides that "Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, with respect to positions allocated to salary grades in section one hundred thirty of this chapter the director of the classification and compensation division, subject to the approval of the director of the budget, may authorize an increased hiring rate, not to exceed the job rate of the salary grade of the position to which a person is to be appointed when the training or experience of such appointee substantially exceeds requirements necessary for appointment. The salaries of other employees serving in the same title in the same geographical area or location having qualifications of training or experience equivalent to those of the person appointed shall be increased by such amount as may be necessary to equal the rate of compensation of the person appointed.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebddfaba-00e1-4235-a653-50e2d8616b95/1/doc/18-2614_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ebddfaba-00e1-4235-a653-50e2d8616b95/1/hilite/

An arbitral awards may vacated, in whole or in part, if it violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator's power

An individual [Petitioner] employed by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision [DOCCS] was suspended without pay and subsequently served by DOCCS with a notice of suspension charging her with six instances of misconduct and imposing a penalty of dismissal.*

Petitioner waived her right to an agency-level hearing and the matter proceeded directly to arbitration. Following a hearing, the arbitrator, among other things, found Petitioner guilty of two of the charges of misconduct and imposed a one-month suspension as a penalty. The arbitrator also awarded Petitioner back pay for the period of interim suspension prior to the hearing. When DOCCS failed to pay Petitioner back pay for the time of her interim suspension, Petitioner commenced a CPLR Article 75 proceeding to confirm the award. DOCCS cross-moved to vacate the award insofar as it required the payment of back pay for the period of the interim suspension.

Supreme Court confirmed the award, denied DOCCS' cross motion and DOCCS appealed the court's ruling, contending that the arbitrator's award of back pay for the period of interim suspension exceeded his authority.

The Appellate Division overturned the Supreme Court's ruling, pointing out that:

1. "Judicial review of arbitral awards is extremely limited [but] a court may vacate an award when it violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on an arbitrator's power";

2.  "[A]lthough an arbitrator's interpretation of contract language is generally beyond the scope of judicial review, where a benefit not recognized under the governing CBA is granted, the arbitrator will be deemed to have exceeded his or her authority"; and

3. "[I]f the arbitrator imposes requirements not supported by any reasonable construction of the CBA, then the arbitrator's construction[,] in effect, made a new contract for the parties, which is a basis for vacating the award."

Here, the Appellate Division noted, "the arbitrator's award of back pay for the period of interim suspension was based upon a determination that DOCCS lacked probable cause to suspend petitioner." However, said the court, the relevant provision set out in the CBA states that "[s]uspensions without pay . . . shall be reviewable by a disciplinary arbitrator . . . to determine whether the [respondent] had probable cause."

Citing Matter of Livermore-Johnson [New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision], 155 AD3d at 1394, the court pointed out that it had previously held that hearing evidence should be considered by the arbitrator in determining probable cause." Here, however, the Appellate Division found that the arbitrator "did not rely on the hearing evidence to reach this determination, but instead relied solely on the information contained in the notice of suspension and referenced the Livermore-Johnson decision, which is an earlier decision that he rendered regarding the same CBA but a different employee."

In the words of the Appellate Division, "[i]n Livermore-Johnson, the arbitrator concluded that the suspension notice at issue in and of itself did not establish probable cause [and when reviewed by this Court] we affirmed Supreme Court's judgment vacating the arbitrator's award, holding that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by failing to consider hearing evidence and imposing the new requirement that probable cause be established in the notice of suspension."

Finding the record underlying the instant action "makes clear that the same error occurred here," the Appellate Division said that that portion of the order and judgment that orders back pay for [Petitioner] during the period of interim suspension must be vacated and the matter remitted for a rehearing on that issue."

* The terms of Petitioner's employment were governed by a collective bargaining agreement [CBA] that contained procedures that DOCCS was required to follow when seeking to discipline an employee.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_04526.htm

The statute of limitations for filing an Article 78 petition challenging an regulation adopted by a government entity starts to run on the effective date of the regulation

General Municipal Law §209-q(1)(a) requires that individuals satisfactorily complete an approved municipal police basic training program prior to appointment as a police officer on a permanent basis. A certificate of completion issued upon completion of an approved training course remains valid, as relevant in this appeal, during the holder's continuous service as a police officer and during certain specified periods of "interruption" from service (see General Municipal Law §209-q[1][b]).* The State's Division of Criminal Justice Services [DCJS] is required by law to maintain a registry of all full-time and part-time police officers in the State and all agencies employing police officers are required to immediately report to DCJS when any officer it has employed ceases to so serve.

Executive Law §837[13] authorizes DCJS to adopt such regulations "as may be necessary or convenient to the performance of its duties." DCJS had adopted regulations requiring an agency employing police officers immediately notify DCJS when a police officer it had employed ceased to serve as a police officer and to indicate the reason for his or her ceasing to serve as a police officer, including reporting his or her "removal for cause".** 

Removal for cause included, as relevant in this action, resignation while a disciplinary proceeding was pending against the police officer pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 or pursuant to another statute or a contract disciplinary procedure negotiated pursuant to the Taylor Law.***

Among the issues addressed by the Appellate Division in this action was the effective date of a regulation adopted by DCJS for the purposes of determining the statute of limitations for timely filing a CPLR Article 78 petition seeking to annul a determination made by DCJS pursuant to the challenged regulation.

In April 2018, two former police officer [Plaintiffs] initiated proceedings and actions for declaratory judgments seeking to annul DCJS's determinations to invalidate their respective police officer basic training certificates. Supreme Court "converted these proceeding/action to a CPLR Article 78 proceeding upon consent of the parties" and then dismissed the Article 78 action as untimely. Plaintiffs appealed.

The Appellate Division noted that although the parties concede that this proceeding was governed by the four-month statute of limitations set forth in CPLR §217(1), they disagree as to when their respective causes of action arose and, in the words of the court, "their claims for relief are ultimately grounded on challenges to the validity of the regulations that were promulgated by DCJS in 2016 and 2017" in consideration of their status as police officers.

Citing Thrun v Cuomo, 112 AD3d 1038, the Appellate Division opined that as the challenged regulations "were quasi-legislative acts ... challenges to the validity of regulations accrued when the regulations become effective." Accordingly, explained the court, "inasmuch as the regulations became effective more than four months before this proceeding was commenced, Supreme Court properly found that [Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred."

Addressing an argument raised by one of the Plaintiffs whereby the Plaintiff asserted that he had submitted "his irrevocable resignation letter" on September 19, 2016 and that it had expressly provided that his resignation would be effective on October 31, 2016, five days after the regulations were adopted, the Appellate Division observed that the resignation was submitted in settlement of disciplinary charges that could have resulted in Plaintiff's removal.

Thus, said the court, Plaintiff's "arguments that he resigned before the regulations were enacted or, alternatively, that no disciplinary charges were pending on the effective date of his resignation are precluded by his acceptance of the benefits of the settlement, namely, being permitted to resolve the pending disciplinary charges by resigning and his further receipt of employment benefits from September 19, 2016 through the effective resignation date of October 31, 2016." 

* Interruption means separation from employment as a police officer "by reason of such officer's leave of absence, resignation or removal, other than removal for cause" (see General Municipal Law §209-q[1][c]).

** See 9 NYCRR 6056.2(g), employees removed for incompetence or misconduct.

*** 4 NYCRR 5.3(b) provides in pertinent part, "... 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." Also, where necessary and appropriate, such disciplinary action may be conducted in absentia [see Mari v Safir, 291 AD2d 298].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_04524.htm

Selection of a medical officer to examine an employee terminated from her position pursuant to §72.5 of the Civil Service Law to determine the individual's "fitness for reinstatement" to the position

An individual [Plaintiff] was placed on "ordinary disability leave" involuntarily by the appointing authority pursuant to Civil Service Law §72(5).* About two years later Plaintiff was terminated from her position by the appointing authority pursuant to Civil Service Law §73.**

When she sought to be reinstated to her position the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) designated an outside entity, JurisSolutions, to provide a medical officer to examine Plaintiff to determine her fitness to return to duty. Following the medical examination, Plaintiff filed a CPLR Article 78 petition contending that the physicians that had conducted her fit-for-duty evaluation were unqualified.

The Appellate Division dismissed Plaintiff's cause of action, holding that DCAS did not improperly delegate its duty to select a medical officer to an outside entity, JurisSolutions.

Both Civil Service Law §72(1) and §73 essentially provide that "When in the judgment of an appointing authority an employee is unable to perform the duties of his or her position by reason of a disability . . . the appointing authority may require 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."

The court, noting that neither §72(1) or §73 mandates any method that the "civil service department or municipal commission having jurisdiction" must use to select the medical officer, and nothing in the text prohibits DCAS from employing a procurement process to select the medical officer who will conduct the evaluation.

The Appellate Division then cited Lazzari v Town of Eastchester, 20 NY3d 214, a case involving a public employee on "worker's compensation leave" pursuant to §71 of the Civil Service Law, in which the Court of Appeals opined "Although Civil Service Law §71 does not indicate to whom the certification must be made, read in context, it is clear that the certification is made to the Department of Human Resources acting as a civil service commission, the body that arranges for the examination and to whom the results of such an examination are reported. Indeed, the purpose of section 71 is to involve a neutral agency and a physician, independent of both the employee and the employer, with appropriate oversight."

The Appellate Division, noting that "Although JurisSolutions provides the doctors, DCAS maintains complete control over the selection process," rejected Plaintiff's contention that the doctors that conducted her fit-for-duty evaluation were unqualified as not being supported by the record, and the hearing officer's determinations concerning the doctors' credibility should not be disturbed.

* Civil Service Law §72(5), in pertinent part, provides "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."

** Civil Service Law §73 of the Civil Service Law provides, in pertinent part, "When an employee has been continuously absent from and unable to perform the duties of his position for one year or more by reason of a disability, other than a disability resulting from occupational injury or disease as defined in the workmen's compensation law, his employment status may be terminated and his position may be filled by a permanent appointment."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_04658.htm