You are here: / Employment Law
,

ANSWERING A CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (CBA’S) DID NOT PROVIDE RETIREES WITH A VESTED RIGHT SUCH THAT THE HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS AWARDED AT RETIREMENT WOULD NOT BE REDUCED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSEQUENT CBA’S (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, addressing certified questions from the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, determined the relevant provisions of the civil-service collective bargaining agreements (CBA’s) did not create a vested right in the health insurance benefits afforded retirees. In other words, the CBA’s did not provide that the coverage of health insurance premiums vested at retirement such that reductions in coverage in subsequent CBA’s would not apply:

… [N]one of the CBA provisions identified by the Second Circuit in the first certified question establish a vested right to lifetime fixed premium contributions, either singly or in combination. Donohue v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00910, CtApp 2-10-22

,

PLAINTIFF’S “INVOLUNTARY RESIGNATION,” HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND RETALIATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s employment discrimination and retaliation action properly survived summary judgment. Among the issues presented by the allegations was whether she “involuntarily resigned” because of the intolerably hostile work environment. Plaintiff alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment and was retaliated against after she complained about her treatment:

In our view, the broader account by plaintiff of a hostile work environment, Hawkins’ [plaintiff’s supervisor] behavior in placing plaintiff, but not a similarly situated man, on a PIP [performance improvement plan], and what plaintiff described as a wholly inadequate response by Russo [human resources official] to her August 2017 complaint about the situation reflect questions of fact as to whether plaintiff was subjected to a work environment so hostile that her only alternative was resignation and whether that hostility arose from a discriminatory motive … . Defendants attempted to rebut the presumption of discrimination arising from those facts via the affidavit of Hawkins, who averred in conclusory fashion that the other employee he supervised was performing better than plaintiff at the time she was placed on a PIP and that the other employee was also placed on a PIP at some point. Hawkins, however, gave no detail as to how the other employee compared to plaintiff on the performance metrics, failed to deny that the other employee was also underperforming on those metrics in July 2017 and offered no explanation as to why he did not seek to place both on a PIP at that time. Long v Aerotek, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00915, Third Dept 2-10-22

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were triable issues of fact in this employment discrimination case:

Plaintiff, an African American female, raises triable issues of fact whether her October 2017 termination (adverse employment action) was in retaliation for her verbal complaints (protected activity) concerning racist comments defendant Annie Liu allegedly uttered at work … . A question of fact exists as to whether plaintiff complained in July or August 2017. If plaintiff’s testimony is credited, the time frame between the discriminatory comments, plaintiff’s complaints, and her firing is evidence of a causal connection between the protected activity and her termination two months later … . Contrary to defendants’ argument, it is unclear from the record whether an intervening event occurred to dispel an inference of a causal relationship. Moreover, issues of fact also exist as to whether defendants’ proffered explanation for terminating plaintiff’s employment was pretextual … . Cancel v Global Fertility & Genetics, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 00811, First Dept 2-8-22

 

, , ,

THE SCHOOL BOARD DID NOT VIOLATE THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEN IT CONSULTED WITH ITS ATTORNEY IN A CLOSED SESSION BEFORE DECIDING NOT TO RENEW PLAINTIFF FOOTBALL COACH’S EMPLOYMENT; THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW FOR LEGAL ADVICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff high school football coach was not entitled to summary judgment on the cause of action alleging the school board violated the Open Meetings Law by deciding not to renew plaintiff’s employment after a closed meeting. The Open Meetings Law did not apply to the board’s closed-door consultation with its attorney:

It is well settled that “[e]very meeting of a public body shall be open to the general public, except that an executive session of such body may be called and business transacted thereat in accordance with [section 105]” (Public Officers Law § 103 [a] … ). While an executive session may be called to discuss, inter alia, “matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person” (§ 105 [1] [f]), the public body may do so only upon a majority vote of its membership and after “identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered” (§ 105 [1]). However, section 108 (3) clarifies that “[n]othing contained in [the Open Meetings Law] shall be construed as extending the provisions hereof to . . . any matter made confidential by federal or state law.” Because “communications made pursuant to an attorney-client relationship are considered confidential under the [CPLR] . . . , communications between a . . . board . . . and its counsel, in which counsel advises the board of the legal issues involved in [a] determination . . . , are exempt from the provisions of the Open Meetings Law” … .

There is no dispute that, during the closed session … , the Board and the District superintendent met with the District’s counsel seeking legal advice “regarding the [p]laintiff’s legal employment status, employment rights, [and] the process for appointing school employees.” We thus agree with defendants that the attorney-client exemption applies and that the court erred in determining that there was a violation of the Open Meetings Law … . Sindoni v Board of Educ. of Skaneateles Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 NY Slip Op 00772, Fourth Dept 2-4-22

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DOCTOR WAS AT WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHEN HE WAS SHOT DURING A MASS SHOOTING, HIS INJURY WAS NOT WORK-RELATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Workers’ Compensation Board, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Reynolds Fitzgerald, determined the shooting of a doctor, Justin Timperio, although it occurred while Timperio was working at the hospital, was not a work-related injury within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Timperio had brought a negligence lawsuit against the hospital in federal court and, in the context of the hospital’s motion for summary judgment, the federal court ruled the injuries did not arise from Timperio’s employment. The federal ruling did not colaterally estop the Workers’ Compensation Board from considering the claim in the first place (because it was not a final ruling), but the Board’s ultimate conclusion the injury was work-related was reversed by the Third Department:

The undisputed facts in the record demonstrate that the attack was perpetrated by an individual who was not employed by the hospital at the time of the attack (and had not worked there for over two years), was not and never was Timperio’s coworker, did not know Timperio and provided no reason for the attack prior to taking his own life. Nor did Timperio know the attacker, and there is no evidence that the attack was based upon an employment-related animus between the two individuals or that the attack had any nexus to Timperio’s employment or “performance of h[is] job duties” … . Such proof was sufficient to rebut the presumption articulated in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) and to establish that the assault on Timperio resulted exclusively from arbitrary, broad-sweeping and gravely maligned personal animosity and not from work-related differences with Timperio … . Matter of Timperio v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00711, Third Dept 2-3-22

 

, ,

THE TOWN HAD THE AUTHORITY TO BRING DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER AND THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RETIREE BENEFITS SET FORTH IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller which is far too comprehensive to fairly summarize here. determined plaintiff police officer was properly subjected to disciplinary charges brought by the town and was not entitled to all the retiree benefits set forth in the collective bargaining agreement:

We are called upon in this case to navigate the interplay between various forms of equitable relief grounded in common law doctrine, principles of modern practice under CPLR article 78 and the Municipal Home Rule Law, and certain state-level policies regarding the right to collective bargaining and the authority of public officials over law enforcement. These issues have been raised as a result of the plaintiff’s complaint, the central aim of which is to prevent the plaintiff’s employer from holding him accountable for the serious disciplinary infractions that he allegedly committed in the course of his official duties as a police officer.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, the equitable powers and legal doctrines that he seeks to invoke in this litigation do not shield him from the consequences of his actions. Murray v Town of N. Castle, 2022 NY Slip Op 00675, Second Dept 2-2-22

 

, ,

DEFENDANT’S AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT ENTWINED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WHICH INCLUDED A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED BREACH OF THE COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined an employment contract between plaintiff and defendant, which included a covenant not to compete, was not entwined with the separate sales agreement in which defendant promised to pay $200,000 for plaintiff’s business. Therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the sales contract because defendant defaulted after making the first payment:

“Generally, breach of a related contract will not in the ordinary course defeat summary judgment on [a promissory] note[]” … . Nonetheless, that “rule does not apply where the contract and instrument are intertwined” and inseparable … . Whether two agreements are inextricably intertwined is a question of law for the court to decide because it involves a matter of contract interpretation … .

Here, the sales contract and employment agreement are not inextricably intertwined such that plaintiff’s purported breach of the noncompetition covenants in the latter constitute a defense to defendant’s default on the promissory note … . Saulsbury v Durfee, 2022 NY Slip Op 00566, Fourth Dept 1-28-22

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER HIRED TO BUILD A NEW STAIRCASE; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A PROTRUDING SCREW ON THE NEW STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE; THE HOMEOWNER DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION, DID NOT SUPERVISE THE CONTRACTOR’S WORK, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant homeowner was not liable to plaintiff, an employee of the contractor defendant hired to replace a staircase. Plaintiff was injured by a protruding screw attached to the new staircase:

… [D]efendant established prima facie that he did not create the allegedly unsafe condition in the unfinished staircase … . Although defendant testified that he tried to repair the old staircase before hiring the contractor, the uncontradicted evidence showed that the contractor removed the old staircase and that plaintiff was injured on a screw attached to the new staircase. The new staircase was built entirely by the contractor.

… [P]laintiff’s testimony that defendant gave the contractor instructions on where to place the staircase and general instructions on how he wanted the construction to proceed does not, without more, raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant created the condition. On the contrary, the mere retention of general supervisory powers over an independent contractor, as opposed to the giving of specific directions on how to do the work, cannot form a basis for the imposition of liability against the principal …

There is … no evidence in the record that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition in the unfinished staircase, as the protruding screw was not visible and apparent, nor is there any evidence showing that it existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit defendant to discover and remedy it … . Lara v Kadir, 2022 NY Slip Op 00504, First Dept 1-27-22

 

, ,

THE NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS WHICH MUST BE ON DUTY DURING A SHIFT IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE, WHICH IS ARBITRABLE PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGANING AGREEMENT, NOT A JOB SECURITY ISSUE (WHICH IS NOT ARBITRABLE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the number of firefighters which must be on duty during a shift is not a job-security issue and is therefore arbitrable pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA):

Respondent contends that Supreme Court erred in concluding that its grievance concerned nonarbitrable job security clauses as the clauses relate only to minimum shift staffing requirements and do not guarantee employment to bargaining unit members during the life of the CBA, a hallmark of a no-layoff job security clause. Respondent further asserts that minimum staffing requirements set forth in … the CBA pertain to health and safety concerns and are properly the subject of arbitration.

… [T]he CBA “does not purport to guarantee a[n] [officer] his or her employment while the CBA is in effect, nor does it prohibit layoffs” … . “It also does not protect officers ‘from abolition of their positions due to budget stringencies'” … . … [T]he CBA only sets forth “minimum staffing on particular shifts” … . Matter of City of Ogdensburg (Ogdensburg Firefighters Assn. Local 1799, A.F.L., C.I.O., I.A.F.F), 2022 NY Slip Op 00237, Third Dept 1-13-22

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE DOCTORS WHO TREATED PLAINTIFF IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM WERE NOT EMPLOYED BY THE HOSPITAL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THEY HAD APPARENT OR OSTENSIBLE AGENCY RENDERING THE HOSPITAL VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ANY MALPRACTICE COMMITTED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant medical center (Peconic Bay) did not demonstrate it was not vicariously liable for any malpractice committed by  two doctors (Wackett and McMahon) who treated plaintiff in the emergency room. Although neither doctor was employed by Peconic Bay, there was a question of fact whether they had apparent or ostensible agency of Peconic Bay:

… [T]he medical malpractice cause of action asserted against Peconic Bay alleged that the plaintiff twice sought treatment in Peconic Bay’s emergency room and was treated by, among others, Wackett and McMahon. In moving for summary judgment, Peconic Bay established that neither Wackett nor McMahon was its employee. Nevertheless, the evidence submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment was insufficient to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff entered Peconic Bay’s emergency room seeking treatment from Wackett or McMahon privately rather than from the hospital itself, and thus, that these physicians did not have apparent or ostensible agency of Peconic Bay … . Peconic Bay further failed to eliminate any triable issues of fact as to whether Wackett or McMahon was negligent in his care and treatment of the plaintiff … . Sessa v Peconic Bay Med. Ctr., 2021 NY Slip Op 07570, Second Depty 12-29-21

 

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