You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

Petitioner-Teacher Never Consented to an “Out of Area” Assignment—Therefore She Was Entitled to Seniority in Her Teaching Area, Despite Her Assignment to Another Area

The Third Department determined Supreme Court correctly annulled the commissioner’s determination terminating petitioner’s employment on the ground that her position was properly eliminated because she had the least seniority. Although petitioner was in the English tenure area, she was assigned to teach computer classes, which she had taught for 11 years. The commissioner determined she had acquired no seniority because she had not taught in her tenure area.  However, the relevant regulations require that a teacher consent to an “out of area” assignment. Because petitioner never consented to an “out of area” assignment, she was entitled to seniority in her English tenure area, despite the fact she was assigned to teach computer classes.  The Third Department noted that the Commissioner’s ruling constituted an artificial or forced construction of the applicable regulations:

Petitioner acknowledges that, although the Board awarded her tenure in the English 7-12 tenure area, she never spent 40% or more of her time teaching English classes. She contends, however, that her seniority is preserved by another provision of the Rules, which states that “[n]o professional educator, whether on tenure or in probationary status, may be assigned to devote a substantial portion of his [or her] time in a tenure area other than that in which he [or she] has acquired tenure or is in probationary status, without his [or her] prior written consent” (8 NYCRR 30-1.9 [c]).

Our review of the evidence reveals that petitioner was a professional educator (see 8 NYCRR 30-1.1 [e]) who was assigned exclusively to teach computer classes, which the Board admits was an assignment outside of her probationary and acquired English 7-12 tenure area. The record is devoid of evidence that petitioner was aware that she was given an out-of-area assignment or that she consented to it in writing. * * * Nowhere in the language of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) is there a requirement that professional educators must first spend some of their time teaching within their probationary or acquired tenure areas before earning the right to consent to an out-of-area assignment. Inasmuch as the Commissioner’s interpretation reads this nonexistent requirement into the provision, we view it as “an artificial or forced construction” (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 94).

The Commissioner’s interpretation also runs contrary to the underlying purposes of the Rules governing teacher tenure and seniority credit. As the Court of Appeals has noted, 8 NYCRR former 30.9 (b) (now 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 [c]) “protects teachers from being deprived of credit in a previously appointed tenure area if they unwittingly accept, and serve in, out-of-area assignments” … . The “twofold protective purpose” of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) — that is, to protect teachers from unknowing, involuntary out-of-area assignments and allow for the accrual of seniority credit in their original tenure area if they should accept such an assignment — is not served if the provision is construed in such a way as “to block a teacher from receiving seniority credit which, absent school district error, would have been received by reason of actual service in an out-of-tenure area”… . Because the Commissioner’s interpretation of 8 NYCRR 30-1.9 (c) has precisely this effect on petitioner, we find that Supreme Court properly annulled the Commissioner’s confirmation of petitioner’s termination. Matter of Cronk v King, 2015 NY Slip Op 06396, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

,

Verified Statement Demonstrated Site Contractor’s Improper Use of Funds Held in Trust for the Payment of Subcontractors—Plaintiff Subcontractor Entitled to Summary Judgment on Liability Re: Subcontractor’s Mechanic’s Lien

The Third Department affirmed Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff subcontractor in plaintiff’s action against the site contractor seeking payment for completed work. Plaintiff alleged it was underpaid for its work and filed a mechanic’s lien. The general contractor withheld 1 1/2 times the amount of the lien from its payment to the site contractor.  The plaintiff demanded a verified statement from the site contractor (showing the receipt and disbursement of funds held by the site contractor in trust for subcontractors) pursuant to Lien Law 76. The verified statement submitted by the site contractor indicated a multi-million dollar discrepancy between the amount it received and the amounts paid out. Because of the discrepancy, the site contractor was found to have used the funds it held in trust for subcontractors for purposes other than the trust. Plaintiff was therefore entitled to summary judgment on liability:

Pursuant to Lien Law article 3-A, owners, contractors and subcontractors are required to maintain funds in trust in order to “provide[] protection to certain parties involved in the improvement of real property, ensuring that they will be properly compensated for their services” … . Specifically, and insofar as is relevant here, “[t]he funds received by a contractor or subcontractor. . . shall be a separate trust and the contractor or subcontractor shall be the trustee thereof” (Lien Law § 70 [2]). A trustee, in turn, is required to, among other things, maintain books or records with respect to each trust, detailing the trust assets receivable, trust accounts payable, trust funds received, trust payments made with trust assets and transfers in repayment of or to secure advances made pursuant to a notice of lending … . A beneficiary of such a trust is entitled to, among other things, “receive a verified statement setting forth the entries with respect to the trust contained in such books or records” … . “Any use of the trust funds other than the payment of claims under the contract . . . is an improper diversion of trust assets” …, and the trustee’s failure to keep the statutorily required books and records “shall be presumptive evidence that the trustee has applied or consented to the application of trust funds . . . for purposes other than a purpose of the trust” (Lien Law § 75 [4]). Anthony DeMarco & Sons Nursery, LLC v Maxim Constr. Serv. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 06394, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

, ,

Bringing a Cause of Action Under the Whistleblower Statute Alleging Retaliation for Reporting Misconduct Does Not Bar Claims Arising from the Misconduct Itself (Here Claims of Sexual Harassment)

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined that a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law 740, the whistleblower statute, did not bar the underlying sexual harassment and negligence claims reported by the whistleblowers.  Labor Law 740 prohibits retaliation for blowing the whistle, which is distinct from claims arising from the misconduct which was reported:

In dispute is the scope of Labor Law § 740 (7), which provides:

“Existing rights. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to diminish the rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any other law or regulation or under any collective bargaining agreement or employment contract; except that the institution of an action in accordance with this section shall be deemed a waiver of the rights and remedies available under any other contract, collective bargaining agreement, law, rule or regulation or under the common law.”

This provision makes clear that the terminated employee is neither compelled to bring an action under the statute nor limited to the relief it affords but may pursue any other available remedy. However, if the employee chooses to institute an action pursuant to the statute, any alternative means of redress is thereby waived.

Central to the assessment of the scope of this waiver is the purpose of the statute, both with respect to the abuse it is intended to remedy and the relief it provides. It prohibits “retaliatory personnel action” against an employee who undertakes to disclose conduct in violation of any law or regulation, who furnishes information to an investigatory body in regard to such activity or who refuses to participate in such activity (Labor Law § 740 [2]). Notably, statutory relief is confined to wrongful termination; no redress is provided to the victims of the underlying misconduct. The statute specifically addresses the termination of an employee who witnesses and reports misconduct. It is not so broad as to encompass the circumstances at bar, in which plaintiffs were not only terminated for revealing abuse by senior managers but were also targeted and victimized by that abuse. Lee v Woori Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 06299, 1st Dept 7-28-15

 

, ,

Failure to Pay Wages In Violation of Labor Law 191 (1)(a) is a Class A Misdemeanor—Therefore Defendant Was Properly Sentenced to a Period of Incarceration Followed by a Period of Probation—The Statute Authorizes Incarceration or a Fine—Because the Defendant Was Incarcerated, the Fine Must Be Vacated

The Second Department determined defendant was properly incarcerated for 60 days and sentenced to a period of probation for failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Law 191(1)(a), which in a Class A misdemeanor.  However, the statute allows for incarceration or a fine.  Because defendant had served 60 days, the imposition of the $5000 fine was vacated:

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court was permitted to sentence him to a period of probation. A conviction of failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Law § 191(1)(a), which is defined as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine or imprisonment, is a class A misdemeanor (Labor Law § 198-a[1]; see Penal Law § 55.10[2][b]) and, therefore, a crime (see Penal Law § 10.00[6]). Thus, a court may sentence a defendant to a period of probation for the crime of failure to pay wages (see Penal Law § 65.00[1][a]), and the imposition of a period of probation in addition to a 60-day term of incarceration was authorized here (see Penal Law § 60.01[2][d]…).

However, the County Court improperly imposed a $5,000 fine on the defendant. By its terms, Labor Law § 198-a(1) provides for punishment by a fine or imprisonment, but not both a fine and imprisonment, for a first conviction. As the defendant has already served his 60-day term of incarceration, the provision of the sentence imposing a $5,000 fine on the defendant must be vacated. People v DiSalvo, 2015 NY Slip Op 06164, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

,

Teacher Entitled to Tenure by Estoppel—Proper Way to Calculate Probationary Period Which Included Unpaid Maternity Leave Explained

The Second Department determined a teacher was entitled to tenure by estoppel.  The number of days the teacher was on unpaid, approved maternity leave was excluded from the probationary period. Properly calculated (the proper method was explained), the teacher worked beyond the three-year probationary period and was therefore entitled to tenure by estoppel:

Tenure by estoppel results “when a school board accepts the continued services of a teacher or administrator, but fails to take the action required by law to either grant or deny tenure prior to the expiration of the teacher’s probationary term” … . A teacher who has acquired tenure by estoppel, but is nonetheless improperly terminated, is entitled to reinstatement, retroactive to the last date of employment, back pay, and all accrued benefits … .

Where a teacher is granted a period of unpaid maternity leave during her three-year probationary period, that period of leave may properly be excluded from computation of a teacher’s three-year probationary period … . Contrary to the appellants’ contention in this proceeding, such an extension of a teacher’s probationary period is to be performed utilizing a workday-to-calendar day methodology. That is, for each workday missed as a result of a teacher’s unpaid leave, the three-year probationary period is to be extended by the corresponding number of calendar days … . Such a methodology is consistent with both Education Law § 3012(3), which provides that “no period in any school year for which there is no required service and/or for which no compensation is provided shall in any event constitute a break or suspension of probationary period or continuity of tenure rights,” and the purpose of the three-year probationary period in affording a school district an opportunity to evaluate an individual’s performance as a teacher prior to granting tenure … .

Applying the foregoing principles to this proceeding, we conclude that the petitioner worked past her extended probationary period end date. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that she acquired tenure by estoppel, and that she is entitled to reinstatement to her position, with tenure and back pay from the date her employment was terminated, i.e., January 21, 2011. Matter of Brown v Board of Educ. of Mahopac Cent. Sch. Dist., 2015 NY Slip Op 05471, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

,

Police Officer Who Refused a Light-Duty Assignment Was Not Entitled to Disability Benefits Pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-c

The Second Department determined a police officer was not entitled to refuse a light duty assignment during the period his entitlement to disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-c was being determined:

A disabled officer receiving General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits is entitled to a due process hearing before those benefits may be terminated when the officer submits medical evidence contesting the finding of a municipality’s appointed physician that the officer is fit for duty … . Once such evidence has been submitted, an “order to report for duty may not be enforced, or benefits terminated, pending resolution of an administrative hearing, which itself is subject to review under CPLR article 78” … . However, where the municipality’s physician is of the opinion that the officer is able “to perform specified types of light police duty,” payment of the full amount of salary or wages may be discontinued should the officer refuse to perform such light police duty if same “is available and offered to [the officer]” and enables him or her “to continue to be entitled to his [or her] regular salary or wages” (General Municipal Law § 207-c[3]…). If an officer who refuses to return to light duty fails to provide medical proof that he or she is unable to do so, the municipality may discontinue disability payments without a hearing … . Matter of Garvey v Sullivan, 2015 NY Slip Op 05476, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

,

Criteria for Liability for Acts of Independent Contractor and for Negligent Hiring of an Independent Contractor Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)

Plaintiff, who was working for the roofing contractor on a building damaged by fire, was asked by a salvager to help move a refrigerator. Plaintiff agreed and was injured while moving the refrigerator down some stairs.  The salvager was allowed to go through the building and pick out the items the salvager wanted (which included the refrigerator). Plaintiff sued the building owner (E & M). In finding the plaintiff did not have a cause of action against E & M, the First Department explained the relevant law with respect to liability for the acts of an independent contractor (the salvager) and negligent hiring of an independent contractor:

E & M established that even if it hired the salvager as an independent contractor, there is no basis to impose liability on it. “As a general rule, a principal is not liable for the acts of an independent contractor because, unlike the master-servant relationship, principals cannot control the manner in which independent contractors perform their work” … . Although “liability will attach where the employer is negligent in selecting, instructing or supervising the contractor, where the contractor is employed to do work that is inherently dangerous or where the employer bears a specific nondelegable duty'” …, these exceptions are inapplicable… . * * *

Plaintiff’s contention that issues of fact exist as to whether E & M or its principal were negligent in selecting the salvager, i.e. whether they failed to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining whether he was qualified to move a refrigerator down a flight of stairs, is also unavailing. “[A]n employer has the right to rely on the supposed qualifications and good character of the contractor, and is not bound to anticipate misconduct on the contractor’s part….” … . Thus, an employer “is not liable on the ground of his having employed an incompetent or otherwise unsuitable contractor unless it also appears that the employer either knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care might have ascertained, that the contractor was not properly qualified to undertake the work” … . “Cases finding employers liable for negligent hiring have done so only in very specific circumstances” … not present here. There is no competent proof that E & M knew or should have known of any propensity on the part of the salvager or his helper to engage in the conduct that allegedly caused the accident … . Furthermore, plaintiff has not shown that E & M had any reason to question the qualifications of the salvager, who E & M knew had been used by its plumber on a prior occasion, to move a refrigerator … . Moreover, there was no reason for E & M to suspect that the salvager would enlist an employee of the roofing contractor to assist him. Nelson v E&M 2710 Clarendon LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05391, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

,

Failure to Strictly Comply With Notice Requirement in the Civil Service Law Rendered the Involuntary Leave Imposed Upon the Petitioner-Firefighter a Nullity—Petitioner Entitled to Back Pay for Leave Period—Petitioner Properly Deemed Unfit for Active Duty Due to His Inability to Manage Diabetic Symptoms

The Fourth Department determined a firefighter was properly deemed unfit for active duty as a firefighter because of his inability to manage diabetic symptoms. During the course of the decision, the Fourth Department held that the city’s failure to strictly comply with the notice requirements of the Civil Service Law rendered the involuntary leave imposed on petitioner a nullity (entitling him to back pay for the leave period):

We conclude that the procedural protections contained in Civil Service Law § 72 (1) apply to proceedings brought pursuant Civil Service Law § 72 (5) based on the language in subdivision (1) that the provisions of notice and hearing therein apply to employees “placed on leave of absence pursuant to this section” (emphasis added), “which includes Civil Service Law § 72 (5)” … . These procedures are necessary “to afford tenured civil servant employees . . . procedural protections prior to involuntary separation from service” … . “Because of the significant due process implications of the statute, strict compliance with its procedures is required” … . Here, it is undisputed that respondents did not strictly comply with the procedures pursuant to section 72 for placing petitioner on immediate involuntary leave inasmuch as it was not until April 2012 that petitioner was provided with “[w]ritten notice of the facts providing the basis for the judgment of the appointing authority that [petitioner was] not fit to perform the duties of” his position (§ 72 [1]). Although the parties had engaged in negotiations during the period before respondents provided petitioner with written notice, respondents concede that at no time did petitioner waive his rights under section 72 … . Additionally, petitioner did not receive the final notice of determination within 75 days from the receipt of his request for review (see § 72 [1]). The absence of strict compliance with these procedural requirements renders petitioner’s alleged leave a nullity prior to September 30, 2013, when Linnertz issued his final determination after reviewing the Hearing Officer’s decision … , and petitioner is entitled to back pay and the restoration of benefits from August 26, 2011 until September 30, 2013. Matter of Williams v Troiano, 2015 NY Slip Op 05318, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

, , ,

Supreme Court Properly Annulled New York Division of Human Rights’ Determination there Was No Probable Cause to Believe the School District Discriminated against Petitioner When It Refused to Hire Her Because of Her Anticipated Absence (Due to Pregnancy)

The Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s annulment of the New York Division of Human Rights’ (SDHR’s) finding, without a hearing, there was no probable cause to believe the school district discriminated against the petitioner. Petitioner was not hired because of her anticipated absence due to pregnancy. The school district’s stated reason for not hiring petitioner was that she was going to be unavailable to counsel students and there was concern about the resulting lack of continuity of counseling services for the students.  However, the petitioner’s unavailability was due to her pregnancy and discrimination could therefore be inferred:

“Where, as here, a determination of no probable cause is rendered [by SDHR] without holding a public hearing pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (4) (a), the appropriate standard of review is whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacking a rational basis’ ” … . “Probable cause exists only when, after giving full credence to the complainant’s version of the events, there is some evidence of unlawful discrimination” … . “There must be a factual basis in the evidence sufficient to warrant a cautious [person] to believe that discrimination had been practiced” … . The complainant’s factual showing must be accepted as true on a probable cause determination … . While our standard of review is highly deferential to the agency’s determination …, we agree with the court that SDHR’s determination “was not rationally based upon the evidence presented” … .

Executive Law § 296 prohibits an employer from refusing to hire or employ an individual based on, inter alia, the individual’s sex. In opposition to the petition, the District argued that it decided not to rehire petitioner because of her unavailability and its concern for continuity of counseling services for its students. Petitioner was unavailable to work, however, because of her pregnancy, and we conclude that discrimination could be inferred from the record before us … . The District relies on Roslyn Union Free Sch. Dist. v State Div. of Human Rights (72 AD2d 808) in support of its argument that it did not discriminate against petitioner. To the extent that Roslyn holds that a decision not to hire an individual because the individual is pregnant is not a form of discrimination (see id. at 809-810), we decline to follow it. Matter of Mambretti v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2015 NY Slip Op 05384, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

,

Question of Fact Whether Employer Considered Accommodation for Plaintiff’s Injury—Summary Judgment to Employer Should Not Have Been Granted

Plaintiff’s employment with the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) was terminated (after plaintiff injured her hand) on the ground that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate she was medically fit to return to work and had failed to provide a date by which she would return to full duty. The plaintiff challenged her proposed termination and sought reinstatement before the effective date of termination. The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted summary judgment to the employer (DOCS).  A question of fact had been raised about whether DOCS met its duty to consider accommodation for plaintiff’s injury:

An employer normally cannot obtain summary judgment on a disability discrimination claim pursuant to Executive Law § 296 “unless the record demonstrates that there is no triable issue of fact as to whether the employer duly considered the requested accommodation,” and the employer cannot present such a record “if the employer has not engaged in interactions with the employee revealing at least some deliberation upon the viability of the employee’s request” … .

“The employer has a duty to move forward to consider accommodation once the need for accommodation is known or requested” (9 NYCRR 466.11[j][4]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party … , we find that the plaintiff’s responses to the notice of proposed termination could reasonably have been understood as a request for accommodation, which DOCS rejected by terminating the plaintiff’s employment based on her inability to return to work within the one year permitted under Civil Service Law § 71.

Therefore, we conclude that the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they engaged in a good faith interactive process that assessed the needs of the plaintiff and the reasonableness of her requested accommodation … . Cohen v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05147, 2nd Dept 6-17-15

 

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