Source: https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2014/11/
Timestamp: 2020-07-06 08:45:21
Document Index: 318544283

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2568', '§3020', '§3020', '§3020', '§3020', '§3020', '§3020', '§3020', '§3020', '§76', '§75', '§3020', '§3020', '§36', '§36', '§36', '§ 22']

Sending a copy of an e-mail containing confidential agency information addressed to other supervisors to her attorney not protected by an “attorney-client” privilege
OATH Index No. 2614/14
A supervisor was served with disciplinary charges alleging she had included confidential information about agency clients in an email to supervisors that she had “e-mail copied” to her attorney.
Acknowledging that she had sent the email contained confidential information, she argued that she had not redacted the confidential information in the copy of her communication sent to her attorney because she considered her communications with her attorney to be privileged and confidential.
Oath Administrative Law Judge Ingrid M. Addison explained that the attorney-client privilege “enables one seeking legal advice to communicate with counsel ... secure in the knowledge that the contents of the exchange will not be revealed against the client’s wishes and that the communication over which privilege is asserted must have been made for the purpose of obtaining legal services and advice in the course of a professional relationship.
Judge Addison ruled that the e-mail the accused employee sent to her attorney was not privileged because it was directed to her supervisors, not her attorney, and was not an attempt to solicit legal advice of her attorney nor could it be interpreted as such.
The ALJ found the supervisor was insubordinate when she walked out of a meeting with supervisors after being warned not to.
However Judge Addison dismissed a second charge alleging insubordination involving the supervisor's walking out of a meeting with her superior when another supervisor was called in to what was to be a “one-on-one” meeting with the superior.
The ALJ recommended that the supervisor be suspended without pay for 23 day, consisting of a 3-day suspension without for with respect to charges of insubordination related to her walking out of the meeting with a group of supervisors and a 20-day without pay for "wanton disregard" of the employer’s rules when she a copy of an e-mail to other supervisors that contained confidential agency information to her attorney.
http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/14_Cases/14-2614.pdf
OATH Index No. 1402/14
A food service manager was found to have failed to report for scheduled medical examinations, that he was ordered to attend pursuant to §2568 of the Education Law, on three occasions.
Further, Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis found that the manager had not been at work for more than two years.
After having had his disciplinary hearing postponed, the manager did not appear at his hearing scheduled for July 23, 2014.
On the day before the rescheduled trial date, his attorney requested another adjournment of the trial because the manager was in Ohio caring for his ailing mother and was unable to make other care taking arrangements.
The adjournment request was denied for lack of good cause when the manager declined to avail himself of the opportunity to participate at the hearing via telephone.
Other cases involving disciplinary action following an employee’s failure to report for a medical examination include Santiago v. Koehler, 155 A.D.2d 24, O'Neill v City of Schenectady, 194 AD2d 1044, and Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision #13005.
Judge Lewis recommended termination of the food service manager’s employment.
http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/14_Cases/14-1402.pdf
Kilduff v Rochester City Sch. Dist., 2014 NY Slip Op 08056, Court of Appeals
The Rochester City School District notified Roseann Kilduff, a tenured school social worker,that she was to be suspended for 30 days without pay for certain alleged misconduct. In response to Kilduff’s written request for a hearing pursuant to Education Law §3020-a., the School District advised her that she was not entitled to have this disciplinary action processed pursuant to §3020-a but could challenge the School District’s disciplinary determination by availing herself of the disciplinary grievance procedures set out in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the School District and the Rochester Teachers Association.
The CBA provided, in relevant part, that "Except as provided elsewhere in this Section, any disciplinary action imposed upon any eligible teacher may be processed as a grievance and arbitration procedure.”*
The Court of Appeals, affirming a ruling by the Appellate Division, said that §3020(1)** of the Education Law, as amended, requires that all CBAs becoming effective on or after September 1, 1994, permit eligible employees facing discipline the right to elect the disciplinary review process provided by Education Law §3020-a.notwithstanding a provision in the CBA to the contrary.
The Appellate Division had explained that inasmuch as the controlling CBA took effect in 2006, Kilduff, “in the court's view,” had the right pursuant to Education Law §3020(1) to choose the §3020-a disciplinary procedure in lieu any alternative grievance procedure contained in the CBA. Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, Rochester's failure to honor Kilduff’s request, it was required by law to respect, mandated the annulment of the disciplinary action taken against her.
In the words of the Court of Appeals, “the statute unambiguously provides that when a CBA is altered by renegotiation or takes effect on or after September 1, 1994, it must permit tenured employees to elect §3020-a's discipline review procedures, notwithstanding the availability of alternative, CBA-prescribed procedures.”
The court said that while the statute would trump a CBA provision effective on or after September 1, 1994 that relegated a tenured employee exclusively to a non-statutory discipline procedure, “we perceive no reason to conclude that the present CBA in fact does that. It provides merely that a disciplinary action ‘may,’ not that it ‘must,’ be processed in accordance with the agreement's grievance and arbitration provisions which were retained unaltered in the parties' subsequent CBAs.”
Further, in a footnote the majority observed that while the CBA required the §3020-a process where the discharge of a tenured employee was sought, this does not mean, as the School District contended, that it precludes a tenured employee from electing such process where less serious discipline was at issue, in this instance a 30-day suspension without pay.
Accordingly, the court in this 4 to 3 ruling, Judge Smith dissenting in an opinion in which Judges Read and Pigott concur, held that the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
It should be noted that with respect to eligible employees in the classified service, §76.4 of the Civil Service Law, in pertinent part, provides that §§75 and 76 of the Civil Service Law “… may be supplemented, modified or replaced by agreements negotiated between the state and an employee organization pursuant to article fourteen of this chapter [emphasis supplied]. Where such sections are so supplemented, modified or replaced, any employee against whom charges have been preferred prior to the effective date of such supplementation, modification or replacement shall continue to be subject to the provisions of such sections as in effect on the date such charges were preferred”.
* The Court of Appeals noted that a subsequent subsection of the CBA provided that “no eligible teacher may be discharged without the process prescribed in Education Law §§3020 and 3020-a..”
** The portion of Education Law §3020(1) relevant to the issues raised in this action states: "No person enjoying the benefits of tenure shall be disciplined or removed during a term of employment except for just cause and in accordance with the procedures specified in section three thousand twenty-a of this article or in accordance with alternate disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement covering his or her terms and conditions of employment that was effective on or before September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four and has been unaltered by renegotiation, or in accordance with alternative disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement covering his or her terms and conditions of employment that becomes effective on or after September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four; provided, however, that any such alternate disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement that becomes effective on or after September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four, must provide for the written election by the employee of either the procedures specified in such section three thousand twenty-a or the alternative disciplinary procedures contained in the collective bargaining agreement" (emphasis by the Court).
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_08056.htm
Delanoy v City of White Plains, 2014 NY Slip Op 07615, Appellate Division, Second Department
Joseph J. Delanoy, Jr sued the City of White Plains seeking to recover damages for personal injuries.
The jury issued a verdict on the issue of liability finding White Plains 58% at fault in the happening of the accident. The City appealed the jury’s finding that there was a “special relationship” and asked the Appellate Division to set aside the verdict on the issue of liability or, in the alternative, to set aside the jury verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence.
The Appellate Division denied the City’s appeal.
The court held that there a “special relationship” between the City of White Plains and Delanoy was created when the City's plumbing inspector directed Delanoy to perform a clearly unsafe air pressure test.
The Appellate Division explained that the Court of Appeals has recognized three situations in which a duty may arise by way of a special relationship between a public entity and a plaintiff:
"(1) the plaintiff belonged to a class for whose benefit a statute was enacted;
“(2) the government entity voluntarily assumed a duty to the plaintiff beyond what was owed to the public generally; or
“(3) the municipality took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition"
In this instance only the third situation was at issue, i.e.: Did the City take positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition?
Notwithstanding the City’s arguments to the contrary, the Appellate Division ruled that the jury's determination that the City and its inspector took positive control of a known and dangerous safety condition which gave rise to Delanoy’s injuries was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence and, thus, was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Neither, said the court, was the jury's determination that the inspector was performing ministerial acts rather than discretionary acts contrary to the weight of the evidence.
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07615.htm
On November 18, 2014, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced his office completed audits of the school districts listed below.
Click on text highlighted in color to access the audit report for the school district.
Brewster Central School District – Financial Condition (Putnam County)
District officials have taken appropriate action to manage the district’s financial condition. Officials provided for effective financial planning and management by ensuring unrestricted unappropriated fund balance levels are in accordance with statutory requirements, and budget estimates and reserve balance levels are reasonable.
General Brown Central School District – Financial Condition (Jefferson County)
The board has balanced recent budgets with appropriations of fund balance and reserves while limiting tax increases, resulting in a deficit unrestricted fund balance of $435,655 at the end of fiscal year 2012-13. District expenditures, specifically those related to employee benefits, increased by more than $1.2 million since the 2008-09 fiscal year despite the elimination of 46 positions over the last four fiscal years.
Onondaga Central School District – Non-payroll Disbursements (Onondaga County)
District officials need to improve internal controls over non-payroll disbursements. The accounts payable clerk performed all non-payroll disbursement processes for the general fund with little oversight or any other compensating controls. The clerk is responsible for recording all general fund non-payroll disbursement transactions, initiating check printing, receiving printed checks and distributing checks.
Spencer-Van Etten Central School District – Financial Condition (Tioga County)
Over the last three fiscal years, the district developed budgets that were reasonable and based on historical or known expenditures. District officials have also implemented multiple cost-savings measures in an effort to minimize expenses. For example, due to anticipated increases in health insurance premiums, the district switched to lower cost health insurance coverage during the 2011-12 fiscal year and achieved savings of approximately $850,000 in the first year of the change.
Watervliet City School District – Fiscal Stress (Albany County)
The board did not adopt realistic, structurally balanced general fund budgets or adequately monitor the financial activity of capital projects to ensure fiscal stability. The board also did not adopt a policy regarding establishing an adequate level of unrestricted fund balance to maintain. As a result, the general fund’s financial condition has diminished in recent years. In addition, the district spent $741,000 more than the total amounts authorized for two projects causing a fund balance deficit in the capital projects fund in that amount.
White Plains City School District – Procurement of Professional Services (Westchester County)
District officials did not always seek competition for professional services and did not have documentation to support why contract providers were chosen for all professional service contracts. The district did not have adequate documentation to support the payment of certain claims made to professional service providers.
The department performed approximately 6,000 inspections at almost 1,400 locations in calendar year 2013. Despite staffing shortages, the department does not have a backlog of safety inspections; all mandated inspections had been completed for 2013. However, the staffing shortfalls have required it to cut back on other activities or goals it also considers important to quality control and safety such as delivery vehicle inspections, plant raw and pasteurized milk sampling, and butterfat testing.
Department of Health: Unnecessary Medicaid Payments for Children at Voluntary Agencies (Follow-Up) (2014-F-5)
An initial audit report issued in September 2012 found that DOH could save millions of Medicaid dollars annually by assessing and modifying certain policies and practices that drive the costs of medical care provided to children placed at voluntary agencies. In a follow-up report, auditors found DOH has made progress in implementing the recommendations made in the initial audit report. Of the report’s five audit recommendations, three were implemented, one was partially implemented and one was not implemented.
Department of Health: Medicaid Program: Overpayments to Managed Care Organizations and Hospitals for Low Birth Weight Newborns (2013-S-57)
Medicaid made $12,378,309 in overpayments for low birth weight payments that did not meet the necessary requirements. For example, Medicaid paid one managed care organization $99,044 for a low birth weight payment based on a reported newborn birth weight of 215 grams. However, the newborn’s actual birth weight was 3,215 grams. Medicaid should have only paid the MCO $3,232. There was an additional $949,681 in potential overpayments for similar claims at high risk of not meeting the billing requirements for supplemental low birth weight claims. Medicaid paid $548,404 in duplicate fee-for-service and managed care low birth weight newborn claims. At the time the audit fieldwork concluded, auditors recovered more than $7 million of the overpayments identified.
Department of Labor: Amusement Park and Fair Ride Safety (2014-S-47)
Auditors conducted site visits at 53 locations across the state covering almost 1,000 rides and found each of the rides being operated at all of the 53 locations had been inspected and permitted as required.
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV): Driver Responsibility Assessment Program (2013-S-53)
DMV accurately assessed all program fees and either collected these fees or suspended the licenses or the privilege to obtain a license of drivers who did not pay. However, the DMV needs to improve its internal controls over manual adjustments made to the program database by ITS staff.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority: MTA-NYC Transit Medical Assessment Centers (2013-S-33)
On a unit cost basis, auditors determined that Medical Assessment Centers (MAC) run by the MTA to gauge drivers’ health and ability to do their jobs were not more costly than using a contractor that previously performed the work. Auditors also concluded that there are opportunities to attain further efficiencies in the MAC program.
New York City Department of Buildings: Outstanding Violations (Follow-Up) (2014-F-13)
An initial report, issued in December 2011, found that New York City Department of Buildings managers did not have effective systems in place to ensure hazardous violations were resolved quickly. In a follow-up, auditors found the department has made progress in addressing the issues identified in the initial report. Of the four prior recommendations, two have been implemented and two have been partially implemented.
New York State Health Insurance Program: Empire BlueCross BlueShield – Selected Payments for Special Items for the Period April 1, 2011 Through June 30, 2011 (Follow-Up) (2014-F-6)
In an initial report, auditors determined Empire did not have adequate controls to ensure special items were paid according to contract limitations. As a result, Empire made a net overpayment of $119,141 on 33 claims. In a follow-up report, auditors found Empire officials made considerable progress in implementing the recommendations made in the initial audit report. Of the three prior recommendations, two were implemented and one was partially implemented. Empire recovered the overpayments from hospitals, implemented controls to ensure payments for special items are made in accordance with hospital agreements, and made significant progress to ensure that future agreements with hospitals contain language limiting the reimbursement of special items.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey: Vehicle and Heavy Equipment Purchase Program (Follow-Up) (2014-F-2)
An initial report issued in December 2010 found that the Port Authority generally did not follow required procedures to ensure that the acquisition of vehicles and heavy equipment was justified. In a random sample of 75 items that were purchased for $8.2 million, the Port Authority provided documentation for only two items for $192,279. In addition, the Port Authority included funds for vehicle and equipment rentals in its annual Purchase Program. Auditors also found that the car service contract amounts were excessive compared to the amount the Port Authority actually spent. In a follow-up, auditors found the Port Authority has made some progress in addressing the issues identified earlier. Of the eight prior recommendations, two were implemented, and three were partially implemented and three were not implemented.
OATH Index No. 2553/14
The appointing authority filed disciplinary charges against an employee charging the individual with having deleted 27 of the 29 of the e-mails sent by her supervisor without having read them and disobeying an order not to delete e-mails transmitted by the supervisor.
Testimony presented at the hearing included a statement by the employee’s supervisor that he had “received via e-mail notices that [the employee] had deleted without reading … e-mails on which he had copied [the individual].
OATH Administrative Law Judge Astrid B. Gloade found that misconduct was not proven and recommended dismissal of the charges as the evidence in the record did not establish that the employee was given an order to retain the e-mails. Further, explained the ALJ, the appointing authority “failed to prove that even if [the employee] had deleted the e-mails it would have constituted misconduct. Misconduct may be premised on carelessness or negligence, as well as willful or intentional conduct.”
In the words of the Administrative Law Judge: “I find that [the employer] failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that [employee] committed misconduct and recommend that the charges be dismissed.”
Among Judge Gloade's finding: 27 of the 29 of the emails were deleted on a Sunday morning and that the appointing authority failed to present any evidence that the employee was at work, or had remotely accessed her e-mail account, at that time.
http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/14_Cases/14-2553.pdf
New York State's Veterans Employment Act
The New York State Department of Civil Service has distributed General Information Bulletin No. 14-04 to State Department and Agency Directors of Personnel and Affirmative Action Officers. Bulletin 14-04 states advises::
“On January 20, 2014 the Executive Law was amended to add Chapter 17-A, also known as the Veterans Employment Act. Pursuant to Section 369 of the Executive Law, it will be the policy of the state to use eligible discharged veterans for temporary appointments in state agencies rather than utilizing temporary employment service companies.
“To this end, it will be the responsibility of the Department of Civil Service to create and maintain a veteran temporary hiring list. The law requires a state agency to select a veteran from the veteran temporary hiring list when making a temporary appointment, provided that the veteran possesses the applicable skills needed for the temporary assignment.”
“In order to be eligible to participate in the Veterans Temporary Hiring Program an individual must have served on active duty in the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard or the Reserve Components of the Armed Forces of the United States or served in active military service of the United States as a member of the Army National Guard, Air National Guard, New York Guard or New York Naval Militia, and have been released from such service otherwise than by dishonorable discharge after September 11, 2001.
“We expect that jobseekers will upload their federal form DD-214 (Military Service Record) in the portal and agencies will use this information to verify their eligibility for participation in the program.”
“A state agency must select a qualified veteran from the Veteran Temporary Hiring Program portal when making a temporary appointment to a temporary-hourly budgeted position, provided the veteran possesses the applicable skills needed for the temporary assignment. A qualified veteran willing to accept the position must be selected prior to making an appointment of a non-veteran.”
Additional information is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/Manuals/SPMM/GIBS/GIB14-04.cfm
If a settlement or award includes a payment only the part constituting reimbursement for lost wages is included in determining the employee’s retirement allowance
2014 NY Slip Op 07412, Appellate Division, Third Department
In 2006 a grievance brought by the union on behalf of a teacher [Teacher] who was not selected for a coaching position was settled with the school district. The settlement included a payment in the amount of $9,500 for “lost wages” as the result of Teacher not being given a coaching position.
This 2006 settlement award was included in the calculation of Teacher's final average salary for retirement purposes by the New York State Teachers' Retirement System [TRS].
Teacher was not appointed to a coaching position for either of the next two school years. The union again filed a grievance on behalf of Teacher and again the matter was settled. A 2011 settlement “memorandum of understanding [MOU]” provided for an awarded of $11,220.* This amount constituted the stipends that Teacher would have been paid had he been appointed to a coaching position for both school years.
Teacher then asked TRS to recalculate his three-year final average salary to include the 2011 settlement payment provided by the MOU and to adjust his retirement allowance accordingly. TRS determined that because the payment provided pursuant to the 2011 MOU was not part of Teacher‘s regular compensation it could not be included in the final computation of his retirement benefit.
Teacher sued TRS seeking a court order annulling its decision, arguing that TRS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious in light of its previous inclusion of the 2006 settlement payment in its computation of his final average salary.
Supreme Court dismissed Teacher’s petition and he appealed that ruling to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division noted that a TRS member's final average salary is based on his or her highest average annual regular salary that was earned over any three consecutive years of service prior to retirement but shall exclude, among other things, "payments which are not part of the salary base."
TRS had explained that it had included the payment made to Teacher pursuant to the 2006 stipulation as the MOU reflected an acknowledgment by the school district that it had violated an existing collective bargaining agreement when it denied Teacher's coaching application on the ground that he was unqualified and gave the positions to teachers with less seniority. In addition, the 2006 settlement confirm that Teacher was indeed eligible to assume the coaching positions.
However, TRS pointed out that the 2011 MOU settling Teacher's subsequent grievances “did not concede, in any manner, that the denial of Teacher ‘s coaching applications for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years had resulted in any contractual violations….” In fact, said TRS, the 2011 MOU reiterated the school district's assertion that Teacher "was unqualified for the coaching position at issue."
The Appellate Division said that the fact that the school district opted to pay Teacher in exchange for a complete settlement of his claims against it does not create a basis to find that Teacher was eligible for the coaching appointments. Accordingly, the court found that the MOU settlement payment did not constituted compensation that Teacher would have earned and thus TRS was correct in excluding the 2011 settlement payment in its calculation of Teacher’s final average salary.
Finding that TRS’s determination, which was rendered without a hearing, was rational and not arbitrary and capricious, the Appellate Division declined to disturbed it.
* The Appellate Division observed that “Although the MOU states that the $11,220 settlement amount constitutes the stipends of $5,605 that Teacher would have been paid if appointed to a coaching position during each of the two school years for which he applied, the annual stipend amounts actually total $11,210.”
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07412.htm
Kalodukas v Berentsen, 2014 NY Slip Op 07406, Appellate Division, Third Department
Glenda Kalodukas and other citizen residents of the Village of Bloomingburg in Sullivan County [Kalodukas], filed a petition in the Appellate Division pursuant to Public Officers Law §36* seeking to have the Appellate Division remove Mark Berentsen from his position of Mayor of the Village, alleging, among other things, that he violated General Municipal Law Article 18.**
Berentsen asked the court to dismiss the petition arguing, among other things, that the proceeding was moot in view of the fact that he was unsuccessful in his bid for reelection and no longer held the office of Mayor. The Appellate Division agreed and dismissed Kalodukas’ petition.
The court explained §36 of the Public Officers Law provides, as relevant in this action, that a village officer may be removed from office for "misconduct, maladministration, malfeasance or malversation in office." As Berentsen had lost his bid for reelection and no longer helds the public office from which Kalodukas sought to have him removed, the Appellate Division said that “the proceeding is undoubtedly moot.”
In addition, the court addressed Kalodukas’ argument that the petition was not moot because Berentsen’s removal would prevent him from holding public office in the future. The Appellate Division, in a footnote, said that findings against an official in a removal proceeding pursuant to §36 of the Public Officers Law would not a bar his or her subsequent election to public office.***
* Such an application for removal may be made to the appellate division by any citizen resident of such town, village, improvement district or fire district, or by the district attorney of the county, in which such town, village or district is located. The officer is to given at least eight days notice and a copy of the charge[s] upon which the application will be made must be served with such notice.
** Article 18 is captioned “Conflicts of Interest of Municipal Officers and Employees”
*** In contrast, the court noted that Article VI, § 22 [h] of the State Constitution “A judge or justice removed by the [C]ourt of [A]ppeals shall be ineligible to hold other judicial office."
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_07406.htm