You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

Ratified Release Precluded Employment Discrimination Action

The First Department reversed Supreme Court and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs employment discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment claims.  Plaintiffs signed a release and received severance pay based upon the terms of the release.  The First Department determined plaintiffs’ claims that the signed the release under duress were foreclosed by their ratification of the release (accepting the severance pay):

The motion court should have dismissed the complaint in its entirety. “Generally, a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release” …. A release will not be treated lightly because it is a “a jural act of high significance without which the settlement of disputes would be rendered all but impossible” …. Where the language is clear and unambiguous, the release is binding on the parties unless it is shown that it was procured by fraud, duress, overreaching, illegality or mutual mistake … . *  *  *

Assuming arguendo that issues of fact exist as to duress and overreaching, plaintiffs are nevertheless barred from challenging the releases on those grounds because they ratified the releases. Ratification occurs when a party accepts the benefits of a contract and fails to act promptly to repudiate it…. Thus, a plaintiff cannot claim that he or she was compelled to execute an agreement under duress while simultaneously accepting the benefits of the agreement …  Allen v Riese Org, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03547, 1st Dept, 5-16-13

 

, ,

Elements of Retaliatory Termination Described

The Second Department explained the elements of retaliatory termination as follows:

Pursuant to Executive Law § 296, it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee because he or she opposed statutorily forbidden discriminatory practices …. To make a prima facie showing of retaliation under Executive Law § 296, a claimant is required to show that (1) the claimant was engaged in protected activity, (2) the claimant’s employer was aware that he or she participated in such activity, (3) the claimant suffered an adverse employment action based upon his or her activity, and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action …. Once this initial showing is made, the burden then shifts to the defendant to present legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its actions. Assuming the defendant meets this burden, the claimant would then have the obligation to show that the reasons put forth were merely a pretext … .  Adeniran v State of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 03441, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

, , ,

Exclusion of Petitioner from Hearing During Testimony of Primary Witness Required Vacation of Award

The exclusion of petitioner from an administrative hearing during the testimony of the only eyewitness to an alleged assault by petitioner required vacation of the arbitrator’s award.  The First Department wrote:

Petitioner’s exclusion from the administrative hearing during the testimony of the only eyewitness to her alleged hitting of a student—the student himself—violated her constitutional right to confront the witnesses against her …. Nothing in the record indicates that a compelling competing interest warranted the exclusion. There is no finding that petitioner’s presence would cause trauma to the student or substantially interfere with his ability to testify. Indeed, the record contains no indication at all of the basis for the exclusion. Petitioner contends that in addition to her constitutional right she had an absolute right to confront witnesses under Education Law § 3020-a. However … there is no such absolute right under § 3020-a… .  Matter of Stergiou v NYC Dept of Educ, 2013 NY Slip Op 03432, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

,

Investigatory Powers of NYS Commission on Public Integrity Explained​

The investigatory powers of the NYS Commission on Public Integrity were at the heart of this case.  The Commission was investigating allegations the petitioner (the Chief Executive Officer of the State University of New York Research Foundation) provided a job to the daughter of a prominent politician for which she was not qualified and did little work.  During the course of the investigation the Commission issued a Notice of Reasonable Cause (NORC) to the petitioner alleging a violation of Public Officers Law 74 (3) and requiring, by subpoena, the petitioner to provide testimony.  The petitioner argued that the commission’s power to issue a subpoena, under the controlling statutes and regulations, ended upon the issuance of the NORC.  In rejecting that argument, and accepting the Commission’s contrary argument that its power to investigate continued after the issuance of an NORC, the Third Department wrote:

Notably, the Commission’s interpretation of its regulation is consistent with the overall purpose and spirit of Executive Law § 94, which is to “strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in government through fair and just adjudicatory procedures that afford all parties due process protection and  fair and just resolution of all matters” (19 NYCRR 941.1…).   Following the issuance of a NORC, the Commission could become aware of other potential witnesses or additional information relevant to the possible violations.  Thus, construing the regulation to permit the Commission to continue its investigation, despite having issued a NORC, would best serve the underlying purposes of the statute. Conversely, to interpret the regulation as precluding investigation into new evidence, based solely on the fact that a NORC had been issued, would clearly impede the truth seeking function of the Commission.  In the Matter of O’Connor v Ginsberg…, 514200, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13

 

,

“Service Charge” Could Be “Gratuity” to Which Employer Not Entitled

In upholding the sufficiency of a complaint seeking damages for violations of Labor Law section 196-d, alleging that a 15 to 20% “service charge” on catering and hospital forms was actually a “gratuity,” the Second Department wrote:

Labor Law § 196-d provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o employer . . . shall demand or accept, directly or indirectly, any part of the gratuities received by an employee, or retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a gratuity for an employee.” In Samiento v World Yacht Inc. (10 NY3d 70, 74), …the Court of Appeals held that depending upon the circumstances, even a mandatory service charge added to a bill “may be a charge purported to be a gratuity’ within the meaning of [Labor Law § 196-d].” The Court stated that a mandatory service charge can purport to be a gratuity “when it is shown that employers represented or allowed their customers to believe that the charges were in fact gratuities for their employees” (id. at 81). “[T]he standard under which a mandatory charge or fee is purported to be a gratuity should be weighed against the expectation of the reasonable customer” and the “reasonable patron standard should govern when determining whether a banquet patron would understand a service charge was being collected in lieu of a gratuity” (id. at 79). Martin v Restaurant Assoc Events Corp, 2013 NY slip Op 03304, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

,

Discrimination (Re Licensing) Based on Criminal Conviction Disallowed

The First Department annulled a determination denying petitioner’s renewal application for a stationary engineer license finding no rational basis for the denial. Petitioner had been convicted of participating in a kickback scheme.  The First Department noted that the equipment maintenance responsibilities of a stationary engineer were not implicated by the conviction.  The First Department wrote

[The actions underlying the conviction] 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]).The record further shows that respondent failed to afford petitioner the mandatory presumption of rehabilitation attendant to his certificate of relief from disabilities (see Correction Law § 753[2]), and appeared to have disregarded the additional evidence of rehabilitation submitted by petitioner. … We further find that respondent could not have rationally found petitioner to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety or welfare so as to satisfy the second exception to the general prohibition (see Correction Law § 752[2]). Petitioner disclosed his 2006 conviction, based on acts occurring in 2005 and earlier, on his license renewal applications from 2007 through 2010, all of which were granted. Matter of Dellaporte v NYC Dept of Buildings, 2013 NY Slip Op 03281, 1st Dept, 5-7-13

 

, ,

No Notice of Claim Required for Discrimination Claims Against Town

The issue before the Fourth Department was whether an action against the North Bailey Volunteer Fire Co alleging discrimination and tort causes of action must be preceded by a notice of claim pursuant to Municipal Law 50-e.  The Court concluded that, because the volunteer fire company was a “fire protection district,” it was part of the town and, therefore, a notice of claim was required as a condition precedent to suits in tort.  [The court noted that a “fire district,” in contrast, is a distinct legal entity and, therefore, not part of a town for purposes of a notice of claim.]  The discrimination claims, brought under the Human Rights Law, were deemed exempt from the notice of claim requirement because they were not “founded in tort.”  The tort claims, on the other hand, were subject to the notice of claim requirement. Thygesen v North Bailey Volunteer Fire Co, Inc, et al, CA 12-00789, 290, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

, , ,

Broad Arbitration Clause Required Arbitration of Topic Not Directly Covered by Collective Bargaining Agreement

In upholding the lower court’s determination that a matter involving “shift swapping” in the sheriff’s department was subject to arbitration even though the topic was not directly covered by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Fourth Department wrote:

In determining whether the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute at issue, “[o]ur review . . . is limited to the language of the grievance and the demand for arbitration, as well as to the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom” …. “Where, as here, there is a broad arbitration clause and a ‘reasonable relationship’ between the subject matter of the dispute and the general subject matter of the parties’ [CBA], the court ‘should rule the matter arbitrable, and the arbitrator will then 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 Ontario County…, CA 12-01766, 309, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

, , ,

Prevailing Wage Law Not Preempted by Federal Telecommunications Act or Labor Relations Act

In upholding the finding that petitioner had failed to pay the prevailing wage for work done for a school district, the Third Department determined the prevailing wage law was not preempted by the federal Telecommunications Act and the Labor Management Relations Act:

Generally, a federal law may supersede a state law where Congress explicitly declares preemption as its intent …, or where the federal law is “‘so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the [s]tates to supplement it'” …. The Court of Appeals has observed, however, that “[t]he presumption against preemption is especially strong with regard to laws that affect the states’ historic police powers over occupational health  and safety issues” …. While the Telecommunications Act is intended to exclusively govern the field of telecommunications service (see 47 USC § 253 [a]), the prevailing wage law is a minimum labor standard … .As such, it falls within the Telecommunications Act’s safe harbor provision, which provides that  “[n]othing  in this section  shall affect the  ability of  a [s]tate to impose, on a competitively neutral basis . . . requirements necessary to . . . protect the public safety and welfare” (47 USC  §  253  [b]). … Nor is the prevailing wage law preempted by the federal Labor Management Relations Act. That statute provides that federal law governs suits to enforce collective bargaining agreements (see 29 USC § 185 [a]). While it is true that the Department  of Labor refers to collective bargaining agreements  to determine  prevailing wages,  those  agreements  are  not  necessarily determinative, and the rights conferred by the prevailing wage law  are independent of those conferred by  such  agreements … . Matter of Pascazi v Gardner, 513528, 3rd Dept, 5-2-13

 

, , ,

Transit Authority Employee Properly Found Negligent In Not Summoning Help for Police Officers Injured While Making an Arrest in a Subway Station

The First Department reinstated a verdict in favor of police officers who were injured in the course of making as arrest in a subway station. As the officer chased the suspect, he asked a New York City Transit Authority employee to call for police back up.  The theory of the case was that the employee negligently did not call for back up. The trial judge granted the Transit Authority’s motion for judgment finding the employee was under no duty to call for assistance.  In reversing, the First Department wrote:

Public Authorities Law § 1212(3) imposes liability upon the Transit Authority for the negligence of its employees in the operation of the subway system. Although it is a common carrier, the Transit Authority is held to a duty of ordinary care under the particular circumstances of each case …. In Crosland v New York City Tr. Auth. (68 NY2d 165 [1986]), the Court of Appeals held that the Transit Authority could be held liable for the negligent failure of its employees to summon aid as they watched a gang of thugs fatally assault a passenger. As the Court stated, “Watching someone being beaten from a vantage point offering both safety and the means to summon help without danger is within the narrow range of circumstances which could be found to be actionable” (id. at 170 [citation omitted]). The trial court held that Crosland had no application here because plaintiffs were police officers. This was error.

The broad definition of onlooker liability articulated by the Crosland Court does not lend itself to any exception based upon an injured party’s status as a police officer. To be sure, General Obligations Law § 11-106 gives police officers as well as firefighters, who are injured in the line of duty, a distinct right of action against tortfeasors that cause such injuries. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ recovery is not barred by their status as police officers and the Transit Authority’s liability was established at trial. The Transit Authority also argues that the evidence did not establish that a timely response on Corbin’s part would have prevented plaintiffs’ injuries. We decline to consider this argument as it was raised for the first time on appeal. Were we to consider the argument, we would find it unavailing. Filippo v New York City Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 03025, 1st Dept, 4-30-13