You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

Question of Fact Whether Hospital Vicariously Liable for Actions of Non-Employees

The Third Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant hospital could be held vicariously liable for the actions of nonemployee doctors with respect to plaintiff’s decedent who was initially treated in the emergency room.  The court explained the applicable law:

Under settled law, a hospital ordinarily may not be held liable for the negligent acts of treating physicians who are not hospital employees … . Vicarious liability for malpractice on the part of nonemployee physicians may be imposed, however, on a theory of ostensible or apparent agency … . “‘Essential to the creation of apparent authority are words or conduct of the principal, communicated to a third party, that give rise to the appearance and belief that the agent possesses authority’ to act on behalf of the principal” … . Consequently, “a hospital may [face vicarious liability] for the acts of independent physicians if the patient enters the hospital through the emergency room and seeks treatment from the hospital, not from a particular physician” … . Friedland v Vassar Bros Med Ctr, 2014 NY Slip Op 05388, 3rd Dept 7-17-14

 

, ,

Arbitration Award Based Upon Collective Bargaining Agreement Does Not Have a Preclusive Effect Upon a Subsequent Employment Discrimination Action Based on the Same Facts

The Second Department noted that an arbitration award based upon the terms of a collective bargaining agreement does not bar a subsequent employment discrimination action under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  Here the employee was terminated based upon excessive absences.  He subsequently  brought a discrimination action alleging the employee failed to accommodate his disability.  (The Second Department determined the “disability” alleged by the employee did not require accommodation):

An arbitrator’s award may be given preclusive effect in a subsequent judicial proceeding … . However, arbitration is an inappropriate forum for the disposition of an employment discrimination claim where “the arbitrator’s sole task is to effectuate the intent of the parties in connection with the collective-bargaining agreement, and not to consider a statutory claim of discrimination . . . The violation of these contractual and statutory rights by the same factual occurrence does not vitiate their separate nature” … . Thus, the arbitrator’s decision did not have preclusive effect on the plaintiff’s separate action based on unlawful discrimination in employment …, and the complaint is not barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Caban v New York Methodist Hosp, 2014 NY Slip Op 05292, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

, ,

Grievance Did Not Relate to Provisions of Collective Bargaining Agreement

In finding that one of two grievances was not arbitrable because the grievance (overtime pay for police officers privately employed as security officers at the airport) did not relate to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Fourth Department explained the operative criteria:

It is well settled that, in deciding an application to stay or compel arbitration under CPLR 7503, we do not determine the merits of the grievance and instead determine only whether the subject matter of the grievance is arbitrable (see CPLR 7501…). “Proceeding with a two-part test, we first ask whether the parties may arbitrate the dispute by inquiring if there is any statutory, constitutional or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievance’ . . . If no prohibition exists, we then ask whether the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute by examining their collective bargaining agreement. If there is a prohibition, our inquiry ends and an arbitrator cannot act” … .

“Where, as here, the [CBA] contains a broad arbitration clause, our determination of arbitrability is limited to whether there is a reasonable relationship between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the CBA’ ” … . If such a “reasonable relationship” exists, it is the role of the arbitrator, and not the court, to “make a more exacting interpretation of the precise scope of the substantive provisions of the CBA, and whether the subject matter of the dispute fits within them” … .

Matter of City of Syracuse v Syracuse Police Benevolent Assn Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 05251, 4th Dept 7-11-14

 

, ,

Off-Duty Corrections Officer Was Not Acting Within the Scope of His Employment When Decedent Was Shot

The Second Department determined that an off-duty corrections officer (Maldonado) was not acting within the scope of his employment when he shot and killed a man:

“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the 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 [or her] employer, or if his [or her] act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . However, an employer may not be held vicariously liable for its employee’s alleged tortious conduct if, at the time of the underlying incident, the employee was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business … .

Here, the claimant’s decedent was shot by an off-duty New York State Corrections Officer, Emilio Maldonado, after a dispute. The record showed, inter alia, that Maldonado was assaulted by the claimant’s decedent and his brother following a traffic dispute. At the time of the incident, Maldonado was driving his personal vehicle, and was accompanied by family members. He was carrying his own privately-owned weapon as well as a badge. * * *

Although Maldonado testified in a related criminal action that he intended or planned to “cuff” and detain the assailants, it is undisputed that he never took any affirmative steps toward effecting a detention. In particular, he did not order the assailants to halt, and he did not physically attempt to handcuff or detain them. It is also undisputed that after the shooting, Maldonado did not attempt to detain the fleeing assailants. Under these circumstances, the claimant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Maldonado acted within the scope of his official duties… . Wood v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 05173, 7-9-14

 

, ,

Former Assistant Principal Entitled to Full Report Generated In Response to Her Allegations of Harassment and Discrimination Against Superintendent

The Third Department determined a former assistant principal was entitled to the full report generated by special counsel at the request of the school board in response to her allegations of harassment and discrimination against the school superintendent:

In our view, the [school] Board’s interpretation [of its regulation] is inconsistent with the language of the regulation, which is mandatory and dictates that the complainant and the accused will have received at least one report “pertaining to the investigation/outcome of the formal complaint” prior to the Board holding a hearing on the matter. Even assuming that [counsel who wrote the report] was appointed to perform only the complaint officer’s role — as opposed to the superintendent’s role — in the adjudicatory structure set forth in the regulation, a complainant is entitled to a copy of the complaint officer’s report under the regulation. Nevertheless, respondents failed to provide either the complainant or this Court with a copy of the report. Matter of Yager v Massena Cent Schoo Dist, 2014 NY Slip Op 05014, 3rd Dept 7-3-14

 

, ,

Termination Shocks One’s Sense of Fairness

The Fourth Department determined the termination of a city employee shocked one’s sense of fairness.  The court explained the relevant criteria:

“[A] result is shocking to one’s sense of fairness if the sanction imposed is so grave in its impact on the individual subjected to it that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, incompetence, failure or turpitude of the individual, or to the harm or risk of harm to the agency or institution, or to the public generally” … . “Where, as here, there is no grave moral turpitude’ and no grave injury to the agency involved or to the public weal,’ courts may ameliorate harsh impositions of sanctions by administrative agencies . . . in order to accomplish what a sense of justice would dictate’ ” … . Matter of Harwood v Addison, 2014 NY Slip Op 04660, 4th Dept 6-20=14

 

,

Town Could Not Unilaterally Revoke Its Policy of Providing Vehicles for Certain Town Employees—Any Such Change Must Be Negotiated

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined the Public Employees Relation Board (PERB) properly ruled the town could not revoke its policy of providing vehicles for use by certain town employees pursuant to a provision of the Town Code. The town argued that it could unilaterally revoke the vehicle assignments because the provision which purported to allow the vehicle assignments was illegal (the dissent agreed).  The Court of Appeals held that the provision was not illegal and, therefore, any change in the vehicle assignment policy must be negotiated with the union:

…[T]he Town asks us to rule in its favor on the ground that a public employer does not violate section 209-a (1) (d) of the Taylor Law [Civil Service Law} when it unilaterally discontinues a past practice with respect to a term and condition of employment that is illegal under local law. Whatever the merits of the Town's position, we do not reach and need not consider them because the relevant past practice was not, in fact, illegal under the local law. Accordingly, PERB reasonably applied its precedent to determine that the Town engaged in an improper practice when it unilaterally discontinued the permanent assignment of “take home” vehicles to employees who enjoyed this benefit before the Town adopted and implemented the 2008 fleet/vehicle policy, and PERB's determination was based on substantial evidence.  Matter of Town of Islip v New York State Pub Empl Relations Bd., 2014 NY Slip Op 04030, CtApp 6-5-14

 

, ,

Ambiguous Termination Notice Will Not Trigger Four-Month Article 78 Statute of Limitations

The First Department explained that when a notice of termination of an at-will employee is ambiguous with respect to finality, the ambiguity is construed against the employer and the four-month statute of limitations for an Article 78 proceeding is not triggered:

Ordinarily, where the employment of an at-will employee, like petitioner, is terminated, the four-month statute of limitations applicable in article 78 proceedings (CPLR 217) begins to run from the date of the termination, notwithstanding the availability of optional administrative review proceedings … . However, where an administrative agency “create[s]; []; ambiguity and [the]; impression of nonfinality,” that ambiguity regarding finality is to be resolved against the agency … .

* * * We find that, notwithstanding the fact that the letter otherwise conveyed the concrete impact ordinarily associated with finality for statute of limitations purposes …, respondent created sufficient ambiguity as to finality such that the language must be construed against it and the petition must be deemed timely. Matter of Burch v New York City Health & Hosp Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 04060, 1st Dept 6-5-14

 

, ,

State and City Human Rights Law Retaliation Claims Were Not Precluded by Dismissal of Federal Retaliation Claims Pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act—Different Protected Activities Involved

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined plaintiff’s state and city human rights law retaliation claims against her employer were not precluded by the dismissal of her federal action under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA):

Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party is precluded from relitigating in a subsequent action an issue clearly raised and decided against that party in a prior action … . To successfully invoke this doctrine, two requirements must be met. First, the issue in the second action must be identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action. Second, the party to be precluded must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action … . Where a federal court declines to exercise jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims, collateral estoppel can still bar those claims provided that the federal court decided issues identical to those raised by the plaintiff’s state claims … . The party seeking to invoke collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing identity of issue … . Applying these principles, we conclude that defendants have not met their burden of showing that plaintiff’s state and city claims of retaliatory termination are barred by collateral estoppel. The retaliation claims asserted here are entirely distinct from those raised and decided in the federal action. There, the court only decided whether plaintiff was retaliated against for exercising her FMLA rights. Here, however, plaintiff does not claim retaliation based on her exercise of FMLA rights, but instead alleges retaliation, under the State and City Human Rights Laws, based on entirely different instances of protected activity. Specifically, plaintiff alleges she was discharged for filing a written complaint about her reprimand for allegedly reading a book during work hours, and for verbally complaining about an alleged inappropriate comment. Because the federal court’s decision did not address either of these claimed bases for retaliation, it cannot be said that the federal action “necessarily decided” the same issues raised by the State and City retaliation claims, and thus collateral estoppel does not apply… .  Ji Sun Jennifer Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 2014 NY Slip Op 03961, 1st Dept 5-3-14

 

, ,

Probationary Employee Fired in Bad Faith for Union Work—Supreme Court Had the Power to Reinstate Her But Not to Grant Her Tenure

The Second Department determined a probationary teacher demonstrated she was terminated in bad faith.  The court noted that Supreme Court did not have the power to grant the probationary teacher tenure, something only the administrative agency has the power to do:

A probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of a demonstration that the termination was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law … . The petitioner bears the burden of presenting competent proof of the alleged bad faith, the violation of statutory or decisional law, or the constitutionally impermissible or illegal purpose … . Here, the petitioner met her burden of demonstrating that the discontinuation of her probationary employment was made in bad faith, showing that the discontinuation followed a letter she wrote to the principal, in her capacity as a union chapter leader, requesting to make up her missed preparation periods. Although, generally, evidence of unsatisfactory performance rebuts a showing of bad faith …, in response to the petitioner’s showing, the appellants failed to establish that the discontinuance of the petitioner’s probationary employment was the result of poor performance. The record demonstrates that the petitioner began [*2]to receive “Unsatisfactory” ratings only after she asked the principal to make up her missed preparation periods, and it was at that point that the evaluations of the petitioner’s performance began to precipitously decline. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly annulled the determination and reinstated the petitioner to her former position, with retroactive seniority, backpay, and benefits … .

However, the appellants correctly contend that the Supreme Court exceeded its authority by granting the petitioner tenure effective as of January 25, 2009. ” While the court is empowered to determine whether the administrative body acted arbitrarily, it may not usurp the administrative function by directing the agency to proceed in a specific manner, which is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the administrative body in the first instance'” … . Matter of Capece v Schultz, 2014 NY Slip Op 03834, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

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