You are here: / Employment Law
, , ,

STATE’S USE OF A GPS DEVICE TO TRACK STATE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS DID NOT REQUIRE A WARRANT, BUT THE SEARCH WAS UNREASONABLE BECAUSE ALL OF THE EMPLOYEE’S MOVEMENTS, EVEN WHEN THE EMPLOYEE WAS ON VACATION, WERE TRACKED, THE GPS EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a three-judge concurrence, determined the evidence obtained about a state employee’s movements by placing a GPS device on the employee’s car should have been suppressed in the Labor Department’s hearing (after which the employee was terminated). The Court of Appeals found that the use of the GPS device did not require a warrant, but the search in this case was unreasonable in scope:

The State of New York, suspecting that one of its employees was submitting false time reports, attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to the employee’s car. Under People v Weaver (12 NY3d 433 [2009]) and United States v Jones (565 US —, 132 S Ct 945 [2012]), the State’s action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions. We hold that the search did not require a warrant, but that on the facts of this case it was unreasonable. * * *

While the search did not require a warrant, it did not comply with either the State or Federal Constitution unless it was a reasonable search. We conclude that the State has failed to demonstrate that this search was reasonable. * * *

Where an employer conducts a GPS search without making a reasonable effort to avoid tracking an employee outside of business hours, the search as a whole must be considered unreasonable. That conclusion concededly requires suppression of the GPS evidence here; the State has disclaimed any reliance on the balancing test that we use when deciding whether to invoke the suppression remedy in administrative proceedings .. . . Matter of Cunningham v New York State Dept. of Labor,
2013 NY Slip Op 04838 [21 NY3d 515], CtApp 6-27-13

 

,

Orange County Executive Did Not Have Authority to Terminate County Employees Before County Legislature Eliminated Positions

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court and determined the Orange County Executive did not have the authority to terminate county employees before the legislature acted to removed funding for the positions:

The doctrine of “[l]egislative equivalency requires that a position created by a legislative act can only be abolished by correlative legislative act”…. Pursuant to section 2.02(1) of the Orange County Charter and Orange County Administrative Code, the Orange County Legislature possesses sole authority to “establish or abolish positions of employment and titles thereof.” Here, the County Legislature had not taken any action to abolish the subject positions at the time the County Executive terminated the subject employees’ employment. While the Orange County Charter and Orange County Administrative Code give the County Executive the authority to “supervise, direct and control and administer all departments” (Orange County Charter § 3.02[e]; Administrative Code § 3.02[e]), they do not give the County Executive the authority to terminate the employment of civil service employees without a proper abolition of the positions by the County Legislature in accordance with the doctrine of legislative equivalency…. Further, County Charter § 4.10(a) does not authorize the County Executive to undertake any “remedial action” constituting, inter alia, unilateral modification to the budget and/or abolition of legislatively created positions…. Therefore, under these circumstances, the County Executive did not have the authority to terminate the subject employees’ employment for economic reasons, effective October 29, 2010.   Matter of Civil Serv Empls Assn Inc v County of Orange, 2013 NY Slip Op 04798, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

, , ,

Hospital Can Be Vicariously Liable for Actions of Non-employee Physician Under Apparent or Ostensible Agency Theory

The Second Department explained when a hospital can be held vicariously responsible, under a theory of apparent or ostensible agency, for the actions of non-employee physicians who provide medical services at the hospital:

“A hospital [is] responsible to a patient who sought medical care at the hospital, . . . rather than from any particular physician although the physician whose malpractice caused injury to the patient was not an employee of the hospital”… . To create an apparent or ostensible agency, the plaintiff must reasonably rely on the appearance of authority, based on some misleading words or conduct by the principal, not the agent. Moreover, the plaintiff must accept the services of the agent in reliance upon the perceived relationship between the agent and the principal, and not on reliance on the agent’s skill…. In the context of a medical malpractice action, the patient must have reasonably believed that the physicians treating her were provided by the hospital or acted on the hospital’s… . In evaluating whether a doctor is the apparent agent of a hospital, a court should consider all attendant circumstances to determine whether the patient could properly have believed that the physician was provided by the hospital… .  Loaiza v Lam, 2013 NY Slip Op 04780, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

,

Starbuck’s Tip-Splitting Policy Analyzed

The Second Circuit asked the Court of Appeals to answer certified questions about how the Labor Law relates to a tip-splitting policy used by Starbucks.  Over two dissents, the Court of Appeals determined, under the Labor Law, limited supervisory duties did not mandate exclusion from the tip pool:

Starbucks maintains a written policy governing the collection, storage and distribution of customer tips. Pursuant to this policy, each Starbucks store places a plexiglass container at the counter where patrons may deposit tips. Once these tip canisters become full, Starbucks requires that they be emptied into a bag and the money is stored in a safe. At the end of each week, the tips are tallied and distributed in cash to two categories of employees — baristas and shift supervisors — in proportion to the number of hours each employee worked. Starbucks does not permit its assistant store managers or store managers to share in the weekly distribution of tips. The company’s decision to include shift supervisors in these tip pools was the impetus for the first lawsuit before us, while its exclusion of assistant store managers underlies the claims in the second action. * * *

…[A]n employee whose personal service to patrons is a principal or regular part of his or her duties may participate in an employer-mandated tip allocation arrangement under Labor Law § 196-d, even if that employee possesses limited supervisory responsibilities. But an employee granted meaningful authority or control over subordinates can no longer be considered similar to waiters and busboys within the meaning of section 196-d and, consequently, is not eligible to participate in a tip pool. * * *

…Starbucks’ decision to exclude assistant store managers from the tip pool is not contrary to Labor Law § 196-d.  Barenboim, et al v Starbucks Corporation, No 122, CtApp 6-26-13

 

,

Supreme Court’s Denial of Application for Stationary Engineer License Based on Applicant’s Criminal Record Reversed

The First Department, in this and several other similar rulings, reversed Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s application for a stationary engineer license determining that petitioner’s criminal record bore no relationship to the duties of a stationary engineer:

The determination to deny petitioner’s renewal application for a stationary engineer license was in violation of lawful procedure and lacked a rational basis. Respondents arbitrarily concluded that petitioner’s prior federal conviction for conspiracy bore a direct relationship to the duties and responsibilities attendant to a stationary engineer, the license for which he sought renewal after having his license renewed several times (see Correction Law § 750[3]; 752[2];…. Petitioner’s prior conviction resulted from the misuse of his administrative powers in his former position, which granted him control over hiring, payroll, and selection of vendors. Such actions bear no direct relationship to the equipment maintenance duties and responsibilities inherent in the stationary engineer license, and thus do not satisfy the first exception to the general prohibition of discrimination against persons previously convicted of criminal offenses (see Correction Law § 752[1]).  Matter of Donovan v LiMandri, 2013 NY Slip Op 04737, 1st Dept 6-25-13

 

, ,

Teacher Wrongly Denied Hearing Allowed by Education Law

The Fourth Department annulled a determination which suspended a tenured teacher for 30 days without pay finding she was wrongly denied a hearing:

[Under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA)] petitioner was entitled to choose whether to be disciplined under the procedures set forth in the CBA or those set forth in section [Education Law] 3020-a, which allowed petitioner to elect a hearing (see § 3020-a [c]). Respondents, however, incorrectly denied petitioner’s written request for a section 3020-a hearing. We therefore reverse the judgment, grant the petition, annul the determination, and we direct respondents to reinstate petitioner with back pay and benefits retroactive to the date of her suspension, and to remove all references to the discipline imposed from petitioner’s personnel file… .  Matter of Kilduff v Rochester City School District, 518, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

Collective Bargaining Agreement Did Not Allow Private Suit Against Employer

After a member of the Faculty Association (FA) decided not to continue with a college employee’s grievance, the employee sued the college directly.  In affirming the dismissal of the employee’s private suit (because the suit was not allowed by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA)), the Third Department wrote:

“As a general proposition, when an employer and a union enter into a collective bargaining agreement that creates a grievance procedure, an employee subject to the agreement may not sue the employer directly for breach of that agreement but must proceed, through the union, in accordance with the contract”….  Exceptions include where the collective bargaining agreement grants an employee a right to sue directly or where the union fails in its duty of fair representation … .  Plaintiff acknowledges that he is not alleging that FA breached its duty of representation.  He contends, however, that, under the CBA, decisions related to promotions are excepted  from the grievance procedure and, thus, he can pursue an action directly against defendants. The ultimate decision about a promotion is not subject to a grievance under the CBA. Nonetheless, the lengthy procedures an associate professor must follow over several years to become eligible for consideration of a promotion to full professor are set forth in the CBA and are not explicitly excepted  from  the grievance process. It is the purported failure by defendants to follow these promotion procedures that plaintiff challenges, and the CBA does not carve out a separate right regarding these procedures that can be enforced by an  employee directly against defendants … .  Altman v Rossi, 515888, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

National Labor Relations Board Had First Crack at Collective Bargaining Agreement Matter Under Preemption Doctrine

The Fourth Department determined the National Labor Relations Board, under the doctrine of federal preemption of state law, had first crack at determining whether it had jurisdiction over a collective bargaining matter, as opposed to the NYS Public Employment Relations Board (PERB):

We agree with petitioners, however, that Supreme Court erred in determining that PERB properly exercised jurisdiction over those matters.    Inasmuch as the two collective bargaining matters “arguably” fall within the scope of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)…, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has primary jurisdiction “to determine in the first instance” whether its jurisdiction preempts PERB’s jurisdiction …..  Under the circumstances of this case, and in the interest of judicial economy, we hold the case pending a determination of the NLRB whether the NLRA applies to the collective bargaining matters herein at issue and thus preempts PERB’s jurisdiction… . Buffalo United Charter School, et al v NYS Public Employment Relations Board, et al, 515, 4th Dept, 6-7-13

 

, , ,

Qualified Privilege in Defamation Action Against School District Explained

In the course of a lengthy decision dealing with many issues raised by a defamation/stigma-plus proceeding brought by a school district employee against a school district, the Third Department explained qualified privilege in this context. The plaintiff was a coach whose boyfriend [Broxmeyer] had raped a student at another school.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant Arbes, principal of the high school, “stated at a meeting with several staff members that plaintiff should avoid private one-on-one  conversations with students and should take a leave of absence ‘for the safety of the students.’ “.  The Third Department wrote:

Qualified privilege provides a  complete defense to a claim of slander, and attaches to an otherwise defamatory statement “made to persons who have some common interest in the subject matter” … .  A privileged communication is one which, but for the occasion on which it is uttered, would be defamatory and actionable'”….The  defense does  not apply, however,  “where the motivation for making such statements was spite or ill will (common-law malice) or where the ‘statements [were] made with [a] high degree of awareness of their probable falsity’ … .Arbes made the statement at issue at a meeting where she, plaintiff and three other individuals were present. Plaintiff acknowledges that Keeler, the junior varsity field hockey coach and union president, had a common interest in the subject, as did a union employee who was present.  The third individual may have had the same interest because Keeler averred that the individual was a union representative. Additionally, she was a guidance counselor, and Arbes averred that guidance counselors were being made available to students who may have had difficulty dealing with the situation surrounding  Broxmeyer’s arrest, the police investigation and plaintiff’s suspension and later termination.  As all of the persons present for the meeting had a common interest in the subject matter and the record lacks any evidence of malice, Supreme Court correctly determined that Arbes’ statement at the meeting was not actionable based on the qualified privilege.  Wilcox v Newark Valley Central School District, 515906, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

 

, , ,

Notice of Claim (Pursuant to Court of Claims Act) Not Specific Enough

The Third Department upheld the Court of Claims’ dismissal of a claim because the notice of claim was not specific enough.  In describing the statutory criteria, the Third Department wrote:

Pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 11 (b), a claim must set forth the nature of the claim, the time when and place where it arose, the damages or injuries and  the total sum  claimed. “Because suits against [defendant] are allowed only by [defendant’s] waiver of sovereign immunity and  in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed”….   Although “absolute exactness” is not required…, the claim must “‘provide a  sufficiently detailed  description  of  the  particulars of the claim to enable [defendant] to investigate and promptly ascertain the existence and  extent of its liability'” … .  Morra v State of New York, 515751, 3rd Dept, 6-6-13

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, EMPLOYEE

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