You are here: / Employment Law
,

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE ELIMINATION OF POSITION WAS DONE IN BAD FAITH; NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE TOWN’S ACTIONS.

The Third Department determined the petitioner did not demonstrate the elimination of his position with the parks maintenance department was done in bad faith or to circumvent the Civil Service Law. The Third Department concluded the town violated the Open Meetings Law when it eliminated petitioner’s position, but the nature of the violation (mere negligence) did not warrant invalidating the town’s actions:

“[A] public employer may, in the absence of bad faith, collusion or fraud, abolish positions for purposes of economy or efficiency” … . Respondent explained through the affidavits of its Supervisor and a member of its Town Board that because its parks maintenance department consisted of only petitioner and one part-time laborer, it could achieve greater economy and efficiency by abolishing the supervisory position in favor of hiring additional laborers. Petitioner’s managerial duties were shifted to the Supervisor and two full-time and one part-time laborer positions were created at an overall cost savings.

The burden was then on petitioner to demonstrate that his position was eliminated in bad faith or as a subterfuge to circumvent his rights under the Civil Service Law … . However, the mere reassignment of duties, in and of itself, does not constitute proof of bad faith … . Nor is there any indication in the record of any personal or political animosities that would suggest some deceitful purpose of ousting and replacing petitioner. Rather, petitioner’s conclusory and unsupported assertions fail to refute the Town Board’s showing that its actions were part of a good faith effort to reorganize a municipal department for the purposes of reducing costs and increasing efficiency … .

* * * “[T]he record does not suggest that the [Town Board’s] failure to comply with the precise requirements of the Open Meetings Law was anything more than mere negligence,” which does not constitute good cause to invalidate the Town Board’s otherwise permissible actions … . Matter of Cutler v Town of Mamakating, 2016 NY Slip Op 01543, 3rd Dept 3-3-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE’S POSITION NOT DONE IN BAD FAITH)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE’S POSITION NOT DONE IN BAD FAITH)/OPEN MEETINGS LAW (NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS LAW DID NOT INVALIDATE TOWN’S ACTIONS)

, ,

POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION BASED SOLELY UPON THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD WITHOUT APPLYING THE HIRING CRITERIA GENERALLY REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTIONS LAW.

The First Department, as a matter of first impression, determined the police department (NYPD) could refuse to hire petitioner as a civilian police communication technician (PCT) solely because petitioner had a criminal record, without regard to the criteria set out in Corrections Law article 23-a. The Corrections Law, in an effort to support the hiring of persons with a criminal record, generally requires employers to determine whether an applicant’s criminal record has a direct relationship with the responsibilities of the job and/or whether employment of the applicant would pose an unreasonable risk to the public.  The First Department concluded the Corrections Law excluded law enforcement from the reach of its hiring criteria:

Article 23-A broadly provides that employers, whether public or private, are prohibited from unfairly discriminating against persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses, unless after consideration of certain enumerated statutory factors, the employer determines that there is direct relationship between the offense(s) and the duties or responsibilities inherent in the license or employment sought or held by the individual, or such employment or license poses an unreasonable risk to the public, etc. (Correction Law §§ 752, 753). The statute defines the term “employment” as follows: “(5) Employment’ means any occupation, vocation or employment, or any form of vocational or educational training. Provided, however, that “employment” shall not, for the purposes of this article, include membership in any law enforcement agency” (Correction Law § 750[5] emphasis added). Matter of Belgrave v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 01548, 1st Dept 3-3-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)/CORRECTIONS LAW (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)/MUNICIPAL LAW  (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)

, , ,

POLICE OFFICER’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff police officer had stated causes of action for unlawful discrimination based upon a disability under the Human Rights Law and the federal Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff was arrested for DWI and entered a rehabilitation program where he was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his work in New York City after the 9-11 attack. Plaintiff was terminated upon completion of the rehabilitation program. The city argued his termination was based on the DWI, but plaintiff alleged other officers, who were not disabled, were not terminated after committing a criminal offense. The Fourth Department noted that when the plaintiff’s and defendant’s arguments are equally supported, plaintiff must prevail in a motion to dismiss:

 

Plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for disability discrimination under the Human Rights Law by alleging that: he has a disability and is therefore a member of a protected class; he is qualified for his position; he suffered an adverse employment action, i.e., termination of his employment; and the termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination … . Similarly, plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for discriminatory termination under the Rehabilitation Act by alleging that: “(1) he has a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the job; (3) he was terminated solely because of his disability; and (4) the program or activity receives federal funds” … . …

In support of those causes of action, plaintiff alleged that the City did not terminate the employment of two nondisabled employees after they were arrested for criminal misconduct, thus raising an inference that his termination was based upon his disability. The court stated in its decision that plaintiff’s allegations “equally support” the conclusions that those two employees and plaintiff were similarly situated, and that they were not similarly situated. On the motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), however, facts that equally support opposing inferences must be resolved in plaintiff’s favor … . Regan v City of Geneva, 2016 NY Slip Op 01101, 4th Dept 2-11-16

 

EMPLOYMENT LAW (DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/REHABILITATION ACT (DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (WHEN THE ALLEGATIONS OF BOTH SIDES ARE EQUALLY SUPPORTED, PLAINTIFF MUST PREVAIL IN A MOTION TO DISMISS)/MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE OFFICERS CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)POLICE OFFICERS (OFFICER’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY [PTSD] DISCRIMINATION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED.

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether the driver of a car involved in an accident was acting within the scope of his employment at the time. Therefore Supreme Court erred when it dismissed the complaint against the employer, alleging liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Here the employee was driving to the employer’s house, which had been used as the employer’s office, when the accident occurred:

 

The doctrine of respondeat superior renders an employer vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee acting in furtherance of the employer’s business and within the scope of his or her employment … . “An employee’s actions fall within the scope of employment where the purpose in performing such actions is to further the employer’s interest, or to carry out duties incumbent upon the employee in furthering the employer’s business” … . “Conversely, where an employee’s actions are taken for wholly personal reasons, which are not job related, his or her conduct cannot be said to fall within the scope of employment” … .

“An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his employer, or if his act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . “[T]he employer may be liable when the employee acts negligently or intentionally, so long as the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of the employment” … . “[B]ecause the determination of whether a particular act was within the scope of the servant’s employment is so heavily dependent on factual considerations, the question is ordinarily one for the jury” … . Brandford v Singh, 2016 NY Slip Op 00920, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE SCARRING DISCUSSED PRIOR TO SIGNING OF CONSENT FORM AND FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE SURGERY DESPITE FULL DISCLOSURE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION)
,

POLICE DISCIPLINE PROPERLY CONTROLLED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, DESPITE STATUTORY PROVISION PLACING DISCIPLINE IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSIONER.

The Third Department determined that a provision of the Second Class Cities Law specifically allowed the statute to be superseded by subsequent statutes. The Second Class City Law placed police discipline in the hands of the commissioner.  However a subsequently enacted provision of the Civil Services Law (called the Taylor Law) required police discipline to be the subject of a collective bargaining agreement, absent conflicting legislation. The Taylor Law prevailed because of the “planned obsolescence” of the Second Class City Law statute:

 

… [T]he Taylor Law mandates that disciplinary procedures for all public employees be the subject of good faith collective bargaining … . “[Courts] have long recognized the ‘strong and sweeping policy of the State to support collective bargaining under the Taylor Law'” … . Indeed, “the presumption is that all terms and conditions of employment are subject to mandatory bargaining” … . However, because of the “competing policy . . . favoring strong disciplinary authority for those in charge of police forces[, w]here legislation specifically commits police discipline to the discretion of local officials,” the policy favoring collective bargaining will give way to the legislatively established disciplinary procedures … . * * *

… [T]he clear and unambiguous language of Second Class Cities Law § 4 provides the best evidence that the Legislature intended to allow any or all of the provisions of the Second Class Cities Law to be supplanted by later laws applicable to the same subject matter … . Accordingly, we conclude that Second Class Cities Law article 9 does not require “that the policy favoring collective bargaining should give way” … . Matter of City of Schenectady v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2016 NY Slip Op 00729, 3rd Dept 2-4-16

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (POLICE DISCIPLINE CONTROLLED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, NOT CONFLICTING STATUTE)/UNIONS (POLICE DISCIPLINE CONTROLLED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, NOT CONFLICTING STATUTE)/STATUTES (PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE OF STATUTE ALLOWED IT TO BE SUPERSEDED BY SUBSEQUENT STATUTE)

,

COUNTY CHARTER CONTROLLED WHERE THERE WAS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE CHARTER AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVISION RE: ARBITRATION OF POLICE DISCIPLINARY MATTERS.

The Second Department determined the county did not have the authority to enter into an agreement with the police union (PBA) to arbitrate certain police disciplinary matters. The county charter vested the power to discipline police in the police commissioner. The charter provision was deemed controlling. Therefore the administrative code provision allowing the binding arbitration of disciplinary matters was properly repealed by a local law subsequently enacted by the county:

… [S]ince the County Charter vested the power to discipline members of the Nassau County Police Department exclusively with the Commissioner of Police, the County Legislature’s attempt to divest the Commissioner of a portion of that disciplinary authority by amending the County Administrative Code to allow for binding arbitration of certain disciplinary matters created a conflict between the code and the charter, and, in the face of such a conflict, the charter controlled … . Therefore, the court properly concluded that the County Legislature’s enactment of section 8-13.0(e) of the Nassau County Administrative Code was invalid, and that the subsequent repeal of section 8-13.0(e) of the County Administrative Code by Local Law No. 9-2012 of the County of Nassau was proper and should not be enjoined. Moreover, as the County Legislature expressly committed disciplinary authority over the Nassau County Police Department to the Commissioner of Police, collective bargaining over disciplinary matters was prohibited … . Carver v County of Nassau, 2016 NY Slip Op 00466, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

MUNICIPAL LAW (COUNTY CHARTER TRUMPS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE)/COUNTIES (COUNTY CHARTER TRUMPS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE)/CHARTERS (COUNTY CHARTER TRUMPS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE)/UNIONS (COUNTY CHARTER TRUMPS POLICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT)/PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (COUNTY CHARTER TRUMPS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT)/COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS (COUNTY CHARTER TRUMPS POLICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT)/POLICE (COUNTY CHARTER TRUMPS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT)

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO SHOW ACTUAL OUT-OF-POCKET LOSS REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE FRAUDULENT-INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the complaint alleging fraudulent inducement was properly dismissed for failure to allege out-of-pocket damages. Plaintiff was hired as an at will employee to develop a ramen cuisine for defendant restaurant chain (Chipotle). Plaintiff subsequently learned defendant had entered an agreement with another chef to develop ramen cuisine, the deal had fallen apart and would probably end in litigation. Plaintiff alleged, had he known about the undisclosed agreement with another chef he would not have entered the agreement with Chipotle. Although it was anticipated at the outset plaintiff would work for defendant for three years, and thereafter be entitled to certain specified additional compensation, plaintiff was an at will employee and had been compensated for the work he completed before he was terminated. Therefore, the First Department held, plaintiff could not demonstrate the out-of-pocket loss required for a “fraudulent inducement” cause of action:

 

The facts alleged, even when viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff, do not give rise to a reasonable inference that he sustained calculable damages based on defendants’ actions. Plaintiff’s employment was at will, and he has no claim of reasonable reliance on representations concerning continued employment … . Any claim that he was deprived of the promised Chipotle stock cannot succeed, given that is undisputed that the express terms of the parties’ agreement required him to be an employee for three years. Nor can he seek damages based on the alleged profits that would have been realized had there been no fraud. When a claim sounds in fraud, the measure of damages is governed by the “out-of-pocket” rule, which states that the measure of damages is “indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong” … . In other words, damages are calculated to compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not for what they might have gained in the absence of fraud … . Additionally, plaintiff’s claim that he would have received better remuneration had he partnered with a different entity is inherently speculative and would require any factfinder to engage in conjecture … . Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 00273, 1st Dept 1-19-16

 

FRAUD (OUT-OF-POCKET DAMAGES REQUIREMENT)/DAMAGES (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY ALLEGATIONS OF OUT OF POCKET LOSS)/CONTRACT LAW (FRAUDUENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY ALLEGATIONS OF OUT OF POCKET LOSS)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, AT WILL EMPLOYEE CANNOT RECOVER AS DAMAGES COMPENSATION EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN THE FUTURE BUT FOR THE FRAUD)

,

PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW EXPLAINED; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined plaintiff, who had brought a racial-discrimination action under the New York City Human Rights Law,  was unable to show that the employer’s reasons for terminating her were pretextual. The court held that the phrase “a leopard does not change its spots” and the term “tirade,” used in reference to plaintiff’s behavior, did not have discriminatory meanings. With respect to the proof requirements under the NYC Human Rights Law (“City HRL”), the court explained:

How the City HRL’s distinctive substantive definitions, standards, and frameworks interact with existing standards for summary judgment has been the subject of some confusion … . As with any other civil case, a discrimination plaintiff must produce enough evidence to preclude the moving defendant from being able to prove that (1) no issues of material fact have been placed in dispute by competent evidence, and (2) a reasonable jury (resolving all inferences that can reasonably be drawn in favor of the non-moving party) could not find for the plaintiff on any set of facts under any theory of the case. But recognizing that the general evidentiary standard remains the same in discrimination cases does not permit a court to apply the standard in a manner that ignores the distinctiveness of City HRL causes of action. All the general standard does, in other words, is provide the template that says, “Defendant must prove that no reasonable jury can conclude X.” The “X” depends on the cause of action.

Thus, the only substantive requirement in a City HRL case where the plaintiff goes the “pretext” route is for the plaintiff to produce some evidence to suggest that at least one reason is “false, misleading, or incomplete.” A plaintiff who satisfies this requirement may well have produced less evidence than would be required under the state and federal laws. But he or she will have produced enough evidence to preclude the defendant from proving that no reasonable jury could conclude that any of the defendant’s reasons was pretextual. In other words, the general evidentiary standard comfortably co-exists with the distinctive substantive framework that must be applied to City HRL claims. Cadet-Legros v New York Univ. Hosp. Ctr., 2015 NY Slip Op 08984, 1st Dept 12-6-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACTION DISMISSED)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, NEW YORK CITY (PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED)/DISCRIMINATION (NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ACTION DISMISSED)/ MUNICIPAL LAW (DISCRIMINATION ACTION UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW)

, ,

Petitioner, Who Was Required to Work in the “Work Experience Program [WEP]” to Receive Public Assistance, Was an “Employee” Entitled to Minimum Wage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Abdus-Salaam (in which Judge Pigott concurred), determined petitioner, who received public assistance from New York City and was therefore required to work 35 hours per week in the Work Experience Program (WEP), was an “employee” entitled to the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Petitioner, after completing the WEP, won $10,000 in the state lottery. Under the lottery rules, the state sought one-half of the lottery proceeds as reimbursement for the public assistance paid to petitioner. Petitioner argued that the reimbursement reduced the amount the state paid him for his WEP work below the minimum wage required by the FLSA. The Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner’s argument. The bulk of the opinion and the dissent dealt with the propriety of finding petitioner was an “employee” entitled to the minimum wage protections of the FLSA:

… [W]e must apply the economic reality test and, under that test, the City should be considered Carver’s employer. The City had the power to hire and fire WEP workers, in that it was the City’s responsibility to assign public assistance recipients to a WEP agency and the City could dismiss workers from WEP based upon their performance. Additionally, the City and its WEP agencies supervise and control the work schedule of the workers. Furthermore, the City and its agencies, such as HRA, maintain the employment records of the WEP workers. While the Social Services Law, not the WEP agencies or the City, determines the rate and method of payment of WEP workers, that is simply one factor. The economic reality test “encompasses the totality of the circumstances” … . Matter of Carver v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 08451, CtApp 11-19-15

 

,

Plaintiff’s Allegations of a Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation Were Not Sufficient As a Matter of Law

The Third Department determined that plaintiff’s action against her employer (UPS) alleging sexual harassment, rising to the level of a hostile work environment, and retaliation for complaining about it, was properly dismissed. Although the complaint alleged several instances of crude and improper language and physical contact, the allegations did not, as a matter of law, describe a “hostile work environment.” Nor were the allegations of retaliation sufficient as a matter of law:

A party alleging the existence of a sexually hostile work environment must demonstrate that “‘the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment'” … . To determine whether a hostile work environment exists, we must consider “all the circumstances, including ‘the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance'” … . The test is both subjective and objective; that is, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the conditions of his or her employment were altered as a result of the conduct he or she perceived to be abusive and that the conduct created an environment that a reasonable person would find to be hostile or abusive … . * * *

A valid claim for retaliation under the Human Rights Law exists where a party demonstrates “that (1) [he or] she has engaged in protected activity, (2) [his or] her employer was aware that [he or] she participated in such activity, (3) [he or] she suffered an adverse employment action based upon [his or] her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action”… . Minckler v United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 07882, 3rd Dept 10-29-15

 

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