You are here: / Employment Law

NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, reversing the Appellate Division, over a dissenting opinion, determined the New York State Racing and Wagering Board had the discretion to reduce the per diem wages of seasonal employees by 25%. The majority held that a Side Letter Agreement, which incorporated 50 articles of the collective bargaining agreement, set limits on the discretionary authority of the racing board, but did not prohibit the discretionary wage reduction at issue here. The dissent argued the 50 incorporated articles did not address the wage reduction and therefore should not be deemed to have given the racing board the discretion to unilaterally reduce the wages of seasonal employees:

The Side Letter Agreement was comprehensive in addressing all conditions of employment for seasonal employees for 1996 to 1999. It included specific pay increases for specific years, but not for the fiscal year in which the 25% reduction took effect. The Side Letter Agreement did not rule out pay reductions and did not impose any conditions precedent to pay reductions … . Thus, PERB's [Public Employment Relations Board's] conclusion that it was “reasonably clear” that both sides intended the Side Letter Agreement “to act as a negotiated limitation upon the State Budget Director's discretion” as to compensation for seasonal employees was not arbitrary and capricious. Contrary to the dissent's characterization, the decision is supported not just by the quantity of items contained in the Side Letter Agreement, but by specific items expressly limiting the discretion otherwise delegated to the Racing Board chair and Budget Director by statute. PERB's decision should be accorded deference as a decision within its area of expertise. Read as a whole, the language of the Side Letter Agreement “implicitly demonstrate[s] that the parties had reached accord” with respect to any limitations on the discretionary authority of the Budget Director to change the per diem compensation of seasonal employees. Matter of Kent v Lefkowitz, 2016 NY Slip Op 03650, CtApp 5-10-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT)/PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT)/RACING AND WAGERING BOARD (NYS RACING AND WAGERING BOARD HAD THE DISCRETION TO UNILATERALLY REDUCE PER DIEM WAGES OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES BY 25 PERCENT)

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action under Labor Law 740, the whistleblower statute:

Labor Law § 740 creates a cause of action in favor of an employee who has suffered a “retaliatory personnel action” as a consequence of, inter alia, “disclos[ing], or threaten[ing] to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety,” or as a consequence of “object[ing] to, or refus[ing] to participate in any such activity, policy or practice in violation of a law, rule or regulation” … . …

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the plaintiff was offered a promotion … . The complaint also alleged that the terms of the promotion would have placed the plaintiff under the supervision of the defendant Tonya Parker, who was not among the class of persons authorized by law or regulation to supervise a registered nurse in clinical activities. The complaint also alleged that the plaintiff pointed out that Parker was not authorized to supervise her, but the terms of the promotion were not changed. The complaint further alleged that after the plaintiff declined to accept the promotion, she was discharged from her position as Head of Nursing, and another nurse was given the position that plaintiff had turned down, under Parker's supervision. Fough v August Aichhorn Ctr. for Adolescent Residential Care, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03469, 2nd Dept 5-4-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE)/LABOR LAW (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE)/WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER LABOR LAW 740)

,

CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST EMPLOYER ALLEGING EMPLOYEES WERE ROUTINELY UNDERPAID ALLOWED TO GO FORWARD.

The First Department determined plaintiffs, former and current non-managerial employees of defendant Jenny Craig (weight-loss centers), established commonality (CPLR 901(a)(2)) such that their class action suit could proceed. 751 class members alleged they were regularly underpaid because 30 minutes of pay was routinely deducted for breaks which the employees did not take:

Where, as here, “the same types of subterfuge [were] allegedly employed to pay lower wages,” commonality of the claims will be found to predominate, even though the putative class members have “different levels of damages” … . Class action is an appropriate method of adjudicating wage claims arising from an employer's alleged practice of underpaying employees, given that “the damages allegedly suffered by an individual class member are likely to be insignificant, and the costs of prosecuting individual actions would result in the class members having no realistic day in court … . Weinstein v Jenny Craig Operations, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02932, 1st Dept 4-19-16


,

ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the lawsuit against the employer, Ross, by three former employees should have been dismissed. The allegations made by the three employees were not sufficient to make out a prima facie case of a hostile work environment due to sexual harassment:

While Ross' alleged conduct was certainly offensive and grossly unprofessional, those aspects of it that were sexually harassing were not severe or pervasive enough to render any plaintiff's work environment objectively hostile and abusive as these terms are construed under the Human Rights Law.

In order to establish the existence of a sexually hostile work environment, an individual plaintiff must show that his or her workplace was “'permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his or her] employment and create an abusive working environment'” … . All of the circumstances must be considered, including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it [was] physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interfere[d] with [the plaintiff's] work performance” … . Moreover, the workplace must be both subjectively and objectively hostile. That is, a plaintiff must not only perceive that the conditions of his or her employment were altered because of discriminatory conduct, but the conduct also must have created an environment that a reasonable person would find to be hostile or abusive … . Pawson v Ross, 2016 NY Slip Op 02502, 3rd Dept 3-31-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT)/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT)/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT (ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT)/SEXUAL HARASSMENT (EMPLOYMENT LAW, ALLEGATIONS BY THREE FORMER EMPLOYEES DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT)

,

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)

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