You are here: / Employment Law
, , ,

LABOR LAW 193 PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER FROM REDUCING AN EMPLOYEE’S PAY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE EMPLOYEE’S ALLEGEDLY POOR PERFORMANCE; HERE THE EMPLOYER REDUCED PLAINTIFF’S PAY TO RECOUP COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PLAINTFF’S TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WITH A COMPANY TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Labor Law section 193 prohibited plaintiff-truck-driver’s employer from reducing plaintiff’s pay to recoup costs associated with a traffic accident alleged to have been the result of plaintiff’s negligence:

Labor Law § 193 “prohibits an employer from making any deduction from an employee’s wages unless permitted by law or authorized by the employee for certain purposes” … . To allow an employer to recover the return of paid wages based upon an employee’s alleged lack of performance “would be permitting [that employer] to do indirectly and retroactively that which the law specifically prohibits it from doing directly” … . This principle applies equally whether the cause of action sounds in negligence or in contract, as an employee may not waive the protections of Labor Law § 193 … .

… [T]he defendants’ counterclaims are explicit attempts to recoup costs for their business allegedly arising out of the plaintiff’s negligence or poor performance. Because such causes of action are barred by the Labor Law, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims. Craig v Fastex Logistics Transp., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03678, Second Dept 7-3-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff-truck-driver’s employer reduced his pay to recoup costs associated with plaintiff’s traffic accident with a company truck. Such a pay reduction is prohibited by Labor Law section 193.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS “EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (ELCA)” AND “UPSTATE NEW YORK SYNOD OF THE EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (SYNOD)” HAD THE POWER TO DISCIPLINE AND TERMINATE A PASTOR ACCUSED OF ABUSE; THEREFORE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THOSE DEFENDANTS WERE THE PASTOR’S EMPLOYERS; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the negligent hiring, retention and supervision causes of action against Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Upstate New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Synod) should not have been dismissed on the ground that the alleged abuser (a pastor) was not an employee. Although the abuser was hired by a third-party church, St. Nicodemus, the ELCA’s and the Synod’s constitution provided that ELCA and Synod exercised control over discipline and termination of the pastor. Therefore there were questions of fact about ELCA’s and Synod’s status as employers:

… According to the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws, the authority to discipline pastors within the ELCA was granted to the synods and the ELCA. The authority to remove a pastor from the roster of ordained ministers remained with the synods and the ELCA. Once a pastor was removed from the roster of ordained ministers, a congregation that chose to retain that pastor could be removed from the ELCA. The entire disciplinary process was created by and governed by the ELCA Constitution and Bylaws. Under these circumstances, we conclude that plaintiffs’ submissions raised an issue of fact whether the ELCA and the Synod exercised sufficient control over the retention and supervision of plaintiffs’ alleged abuser so as to constitute his employers … . PB-20 Doe v St. Nicodemus Lutheran Church, 2024 NY Slip Op 03246, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point: Here, although the pastor accused of abuse was hired by a specific Lutheran church (St. Nicodemus), the defendants Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Upstate New York Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (Synod) had the power to discipline and terminate the pastor. Therefore there was a question of fact whether defendants were the pastor’s employers such that the negligent hiring, retention and supervision causes of action should not have been dismissed.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SUMMER CAMP WAS AWARE OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF ITS EMPLOYEE’S PROPENSITY FOR SEXUAL ABUSE; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act case alleging abuse at defendant’s summer camp in 1970, determined plaintiff had raised a question of fact supporting the negligent hiring, retention and supervision cause of action. Plaintiff alleged he informed defendant of the abuse by the employee (Puello):

“Although an employer cannot be held vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee who is acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business, the employer may still be held liable under theories of negligent hiring and retention of the employee” … . “To establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring, negligent retention, or negligent supervision, it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . “The employer’s negligence lies in having placed the employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which would most probably have been spared the injured party had the employer taken reasonable care in making decisions respecting the [supervision,] hiring and retention of the employee” … .

Here, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that it lacked actual or constructive notice of Puello’s alleged propensity for the conduct that caused the plaintiff’s injury. However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had constructive notice of Puello’s alleged propensity for sexual abuse, given, among other things, the frequency and nature of the alleged abuse perpetrated by Puello … . Moreover, the plaintiff averred in his affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion that he “clearly told” Thomas Brown, an employee in the camp’s infirmary, about the first of Puello’s alleged assaults, which continued thereafter, raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant had actual notice of Puello’s alleged propensity for sexual abuse. Hammill v Salesians of Don Bosco, 2024 NY Slip Op 03170, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: Here in this child victims act case alleging abuse of the plaintiff in 1970, plaintiff raised a question of fact whether defendant summer camp was aware of its employee’s propensity for sexual abuse. Among other allegations, plaintiff alleged he told an infirmary employee about the abuse and it continued thereafter.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE DRIVER WORKING FOR A LIVERY CAB COMPANY (CURB) AND THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (NYCTA) DROPPED HIM OFF NEAR A HOLE IN THE ROAD WHICH CAUSED HIM TO FALL; THE RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (AGENCY) CAUSE OF ACTION SURVIVED; BUT THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision. Plaintiff alleged the driver of car which provided a service to the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) through a livery cab company called Curb was negligent in dropping plaintiff off near a hole in the road. Although the negligence action against the NYCTA and Curb survived under an agency (respondeat superior) theory, there were no factual allegations in the complaint which supported the negligent hiring, retention and supervision cause of action:

“An employer can be held liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision where it is shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . “[A] necessary element of such causes of action is that the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury” … . Although such causes of action need not be pleaded with specificity … , the complaint must contain more than bare legal conclusions unsupported by factual allegations … . Here, the complaint did not allege that Curb or the NYCTA knew or should have known of the driver’s propensity for the conduct which caused the injury, nor contain any factual allegations to support such an inference. The bare legal conclusions were insufficient to state a cause of action alleging negligent hiring, training, and retention … . Bailey v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03156, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: Conclusory, as opposed to fact-based, allegations of negligent hiring, retention and supervision will not survive a pre-discovery motion to dismiss.

 

, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER DURING THE SCHOOL DAY OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT UNDER BOTH RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act action, determined the respondeat superior and negligent supervision causes of action against the school alleging sexual abuse of the plaintiff by a teacher should not have been dismissed. Essentially the complaint alleged negligent supervision of both the teacher and the child. The defendant school did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the abuse which allegedly took place over the course of a year in the same classroom during the school day:

“The employer’s negligence lies in having placed the employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which would most probably have been spared the injured party had the employer taken reasonable care in making decisions respecting the hiring, . . . retention, or supervision of the employee” … .

… “[A] school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision. The duty owed derives from the simple fact that a school, in assuming physical custody and control over its students, effectively takes the place of parents and guardians” … . * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . “In particular, given the frequency of the alleged abuse, which occurred over” the entirety of a school year, “and always occurred inside the same classroom during the school day, the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they should have known of the abuse” … .. The defendants similarly failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that their supervision of both the teacher and the plaintiff was not negligent … . Sayegh v City of Yonkers, 2024 NY Slip Op 03065, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Here it was alleged plaintiff was sexually abused by a teacher repeatedly over a year during the school day. There were questions of fact whether the school had constructive notice of the abuse which supported causes of action under a respondeat superior theory (negligent supervision of the teacher) and a negligent supervision theory (negligent supervision of the child).

 

, ,

THE FORMER SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PTSD STEMMED FROM A SERIES OF INTERACTIONS WITH A CO-EMPLOYEE OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN “ACCIDENT;” SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (ADR) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined the petitioner’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from interactions with a another school employee did not entitle her to accidental disability retirement benefits (ADR) as opposed to ordinary disability retirement benefits (ODR)  The court found that the employee interactions took place over a period of time and could not be characterized as “a sudden, unexpected event,” i.e., an “accident.” The court however refused to rule out that intentional conduct by a co-employee could constitute an “accident” in some circumstances:

… [T]he record supports the [Teachers’ Retirement System Medical] Board’s determination that petitioner’s injuries did not result from an event that was sudden, fortuitous, and unexpected … . Although petitioner claims that her PTSD was brought on by the April 2019 occurrence, that event was merely the latest of a series of incidents in which the food-service worker trespassed on school property and acted in a confrontational manner toward petitioner, causing her significant stress and anxiety. As early as February 2019, petitioner informed school officials that the employee was continuously disobeying instructions to keep away from the school and that she was “concerned about the students and the building staff that have to endure his confrontational behavior.” Following another incident in March, petitioner wrote that she “d[id] not feel comfortable with [the employee] given his behavior in the school.” The Board rejected petitioner’s initial ADR application on the ground that “based on the description of the events in question that occurred in the work setting on April 18, 2019, as well as the previous events in the work setting in February and March of 2019, [petitioner] has failed to demonstrate that an accident occurred in the work setting.” Because that reasoning is supported by the evidentiary record, the Board’s determination to deny ADR will not be disturbed on this appeal. Matter of Rawlins v Teachers’ Retirement Sys. of the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 02840, CtApp 5-23-24

Practice Point: Although an intentional act by a co-employee could constitute an “accident” giving rise to accidental disability retirement benefits (ADR) under the Teachers’ Retirement System, here the interactions with the co-employee took place over a period of months and could not be described as “a sudden, unexpected event.”

 

, ,

THE “RELIGIOUS EMPLOYER” EXEMPTION FROM MANDATED INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTIONS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the US Supreme Court ruling in Fulton v Philadelphia, 593 US 522 (2021) did not render the “religious employer” exemption to the mandated insurance coverage for medically necessary abortions unconstitutional. The opinion is too detailed and comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

Plaintiffs, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and a variety of entities ranging from churches to religiously affiliated organizations to a single individual, provide medical insurance plans to their employees. They have challenged a regulation promulgated by the Department of Financial Services as violative of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The challenged regulation requires New York employer health insurance policies that provide hospital, surgical, or medical expense coverage to include coverage for medically necessary abortion services (see 11 NYCRR 52.16 [o] [1]). Their challenge is to the regulation’s exemption for “religious employers,” which is defined by four factors (see 11 NYCRR 52.2 [y]). Plaintiffs’ claim, in essence, is that the exemption is too narrow, such that the First Amendment rights of certain types of religiously affiliated employers are violated because they do not meet the terms of the exemption. * * *

Under Fulton, both the regulation itself and the criteria delineating a “religious employer” for the purposes of the exemption are generally applicable and do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Neither the existence of the exemption in the regulation nor the defined criteria allow for “individualized exemptions” that are standardless and discretionary, nor do they allow for comparable secular conduct while discriminating against religious conduct. Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo, 2024 NY Slip Op 02764, CtApp 5-21-24

Practice Point: The 2021 US Supreme Court ruling in Fulton v Philadelphia did not render the “religious exemption” regulation promulgated by the NYS Department of Financial Services unconstitutional. The regulation exempts certain religious employers from mandated insurance coverage for medically necessary abortions.

 

, , ,

CITY RETIREES THREATENED WITH ELIMINATION OF THEIR EXISTING HEALTH INSURANCE AND AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT IN A MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER THEIR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined the doctrine of promissory estoppel justified a permanent injunction prohibiting the city from “eliminating … retirees’ existing health insurance, automatically enrolling them in a new Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan, enforcing a June 30, 2023 deadline for retirees to opt out of the new plan, and implementing any other aspect of the City’s new retiree healthcare policy:”

… [T]he record shows a clear and unambiguous promise, made for more than 50 years, that upon an employee’s retirement, Medicare would provide the first level of hospital and medical insurance benefits and the City’s benefits program would provide the second level to fill in the gaps. * * *

… [T]he record shows detrimental reliance on the promise. * * *

… [P]etitioners have demonstrated injury. Many City retirees stated that their chosen providers and hospitals, like many healthcare providers, do not accept the MAPs [Medicare Advantage Plans]. The City’s plan to automatically enroll petitioners in the Aetna MAP and terminate their current Medigap coverage would result in injury to retirees whose medical providers do not accept the Aetna MAP. * * *

The particular manner in which the parties chose to litigate this action before Supreme Court resulted in a record with significant evidentiary support for petitioners’ position and very little support for respondents’ position. That record and the arguments the parties chose to make on appeal lead to the conclusion that petitioners are entitled to relief under their promissory estoppel cause of action. Matter of Bentkowski v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02771, First Dept 5-21-24

Practice Point: Here the promissory estoppel doctrine was applied to permanently enjoin the city from eliminating city retirees’ health insurance and automatically enrolling them in a Medicare Advantage Plan.

 

, ,

PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED THE CHILD WAS NEVER HARMED AND SHE HAD MADE SERIOUS AND SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS AT REHABILITATION; RE: PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT IN THE CHILDCARE FIELD, RESPONDENT NYS OFFICE OF CHILDEN AND FAMILY SERVICES IS PRECLUDED FROM INFORMING ANY PROVIDER OR LICENSING AGENCY THAT PETITIONER IS THE SUBJECT OF A CHILD MALTREATMENT REPORT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in an Article 78 proceeding transferred by Supreme Court, determined the respondent NYS Office of Children and Family Services should not have ruled that “petitioner’s acts of child maltreatment are relevant and reasonably related to employment in the childcare field.” The Fourth Department therefore directed that respondent “shall be precluded from informing a provider or licensing agency which makes an inquiry that petitioner is the subject of an indicated child maltreatment report.” No child had ever been harmed by petitioner and petitioner demonstrated serious and successful rehabilitative efforts.

… [T]he record establishes that petitioner had taken actions to show that she “[is] able to deal positively with [the] situation or problem that gave rise to the previous incident(s) of child . . . maltreatment” … . As petitioner contends, the ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] failed to consider the evidence of psychological rehabilitation showing that she could deal positively with the trauma she suffered as a result of the domestic violence inflicted upon her by the father, which precipitated the indicated report. Petitioner’s marriage and family therapist submitted a letter explaining that petitioner had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder “as a result of the relationship” with the father, but that petitioner “ha[d] made an enormous amount of progress and ha[d] reached her treatment goals,” and “in no way presented as an unfit parent” during the course of her treatment. The psychologist who performed a comprehensive evaluation and testing of petitioner opined that, despite having been “aggressively abused” by the father, there was no indication that petitioner harbored “resentments toward others,” petitioner showed “no defensiveness or tendency to distort the facts of the situation,” and petitioner scored “unusually low” on the potential for abuse scale, which demonstrated that petitioner had “none of the characteristics, personal status or problems with the child or family members that would raise the question of abusive potential on her part.” Petitioner also had a “significantly elevated score on the scale indicating . . . the tendency to maintain emotional stability and to adequately deal with interpersonal exchanges.” Moreover, the ALJ ignored petitioner’s testimony about her improved ability to deal positively with emotionally challenging situations and the letters from other individuals attesting to petitioner’s ability to properly parent the child. The record therefore indisputably establishes that petitioner is able to deal positively with the situation or problem that gave rise to the indicated report. Matter of Hastings v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2024 NY Slip Op 02436, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: A person who has been found to have committed acts of child maltreatment can petition the NYS Office of Children and Family Services for a ruling precluding the agency from informing any childcare provider of licensing agency of the maltreatment, thereby clearing the way for that person’s employment in the childcare field.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BROUGHT AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT; DEFENDANTS WERE AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL ACTION; BECAUSE THE FEDERAL COURT DID NOT EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF PURSUED THEM IN STATE COURT; HOWEVER ALL THE STATE ISSUES HAD BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE FEDERAL ACTION; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE STATE ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined that the employment discrimination and retaliation claims brought by plaintiff adjunct professor against New York University under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law were precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Plaintiff had brought a federal action based upon the same facts which was dismissed, but the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city Human Rights Law causes of action. Plaintiff therefore could pursue those causes of action in state court. But because all the issues had been sufficiently dealt with by the federal court, the collateral estoppel doctrine was triggered:

The courts below properly applied our established principles of collateral estoppel in the context of the unique requirements of the City Human Rights Law. Collateral estoppel “bars the relitigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment” and so “the determination of an essential issue is binding in a subsequent action, even if it recurs in the context of a different claim” … . If there is identity of issues between the prior determination and the instant litigation, and the precluded party had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination, collateral estoppel applies and the prior determination is binding in the subsequent action … . Russell v New York Univ., 2024 NY Slip Op 02226, CtApp 4-25-24

Practice Point: In an employment discrimination and retaliation case brought in federal court, a plaintiff can ask the federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over New York State and New York City Human Rights Law causes of action. Where, as here, the federal court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the plaintiff may pursue those actions in state court. Here, because plaintiff lost the federal case, and all the issues raised in the state case were addressed in the federal case, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the state action.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy