Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Under NY Law, It is Ok To File and Serve Copies

I bring Rechler Equity v. AKR Corp., ____A.D.3d____(2d Dep't. Aug. 1, 2012), Download Rechler Equity AD3d (2d Dep't. 2012) Ok To Serve and File Copiesbecause it addresses a common issue. The court holds that under the CPLR, it is perfectly permissible for copies of pleadings to be served and filed. Thus, an original signature is not required.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Employee’s termination based on the findings and recommendation of the disciplinary hearing officer

 

Snead v Village of Spring Valley, 2012 NY Slip Op 05749, Appellate Division, Second Department

Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules challenging the determination of the Village of Spring Valley Justice Court dismissing the individual from her position, noting that the Justice Court had adopted the findings and recommendation of the disciplinary hearing officer.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Justice Court’s action, noting that the alleged misconduct, falsification of public records, and insubordination, was supported by “substantial evidence adduced at the administrative hearing.”

In addition, the court held that “in light of the charges and the [employee’s] duties, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be "shocking to one's sense of fairness," thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law, citing Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_05749.htm

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Some Hospitals are Going Without Malpractice Insurance

This is a scarey thought. Some New York hospitals are going without malpractice insurance. While some of these institutions are saving money on their own to pay out future claims; others are not. A New York Times article about this practice is available here.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

A public employee’s retirement allowance paid by a public retirement system of this State ruled subject to the provisions of the Son of Sam Law

 

New York State Off. of Victim Servs. v Raucci, 2012 NY Slip Op 04440, Appellate Division, Third Department

The issue in this action: Does Retirement and Social Security Law §110* insulate the retirement benefits from a public retirement system of this State from “the broad reach of the Son of Sam Law, which does not expressly exempt pension funds?”**

The Appellate Division held that such retirement benefits are not exempt from the Son of Sam Law.

Steven C. Raucci, a former employee of the Schenectady City School District, was sentenced to a lengthy prison term upon his conviction of numerous crimes arising out of his alleged detonation and attempted detonation of explosive devices at two of his victims' homes. Raucci began receiving a retirement allowance from the New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System of approximately $5,800 per month.

The New York State Office of Victim Services sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting the withdrawal or transfer of those funds from Raucci’s inmate account. Raucci, and his spouse as “an interested person,” argued that RSSL §110 exempts the pension funds from garnishment or any other legal process.

Noting that prior to its amendment in 2001, the Son of Sam Law permitted victims to recover only "profits from a crime," i.e., property or income generated from the crime itself, the Legislature "expand[ed] the [Son of Sam] [L]aw to cover money and property that a convicted criminal receives from any source."

Accordingly, said the Court,  “The current version of the statute thus permits crime victims to commence an action ‘within three years of the discovery of any profits from a crime or funds of a convicted person’ broadly defined as "all funds and property received from any source by a person convicted of a specified crime (Executive Law § 632-a [1] [c]” [emphasis added by the court].

The Appellate Division said that only two categories of a convicted person's funds are not recoverable by crime victims: the first $1,000 in the convicted person's account and the first 10% of compensatory damages obtained by the convicted person in a civil judgment, less counsel fees.

* The decision summaries the provisions of §110 as follows: Retirement and Social Security Law §110 protects public employee pensions, providing that "[t]he right of a person to a pension . . . or a retirement allowance . . . to the return of . . . the pension . . . or retirement allowance itself . . . and the monies in [those] funds . . . [s]hall not be subject to execution, garnishment, attachment, or any other process whatsoever, and . . . [s]hall be unassignable."

** The decision refers to both a “pension” and a “retirement allowance.” A retirement allowance consists of a “pension portion” determined by the employee’s final average salary and his or her “years of member service,” which is funded by employer contributions plus an “annuity portion” based on the actuarial value of the employee’s contributions, or contributions made on his or her behalf as of the date of his or her retirement.

NYPPL comments: This decision raises a number of questions that may have to be addressed by the courts or the legislature such as [1] Is a retirement allowance being received by a surviving beneficiary or beneficiaries of a retired public employee of this State subject to the Son of Sam Law? and [2] Is a retirement benefit being received by an individual or his or her beneficiary or beneficiaries from a retirement program or plan other than a public retirement system of this State subject to the Son of Sam Law?

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_04440.htm

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Employee terminated for cause entitled to back pay for the period she was suspended without pay in excess of 30 days

 

The Westchester County Health Care Corporation adopted the recommendation of a hearing officer, made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, finding the employee guilty of certain charges of misconduct and insubordination. It then terminated the individual from its employ.

Te Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court’s dismissal of an Article 78 petition challenging the disciplinary termination of an employee with respect to the merits of the appeal. The court held that contrary to the individual’s contention, Westchester’s determination that the individual was guilty of certain charges of misconduct and insubordination was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The court also rejected the individual’s claim that she was denied a fair hearing due to the alleged bias of the hearing officer as being without merit, finding that there was no evidence in the record to support her contention that the hearing officer was biased.

As to the penalty imposed, dismissal, the court ruled that termination was “not so disproportionate to the offenses committed by the petitioner as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.”

Although the Appellate Division sustained Supreme Court’s dismissal of an Article 78 petition challenging the disciplinary action, the court remanded the matter to the lower court for its determination regarding any back pay due the dismissed individual.

Here, said the court, the individual “correctly contends that she is entitled to back pay for the period she was suspended without pay in excess of 30 days, excluding delay, if any, occasioned by her, and less unemployment insurance benefits received for that period, if any,” citing Civil Service Law §75[3].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03839.htm

 

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Blog

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

NY Court of Appeals Holds More Stringent Dual Employment Standards Are Mandatory Subjects

Matter of NYC Transit Authority v. PERB, ___N.Y. 3d____(June 17, 2012), is an important case. The employer unilaterally imposed more stringent dual employment standards for certain employees. Though not explained in the decision, these policies appear to have limited employee moonlighting. In upholding PERB's finding that an IP occurred, the Court explained:

It is well settled that "[t]he Taylor Law (Civil Service Law art 14) requires collective bargaining over all 'terms and conditions of employment'" (Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 6 NY3d 563, [*3]572 [2006], quoting Civil Service Law § 204 [2]). Where a public employee alleges that a public employer has failed to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment — an improper employer practice (see Civil Service Law § 209-a [1] [d]), PERB has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the dispute between the parties (see Civil Service Law § 205 [5] [d]; see also Matter of Zuckerman v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 44 NY2d 336, 342 [1978]). We "have made clear that 'the presumption . . . that all terms and conditions of employment are subject to mandatory bargaining' cannot easily be overcome" (Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc. 6 NY3d at 572, quoting Matter of City of Watertown v State of N.Y. Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 95 NY2d 73, 79 [2000]). However, "certain decisions of an employer, though not without impact upon its employees, may not be deemed mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment[] . . . because they are inherently and fundamentally policy decisions relating to the primary mission of the public employer" (Matter of Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 75 NY2d 660, 669 [1990]; see also Matter of County of Erie v State of N.Y. Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 12 NY3d 72, 78 [2009]).

Here, the NYCTA urges us to hold that its implementation of more stringent dual employment standards was mission-related and, therefore, not subject to collective bargaining. It is indisputable that the NYCTA's core mission is to provide a safe system of public transit (see Public Authorities Law §§ 1202 [1], 1204 [15]). Although we need not "defer to PERB's judgment" (Matter of Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of N.Y., Inc., 6 NY3d at 575) on whether an employer's unilateral policy decision relates to its primary mission, the record in this case is inadequate to support the NYCTA's argument that the dual employment standards at issue were in furtherance of its core mission of public safety. As noted earlier, the NYCTA did not rely on particular safety studies when it imposed these new standards. Moreover, the NYCTA did not explain why it chose to impose the more restrictive dual employment standards on certain safety-sensitive employees — train conductors, train operators and tower operators — while exempting others — bus operators and train dispatchers — who share similar job functions. Simply put, on the limited record before us, there is an insufficient basis to disturb PERB's determination.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

NY Appellate Court Holds That Accusing Someone of Being Gay Is No Longer Defamation Per Se

Yonaty v. Mincolla, ____A.D.3d___(3d Dep't. May 31, 2012), is an exceedingly important case that has not gotten much press. The case was a defamation action and the legal issue was whether or not falsing accusing someone as being gay is defamation per se. This is important because if it is slander per se, then plaintiff has to allege special damages. 

Here the court refused to follow 30 year old precedent from another Department which held that making such a false accusation was indeed slander per se. As the court explained:

In regard to New York in particular, we locate "the public policy of [this] state in the law as expressed in statute and judicial decision and also [by] consider[ing] the prevailing attitudes of the community" (Debra H. v Janice R., 14 NY3d 576, 600 [2010], cert denied ___ US ___, 131 S Ct 908 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Dickerson v Thompson, 73 AD3d 52, 54 [2010]). Rather than countenancing the view that homosexuality is disgraceful, the Human Rights Law, since 2002, has expressly prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, public accommodations, credit, education and housing (Executive Law § 296). Most revealing of the respect that the people of this state currently extend to lesbians, gays and bisexuals, the Legislature passed the Marriage Equality Act (Domestic Relations Law § 10-a, as amended by L 2011, ch 95, § 3) in June 2011, which was strongly supported by the Governor and gave same-sex couples the right to marry in New York, thereby granting them all the benefits of marriage, including "the symbolic benefit, or moral satisfaction, of seeing their relationships recognized by the State" (Hernandez v Robles, 7 NY3d 338, 358 [2006]). Even prior to the Marriage Equality Act, this Court had previously explained that "the public policy of our state protects same-sex couples in a myriad of ways" — including numerous statutory benefits and judicial decisions expressing a policy of acceptance (Dickerson v Thompson, 78 AD3d at 54). Similarly "evidenc[ing] a clear commitment to respect, uphold and protect parties to same-sex relationships[,] executive and local orders extend[] recognition to same-sex couples and grant[] benefits accordingly" (id.; see Godfrey v Spano, 13 NY3d 358, 380-381 [2009] [Ciparick, J., concurring] [detailing the many statutes and court decisions reflecting a public policy of acceptance of lesbians, gays and bisexuals]).

We note that the most recent Appellate Division decision considering the issue in depth was decided nearly 30 years ago (Matherson v Marchello, 100 AD2d 233, 241-242 [2d Dept 1984], supra). In that case, the Second Department concluded that it was "constrained . . . at this point in time" to hold that a statement imputing homosexuality was defamatory per se in light of the then-existing "social opprobrium of homosexuality" and "[l]egal sanctions imposed upon homosexuals in areas ranging from immigration to military service" (id. at 241 [emphasis added]). Ultimately, the Court held that "the potential and probable harm of a false charge of homosexuality, in terms of social and economic impact, cannot be ignored" (id. at 242). In light of the tremendous evolution in social attitudes regarding homosexuality, the elimination of the legal sanctions that troubled the Second Department in 1984 and the considerable legal protection and respect that the law of this state now accords lesbians, gays and bisexuals, it cannot be said that current public opinion supports a rule that would equate statements imputing homosexuality with accusations of serious criminal conduct or insinuations that an individual has a loathsome disease (see Stern v Cosby, 645 F Supp 2d 258, 273-275 [SD NY 2009];Albright v Morton, 321 F Supp 2d 130, 136-139 [D Mass 2004], affd on other grounds 410 F3d 69 [2005]; [*5]Donovan v Fiumara, 114 NC App 524, 528-531, 442 SE2d 572, 575-577 [1994]; Hayes v Smith, 832 P2d 1022, 1023-1025 [Colo 1991]; Boehm v Bankers Ins. Group, Inc., 557 So 2d 91, 94 and n 1 [Fla 1990], review denied 564 So 2d 1085 [Fla 1990]; but see Gallo v Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-Societa per Azioni, 585 F Supp 2d 520, 549-550 [2008] [relying, in part, on our decision in Tourge v City of Albany (285 AD2d 785 [2001], supra) in concluding that statements imputing homosexuality remain slanderous per se under New York law]). While lesbians, gays and bisexuals have historically faced discrimination and such prejudice has not been completely eradicated, "the fact of such prejudice on the part of some does not warrant a judicial holding that gays and lesbians [and bisexuals], merely because of their sexual orientation, belong in the same class as criminals" (Stern v Cosby, 645 F Supp 2d, at 275).

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

NY Court of Appeals Issues Major Employment-At-Will Decision

In Sullivan v. Harnisch, ____N.Y.3d____(May 8, 2012), the New York Court of Appeals once again refused to recognize a cause of action for wrongful discharge and refused to make an exception for a compliance officer of a hedge fund. A compliance officer alleged that he was terminated because he "spoke out" about "manupulative and deceptive trading practices." The plaintiff tried to allege that the exception to the employment at will doctrine recognized in Wieder v. Skala, 80 N.Y. 2d 628 (1992) should apply. In rejecting this, the Court distinguished Wieder, reasoning in part:

Important as regulatory compliance is, it cannot be said of Sullivan, as we said of the plaintiff in Wieder, that his regulatory and ethical obligations and his duties as an employee "were so closely linked as to be incapable of separation" (Wieder, 80 NY2d at 635). Sullivan was not associated with other compliance officers in a firm where all were subject to self-regulation as members of a common profession. Indeed, Sullivan was not even a full-time compliance officer. He had four other titles at Peconic, including Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and was, according to his claim, a 15% partner in the business. It is simply not true that regulatory compliance, in the words of Wieder, "was at the very core and, indeed, the only purpose" of Sullivan's employment. 

The case generated a strong two Judge dissent by Chief Judge Lippman where the Chief Judge stated:

In the wake of the devastation caused by fraudulent financial schemes — such as the Madoff ponzi operation, infamous for many reasons including the length of time during which it continued undetected — the courts can ill afford to turn a blind eye to the potential for abuses that may be committed by unscrupulous financial services companies in violation of the public trust and the law. In the absence of conscientious efforts by those insiders entrusted to report and prevent such abuses of investors, such behavior can run rampant until a third party outside the company discovers it and takes action. The message that will be taken from the majority's decision is self-evident: if compliance officers (and others similarly situated) wish to keep their jobs, they should keep their heads down and ignore good-faith suspicions or evidence they may have that their employers have engaged in illegal and unethical behavior, even where such violations could cause or have caused staggering losses to their employers' clients. The majority's conclusion that an investment adviser like defendant Peconic has every right to fire its compliance officer, simply for doing his job, flies in the face of what we have learned from the Madoff debacle, runs counter to the letter and spirit of this Court's precedent, and facilitates the perpetration of frauds on the public.

Because the majority unduly narrows the scope of a purposefully and carefully crafted exception to the doctrine of at-will employment, and unfathomably permits the termination of a hedge fund's chief and deputy chief compliance officers in the midst of their investigation of the CEO's allegedly "manipulative and deceptive trade practices that include[d]illegal 'front-running' in violation of federal and state securities laws,"I respectfully dissent.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

New York Appellate Court Issues Major Employment At Will Decision and Essentially Implies Public Policy Exception

Villarin v. Rabbi Haskel Lookstein School, 2012 NY Slip Op. 02786 (1st Dept. April 12, 2012), is a significant case. 

New York is one of the most conservative employment at will states. The Legislature enacted Labor Law Section 740 to protect whisleblowers, but it has been interpreted very narrowly by courts to require an ACTUAL violation of law Bordell v. GE, 88 NY 2d 869 (1996) AND illegal activity that creates a substanal and specific danger to public health. The reporting of fraud and religious harassment of an individual has been held not to be within the protection of this statute. Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi, 152 A.D. 2d 169 (2d Dep't. 1989). 

Villarin is significant because the majority holds that a school nurse at a private school is protected from being terminated because she reported child abuse. What is sigificant about this case is that the alleged abuse only concered one student. A two judge dissent felt that because the public policy did not involve a wider issue applicable to public health in general,(because only one student was involved), that this statute was not applicable.

Since two judges dissented, under New York law, this case can be appealed to the New York Court of Appeals as a matter of right. If the decision stands, like it unquestionably should, New York would essentially be recognizing a public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine at least where an actual violation of law occurred because every case would involve at least a single individual. 

Stay tunned. 

Mitch

The Doctrine of Res Judicata bars relitigating the same issues earlier decided by another tribunal

 

Matter of Finkel v New York City Housing Authority, 2011 NY Slip Op 07914, Appellate Division, First Department

Affirming State Supreme Court’s dismissing Finkel’s Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a 2010 New York State Division of Human Rights' determination dismissing his complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the Appellate Division said that the complaint filed with New York State Division of Human Rights was barred under the doctrine of res judicata because they were based on the same complaints filed by Finkel in federal court in 1990 and 1991, which claims were decided by the federal court on the merits.

Addressing another issue, the timeliness of the 2010 action, the court said it disagreed with Finkel’s claim that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (the Fair Pay Act) applied to payments made pursuant to a pension structure.

The Appellate Division said that the language of the statute itself provides that "[n]othing in this Act is intended to change current law treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid," citing Public Law 111-2, §2[4]. Accordingly, said the court, "[t]he [Fair Pay] Act preserves the existing law concerning when a discriminatory pension distribution or payment occurs, i.e., upon retirement, not upon the issuance of each check."

As Finkel began receiving his retirement compensation in 1996, the Appellate Division concluded that the Fair Pay Act did not "reset" the statute of limitations for the claims related to his employer’s failure to pay Finkel back wages as ordered in a prior action, or with respect to any of the other claims.

Reprinted with permission New York Public  Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

Evidence obtained using a global positioning device [GPS] permitted in administrative disciplinary hearing

 

Matter of Matter of Cunningham v New York State Dept. of Labor, 2011 NY Slip Op 08529, Appellate Division, Third Department

Michael A. Cunningham, an employee of the New York State Department of Labor, was served with disciplinary charges alleging that he had reported false information about hours he had worked on many days and that he had submitted false vouchers related to travel with his vehicle. The disciplinary hearing officer found Cunningham guilty of certain charges and recommend that Cunningham be dismissed from his position. The Commissioner of Labor accepted the hearing officer's findings and recommended penalty and terminated Cunningham from service.

In the course of an investigation which resulted in the disciplinary charges being filed against Cunningham, the State’s Office of the Inspector General used a global positioning system (GPS) device placed on Cunningham’s vehicle and the resulting information was used in the course of Cunningham’s disciplinary hearing as evidence to prove charges that he had reported false information and submitted false vouchers related to his travel using his personal vehicle.*

Cunningham, contending that the GPS devices placed on his car without a warrant constituted an illegal search and seizure under the NY Constitution, appealed and argued that all such information should have been excluded from evidence at the administrative hearing.

One of the significant issues before the Appellate Division was Cunningham’s challenging the GPS evidence used in the disciplinary action. Essentially the Appellate Division had to determine if the admission of evidence obtained through the use of the GPS to prove certain of the disciplinary charges was unduly prejudicial to Cunningham.

The Appellate Division noted that in a case decided after OIG had concluded its investigation of Cunningham, a majority in the Court of Appeals held that, within the context of a criminal investigation, "[u]nder our State Constitution, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the installation and use of a GPS device to monitor an individual's whereabouts requires a warrant supported by probable cause" (People v Weaver, 12 NY3d 433 [2009]).

Concluding that although the GPS evidence gathered in the course of the OIG investigation would have likely been excluded from a criminal trial under Weaver, the Appellate Division said that the standard for using or excluding evidence at administrative proceedings is not controlled by criminal law, citing McCormick, Evidence §173 [6th ed] [supp], in which it was observed that “most courts do not apply the exclusionary rule to various administrative proceedings including employee disciplinary matters”.

The court said that the test applied in a search conducted by a public employer investigating work-related misconduct of one of its employees is whether the search was reasonable “under all the circumstances, both as to the inception and scope of the intrusion.”

Similarly, said the court, when the search was “conducted by an entity other than the administrative body” seeking to use the evidence in a disciplinary proceeding, the rule is applied by "balancing the deterrent effect of exclusion against its detrimental impact on the process of determining the truth."

As in this instance the investigation was refer to the OIG. Under such facts, said the court, “the reasonableness test appears applicable.”

The court concluded that in order to establish a pattern of serious misconduct such as repeatedly submitting false time records in contrast to a mere isolated incident, it was necessary to obtain pertinent and credible information over a period of time. Here the Appellate Division ruled that “obtaining such information for one month using a GPS device was not unreasonable in the context of a noncriminal proceeding involving a high-level state employee with a history of discipline problems who had recently thwarted efforts to follow him in his nonworking-related ventures during work hours.”

Under the circumstances the Appellate Division said that neither OIG nor Department of Labor had acted unreasonably.

* See, also, Matter of Halpin v Klein, 62 AD3d 403. In Halpin the employee was found guilty of disciplinary charges involving absence from work based on records generated by global positioning equipment. Halpin's guilt was established using data from the global positioning system (GPS) installed in his Department-issued cell phone. The Halpin decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_03593.htm

The Cunningham decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_08529.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

Zero drug tolerance policy must be consistent with terms of the collective bargaining agreement

 

Matter of Matter of Shenendehowa Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, 2011 NY Slip Op 08703, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Civil Service Employees Association had filed a grievance challenging the dismissal of one of the employees in the collective bargaining unit it represented was terminated after failing a random test for drug and alcohol test. The issues that the parties jointly presented to the arbitrator were, "Did [the school district] violate Article IV of the Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA] when it terminated [the employee]? If so, what shall the remedy be?"

The arbitrator determined that employee had tested positive for marijuana, but that the school district had violated the CBA by terminating her. As a remedy, the arbitrator directed that the employee be reinstate, without back pay, but required that she comply with follow-up drug and alcohol testing and an evaluation by a substance abuse professional.

Supreme Court granted the Shenendehowa Central School District’s Article 75 petition seeking vacate an arbitration award thereby “reinstating the employee’s termination.”

The Appellate Division disagreed, ruling that the award was not against public policy was rational, and in making the award the arbitrator did not exceed his powers, holding that “Supreme Court should have confirmed the arbitration award.”

The Appellate Division explained that “If a matter is submitted to arbitration, reviewing courts should not interpret substantive conditions of the agreement or delve into the merits of the dispute.” Citing Matter of Grasso, 72 AD2d 1463 [Leave to appeal denied, 15 NY3d 703], the court said that "Courts must give deference to an arbitrator's decision and cannot examine the merits of an arbitration award, even if the arbitrator misapplied or misinterpreted the law or facts, but a court may vacate an award" where it "violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power." Further, the Appellate Division stated that "[W]here an agreement is 'reasonably susceptible of the construction given it by the arbitrator, a court may not vacate the award," citing Matter of Albany County Sheriffs Local 775 of N.Y. State Law Enforcement Officers Union, Dist. Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO [County of Albany], 27 AD3d 979.

Underlying the school district’s decision to terminate the employee was its assertion that it had “a zero tolerance policy concerning positive drug tests, thereby mandating discharge.” However, said the court, no such written policy was produced in evidence. Rather, the school district’s written drug testing policy states that a violation "shall be grounds for disciplinary action including, but not limited to, fines, suspension and/or discharge."

Here, said the Appellate Division, the arbitrator reasoned that the school district did not have a written zero tolerance policy. When read in conjunction with the CBA, the district’s policy “permitted either suspension without pay or discharge after a positive drug test result.”

The arbitrator, the court found, determined that school district had violated the CBA by refusing to consider the disciplinary options provided for in petitioner's own policy and the CBA, instead imposing the penalty of discharge as if it were mandatory.

According to the decision, if the school district intended to implement a zero tolerance policy, it could and should have negotiated with CSEA to include such mandatory language in the CBA. Not having done so, petitioner must abide by the language actually negotiated for and agreed upon with CSEA.

Having determined that the school district had violated the CBA, the arbitrator — who was permitted by the parties' statement of the issues to determine a remedy — then found the appropriate penalty for respondent to be reinstatement without back pay, which equated to a suspension of approximately six months without pay, a rational result and with the powers granted to the arbitrator.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_08703.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

City Not Entitled To Recoup Costs In Small Claims Action

Adams v. City of New York, ___Misc. 3d____( Richmond Co. Dec. 9, 2011), is a colorful decision. NYC, for the first time, sought to recover its costs where in prevailed in Small Claims matters-yes Small Claims. In rejecting the City's application, the court explained:

The court must applaud the creativity of the City in seeking new sources of income in these times of diminishing revenue and budgetary shortfalls. However, the attempt to slip a fast ball by the batter who's waiting for the curve, will not be successful at this time. Because the court is only aware of the filings in Richmond County, it is unable to determine if this pitch will be only fouled back (limited to Staten Island) or hit out of the park (stopped city-wide).

Regrettably, it appears to many commentators that the above words sung by Huck Finn's "Pap" in "Big River" more accurately describes the current state of affairs between the people and the government-with all levels seeking to enhance revenue streams in unique ways. Hopefully, the public official looking for new income sources is not a Broadway afficionado because if he or she has seen productions of musicals such as "Urinetown" or "Anyone Can Whistle," the citizenry could be in for some interesting times.

The clerk is directed to reject these and any future applications by the City where it is a successful defendant to enter a bill of costs against a party in a small claims action.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

Defamation action based on the publication of a judicial decision fails

 

Panghat v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2011 NY Slip Op 08475, Appellate Division, First Department

Lijo Panghat, alleging that he had suffered defamation as the result of the New York State Division of Human Rights’ having published of a judicial decision in a related matter on its website, sued the Division in the Court of Claims.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Court of Claims’ dismissing his complaint, commenting that Civil Rights Law §74 prohibits a civil action that alleges injury as a result of "the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding." Further, said the court, “The privilege under that statute is absolute and applies even in the face of allegations of malice or bad faith.”

Civil Rights Law §74 grants certain privileges in situations involving an action for libel. The section provides that “A civil action cannot be maintained against any person, firm or corporation, for the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, legislative proceeding or other official proceeding, or for any heading of the report which is a fair and true headnote of the statement published.”

 

§74, however, states that it “does not apply to a libel contained in any other matter added by any person concerned in the publication; or in the report of anything said or done at the time and place of such a proceeding which was not a part thereof.”

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

A notice of claim served on a public entity must set out the basis for the claim sufficient for it to investigate the claim

 

Miller v City of New York, 2011 NY Slip Op 08495, Appellate Division, First Department

In cases where the conduct complained encompasses a New York City Department of Education’s employee’s scope of his or her public employment, a notice of claim in accordance with Education Law § 3813[2] and General Municipal Law § 50-i is required as a condition precedent to commencing an action against the employee of the New York City Department of Education [DOE].

In an action that, in effect, claimed a tortious interference with contractual rights, the Appellate Division that Adam Miller did, in fact, filed a notice of claim which described in detail the time, place and manner of the conduct by DOE’s employee that allegedly interfered with his tenure rights and continued employment with the DOE, as well as his ability to enter into employment with other schools.

Citing DeLeonibus v Scognamillo, 183 AD2d 697, the Appellate Division said that although Miller had not used the words "tortious interference with contract," a notice of claim does not have to set forth a precise legal theory of recovery.

All that is required is that the notice of claim described in “sufficient detail the time, place and manner of the occurrence and a plaintiff's damages to advise the City of the basis for the claim so as to provide it with an opportunity to investigate” the allegations.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_08495.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

Rare Civil Service Law Section 75 Overturned

 

Matter of Licciardi v City of Rochester, 2011 NY Slip Op 06781, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The Appellate Division modified a portion of decision that found Mark A. Licciardi guilty of a number of act of alleged misconduct and remanded the matter to the City for “new findings” concerning one of the charges and for its reconsideration of penalty initially imposed, termination.

The court agreed with Licciardi contention that “several of the findings of misconduct rendered following a hearing are not supported by substantial evidence.”

In particular, the Appellate Division ruled that four of the charges of misconduct involved Licciardi's part-time outside employment while on sick leave from his employment as a firefighter. However, said the court, there was no relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support [the] conclusion that working an additional part-time job while employed by respondent's Fire Department was not permitted or that the part-time job itself was improper or illegal.

The Department had alleged that Licciardi's conduct violated certain Department rules. The court ruled that there was no substantial evidence that Licciardi has conducted himself “in a manner unbecoming[] or prejudicial to the good reputation, the order, or discipline of the . . . Department” nor that he failed to conduct himself “at all times … to the credit of the Department.”

Further, the Appellate Division overturned the Department’s finding that Licciardi had violated the Department's rule that a member shall not " knowingly or intentionally make or cause to be made a false report in connection with the . . . Department or other employees thereof'” when he submitted a letter from his treating physician that stated without qualification that he was unable to work during the time that he was out on sick leave. The court noted that at the hearing Licciardi’s physician testified that Licciardi’s disability was causally related to a work incident at the Department and that, although he was prevented from working as a firefighter, the part-time job outside of the Department was therapeutic.

The court’s conclusion regarding this allegation was that it was not supported by substantial evidence.

Also, said the court, it agreed with Licciardi's contention that he had been found guilty of a charge “based on conduct that was not alleged in the single specification supporting the charge” and thus must be annulled “as outside the scope of the charge.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_06781.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

New York Chief Judge Lippman; The Next Great Dissenter??

Dissenting Often is an interesting Oct. 9, 2011 article from the New York Times. It brings attention to NYS Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jon Lippman who is drawing attention the Court by the number of dissents he has written. This article is certainly worth a read for those interested in New York law.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Refusal To Issue Complaint In State Human Rights Case

Seemer v. NYSDH, ____Misc. 3d____( N.Y. Co. Aug. 29, 2011), is an interesting and unusual case. An employee sued the NYS Division of Human Rights because it refused to issue a complaint of discrimination. Applying a significant amount of deference to the administrative agency, the court dismissed the complaint and described the applicable standard as follows:

Looking beyond that defect and proceeding to the merits of  the petition, Seemer has failed to meet his burden of  showing that DHR did only a perfunctory investigation of, andlor failed to fully consider, his claims of discrimination.  Executive Law 5 297 -Page 4 of 6- [* 5]empowers the Commissioner of Human Rights to order relief “as in the judgment of the division will effectuate the purposes of this article (Executive Law 5  297[4][c][iii]). In any subsequent judicial review of the Commissioner’s order, the “findings of facts on which such order is based shall be conclusive if supported b y  sufficient  evidence on the record considered as a whole” (Executive  Law 9 298.) Although the statute does not specify any particular standard for judicial review of the relief awarded by the Commissioner, it is well established law that such a determination must either be supported by substantial evidence or set aside (Delta Air Lines. Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Riqhts, 229 A.D.2d 132 [IEt  Dept 19961). Substantial evidence “is less than a preponderance of t h e  evidence, overwhelming evidence or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” (Delta Airlines, Inc. , supra at I 3 7  citing Matter of 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. New YQrk State Div. of Hurnqn Riqhts, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180-181 [1978]).  Where there is substantial evidence to support the determination, the court cannot substitute its own judgment. When Seemer filed his DHR claim he was already experiencing  a number of conflicts with his employer which DHR found had nothing to do with his alleged disabilities.  Seemer was insubordinate, he falsified a parking placard and he was later disciplined for these actions,  The DHR’s determination took into consideration all his claims and the evidence he provided but found them baseless.  There is, therefore,  no merit to Seemer’s petition to have the determination vacated or annulled on the basis that it is incomplete or that DHR did not fully appreciate his arguments.  Since the determination is supported by the record, it must be denied and this summary proceeding dismissed for that  reason as well. 

 

The complaint was also defective because plaintiff failed to name a necessary party (the employer)

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

New York Labor Law 211-a (Labor Neutrality Statute) Preempted by NLRA

In Healthcare Association v. Cuomo, ___F. Supp. 2d___(N.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2011), the court in a 14 page decision held that New York's Labor Neutrality statute (Labor Law Sec. 211-a) was preempted by the NLRA. The court basically held that Congress intended to occupy the field and applied so called Machinists preemption principles relying heavly on the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown. 

What I found most interesting about the decision was that no union appeared as an amicus or sought to intervene. Undoubtedly, this decision will be appealed.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Compelling an employee to answer work-related questions

 

Compelling an employee to answer work-related questions has been considered by New York and Federal courts in a number of cases. Below are listed some of the holdings by courts concerning some basic “Fifth Amendment considerations” in the context of administrative disciplinary action:

1. Forcing an employee to answer work-connected questions or be terminated from his or her position generally precludes criminal prosecution based on those answers. Testimony obtained under threat of the loss of public employment provides the employee with limited immunity in criminal prosecutions based on the individual’s responses to such inquiries.* Essentially testimony provided under threat of loss of the individual’s public employment may not be used as a basis for, or in, subsequent criminal prosecution involving that individual. [Lefkowitz v Turley, 414 US 70]. The Court of Appeals addressed this issue in People v Corrigan, 80 NY2d 326. The Court of Appeals said that under both state and federal law any statement made under the threat of dismissal is protected by the privilege against self-incrimination and is “automatically immunized from use in criminal proceedings.” The court said that the immunity that attaches to any statement that a public worker gives under compulsion bars the use of the statement itself, as well as any evidence derived directly or indirectly from it, in any criminal prosecution.

2. The several decisions in Mountain v Schenectady [474 NY2d 612; 453 NY2d 93 and 428 NY2d 772] focus on the impact of an employee’s refusal to waive his or her immunity from prosecution and suffers the loss of his or her public office as a result of such refusal. The Mountain rulings focused on the relationships between a refusal to waive immunity from prosecution and the loss of public office.**

3. Where an employee is entitled to immunity with respect to the employee’s admissions or statements made in the course of a disciplinary investigation because it had been compelled under threat of termination, “that immunity would dissolve in the face of false allegations being filed.” [Seabrook v Johnston, 660 NY2d 311, United States v Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115]. In other words, transactional or use immunity does not permit the individual to lie.

4. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal government agency could impose a harsher discipline on an employee who lied while being investigated for job-related conduct. Although only federal employees were involved, the ruling may influence cases involving state and local employees. As to a "Fifth Amendment" defense in such cases, in Brogan v United States, 522 US 398, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a former union official who falsely answered a federal investigator's questions. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not bar prosecuting an individual who answers questions falsely in contrast to his or her refusing to answer the same inquiries.

5. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, held that in the event employees remain silent in the course of a disciplinary action, citing the Fifth Amendment or some other reason, the appointing authority is free to consider such silence and draw adverse inferences in making its determination in a disciplinary action.

6. An appointing authority may experience a situation in which an attempt to discipline an employee appears frustrated because the employee claims that he or she has been granted immunity in connection with a criminal proceeding. According to the Appellate Division, administrative disciplinary action may proceed notwithstanding the claimed immunity (Greco v Board of Nursing Home Examiners, 91 AD2d 1108). In Greco, a Special Prosecutor granted Greco “transactional immunity from prosecution” in connection with a criminal matter in exchange for his cooperation. The Nursing Home Examiners subsequently revoked Greco’s nursing home administrator’s license. The Appellate Division, in a split decision, rejected Greco’s argument that his immunity barred revocation of his license. The court ruled, “a prosecutor cannot divest an independent body of its lawful discretion by promising broad immunity.” This is consistent with the view that an administrative disciplinary action based on the same events that may have resulted in a criminal prosecution is not “double jeopardy.” Had the board been a party to the granting of immunity, however, it would have been bound by the agreement.

7. Statements made by an employee to the police during an investigation of criminal charges filed against the employee constitutes “competent evidence” and may be admitted into evidence during the administrative disciplinary hearing (Dacey v County of Dutchess, 121 AD2d 536). In contrast, where the administrative disciplinary action precedes criminal action, in the event the appointing authority threatens to terminate or take other adverse action against an employee if he or she does not answer work-related questions, the employee’s answers to those questions are automatically shielded from use in a subsequent criminal prosecution under the doctrine of “transactional immunity” or “use immunity.”

8. Witnesses who may have participated in wrongdoing are not automatically granted transactional or use immunity by virtue of their testimony in an administrative procedure. Further, an administrative tribunal cannot bind the district attorney by a promise of immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for the individual’s testimony as a witness at an administrative hearing. By the same token, the district attorney cannot bind an administrative tribunal with respect to its exercising its lawful authority. If immunity is a consideration, the witness must be granted such immunity by the appropriate authority in order for it to be effective and binding on that authority.

Responding to the following inquiry:

May a police officer be compelled to answer questions posed by a department's internal affairs division concerning on-duty and off-duty activities that directly involve their abilities to “carry out the public trust?” the Attorney General advised that:

In Matt v LaRocca, 71 NY2d 154, the Court of Appeals said that the State “may compel any person enjoying a public trust to account for his activities and may terminate his services if he refuses to answer relevant questions, or furnishes information indicating that he is no longer entitled to public confidence.”

In addition, the Attorney General noted that the United States Supreme Court in Garner v Broderick, 392 US 273, held that if an public officer or employee refuses to answer questions specifically, directly and narrowly related to the performance of his official duties and is not required to waive immunity with respect to the answers in a criminal prosecution, the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination would not bar termination for such refusal to answer.

On the issue of “off-duty” conduct, however, the Attorney General said that there is no explicit statement in case law to the effect that a public officer or employee may be compelled to answer questions concerning such activities. The opinion then indicated that “presumably some off-duty activities are relevant to an employee's performance of his public trust ... a factual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis.”

The Attorney General concluded that an “internal affairs division [of a law enforcement agency] may compel officers to answer questions directly relating to their official duties, assuming that no waiver of immunity is required,” suggesting that “it would be wise to coordinate the department's investigation of such persons with the district attorney's office.” [Informal Opinion of the Attorney General 93-12].

* Such limited immunity is usually referred to as “transactional immunity” or as “use immunity.”

** Mountain, a police officer, refused to waive such immunity when called before a Grand Jury. He was dismissed following a Civil Service Section 75 disciplinary hearing for refusing to so waive immunity. The appointing authority relied on Article I Section 6 of the State Constitution which provides that a public officer if called to testify before a Grand Jury concerning the performance of official duties shall be removed from office if he or she refuses to sign a waiver of immunity. The Court concluded that demanding such a waiver violated Mountain's constitutional protection against self-incrimination. While a public officer may be removed for failing to answer questions relevant to the performance of official duties, he or she may not be dismissed for failing to waive immunity. It appears that had Mountain simply been asked relevant questions concerning his performance of his official duties, without any demand for a waiver of immunity, his dismissal for refusing to answer such questions would have been lawful.

 

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein