You are here: / Employment Law
, ,

IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A TEACHER DURING THE SCHOOL DAY OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT UNDER BOTH RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR AND NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act action, determined the respondeat superior and negligent supervision causes of action against the school alleging sexual abuse of the plaintiff by a teacher should not have been dismissed. Essentially the complaint alleged negligent supervision of both the teacher and the child. The defendant school did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the abuse which allegedly took place over the course of a year in the same classroom during the school day:

“The employer’s negligence lies in having placed the employee in a position to cause foreseeable harm, harm which would most probably have been spared the injured party had the employer taken reasonable care in making decisions respecting the hiring, . . . retention, or supervision of the employee” … .

… “[A] school has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision. The duty owed derives from the simple fact that a school, in assuming physical custody and control over its students, effectively takes the place of parents and guardians” … . * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the teacher’s alleged abusive propensities and conduct … . “In particular, given the frequency of the alleged abuse, which occurred over” the entirety of a school year, “and always occurred inside the same classroom during the school day, the defendants did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they should have known of the abuse” … .. The defendants similarly failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that their supervision of both the teacher and the plaintiff was not negligent … . Sayegh v City of Yonkers, 2024 NY Slip Op 03065, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: Here it was alleged plaintiff was sexually abused by a teacher repeatedly over a year during the school day. There were questions of fact whether the school had constructive notice of the abuse which supported causes of action under a respondeat superior theory (negligent supervision of the teacher) and a negligent supervision theory (negligent supervision of the child).

 

, ,

THE FORMER SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S PTSD STEMMED FROM A SERIES OF INTERACTIONS WITH A CO-EMPLOYEE OVER A PERIOD OF MONTHS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN “ACCIDENT;” SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (ADR) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined the petitioner’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from interactions with a another school employee did not entitle her to accidental disability retirement benefits (ADR) as opposed to ordinary disability retirement benefits (ODR)  The court found that the employee interactions took place over a period of time and could not be characterized as “a sudden, unexpected event,” i.e., an “accident.” The court however refused to rule out that intentional conduct by a co-employee could constitute an “accident” in some circumstances:

… [T]he record supports the [Teachers’ Retirement System Medical] Board’s determination that petitioner’s injuries did not result from an event that was sudden, fortuitous, and unexpected … . Although petitioner claims that her PTSD was brought on by the April 2019 occurrence, that event was merely the latest of a series of incidents in which the food-service worker trespassed on school property and acted in a confrontational manner toward petitioner, causing her significant stress and anxiety. As early as February 2019, petitioner informed school officials that the employee was continuously disobeying instructions to keep away from the school and that she was “concerned about the students and the building staff that have to endure his confrontational behavior.” Following another incident in March, petitioner wrote that she “d[id] not feel comfortable with [the employee] given his behavior in the school.” The Board rejected petitioner’s initial ADR application on the ground that “based on the description of the events in question that occurred in the work setting on April 18, 2019, as well as the previous events in the work setting in February and March of 2019, [petitioner] has failed to demonstrate that an accident occurred in the work setting.” Because that reasoning is supported by the evidentiary record, the Board’s determination to deny ADR will not be disturbed on this appeal. Matter of Rawlins v Teachers’ Retirement Sys. of the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 02840, CtApp 5-23-24

Practice Point: Although an intentional act by a co-employee could constitute an “accident” giving rise to accidental disability retirement benefits (ADR) under the Teachers’ Retirement System, here the interactions with the co-employee took place over a period of months and could not be described as “a sudden, unexpected event.”

 

, ,

THE “RELIGIOUS EMPLOYER” EXEMPTION FROM MANDATED INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTIONS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, determined the US Supreme Court ruling in Fulton v Philadelphia, 593 US 522 (2021) did not render the “religious employer” exemption to the mandated insurance coverage for medically necessary abortions unconstitutional. The opinion is too detailed and comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

Plaintiffs, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany and a variety of entities ranging from churches to religiously affiliated organizations to a single individual, provide medical insurance plans to their employees. They have challenged a regulation promulgated by the Department of Financial Services as violative of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The challenged regulation requires New York employer health insurance policies that provide hospital, surgical, or medical expense coverage to include coverage for medically necessary abortion services (see 11 NYCRR 52.16 [o] [1]). Their challenge is to the regulation’s exemption for “religious employers,” which is defined by four factors (see 11 NYCRR 52.2 [y]). Plaintiffs’ claim, in essence, is that the exemption is too narrow, such that the First Amendment rights of certain types of religiously affiliated employers are violated because they do not meet the terms of the exemption. * * *

Under Fulton, both the regulation itself and the criteria delineating a “religious employer” for the purposes of the exemption are generally applicable and do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Neither the existence of the exemption in the regulation nor the defined criteria allow for “individualized exemptions” that are standardless and discretionary, nor do they allow for comparable secular conduct while discriminating against religious conduct. Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo, 2024 NY Slip Op 02764, CtApp 5-21-24

Practice Point: The 2021 US Supreme Court ruling in Fulton v Philadelphia did not render the “religious exemption” regulation promulgated by the NYS Department of Financial Services unconstitutional. The regulation exempts certain religious employers from mandated insurance coverage for medically necessary abortions.

 

, , ,

CITY RETIREES THREATENED WITH ELIMINATION OF THEIR EXISTING HEALTH INSURANCE AND AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT IN A MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER THEIR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined the doctrine of promissory estoppel justified a permanent injunction prohibiting the city from “eliminating … retirees’ existing health insurance, automatically enrolling them in a new Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan, enforcing a June 30, 2023 deadline for retirees to opt out of the new plan, and implementing any other aspect of the City’s new retiree healthcare policy:”

… [T]he record shows a clear and unambiguous promise, made for more than 50 years, that upon an employee’s retirement, Medicare would provide the first level of hospital and medical insurance benefits and the City’s benefits program would provide the second level to fill in the gaps. * * *

… [T]he record shows detrimental reliance on the promise. * * *

… [P]etitioners have demonstrated injury. Many City retirees stated that their chosen providers and hospitals, like many healthcare providers, do not accept the MAPs [Medicare Advantage Plans]. The City’s plan to automatically enroll petitioners in the Aetna MAP and terminate their current Medigap coverage would result in injury to retirees whose medical providers do not accept the Aetna MAP. * * *

The particular manner in which the parties chose to litigate this action before Supreme Court resulted in a record with significant evidentiary support for petitioners’ position and very little support for respondents’ position. That record and the arguments the parties chose to make on appeal lead to the conclusion that petitioners are entitled to relief under their promissory estoppel cause of action. Matter of Bentkowski v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02771, First Dept 5-21-24

Practice Point: Here the promissory estoppel doctrine was applied to permanently enjoin the city from eliminating city retirees’ health insurance and automatically enrolling them in a Medicare Advantage Plan.

 

, ,

PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED THE CHILD WAS NEVER HARMED AND SHE HAD MADE SERIOUS AND SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS AT REHABILITATION; RE: PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT IN THE CHILDCARE FIELD, RESPONDENT NYS OFFICE OF CHILDEN AND FAMILY SERVICES IS PRECLUDED FROM INFORMING ANY PROVIDER OR LICENSING AGENCY THAT PETITIONER IS THE SUBJECT OF A CHILD MALTREATMENT REPORT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in an Article 78 proceeding transferred by Supreme Court, determined the respondent NYS Office of Children and Family Services should not have ruled that “petitioner’s acts of child maltreatment are relevant and reasonably related to employment in the childcare field.” The Fourth Department therefore directed that respondent “shall be precluded from informing a provider or licensing agency which makes an inquiry that petitioner is the subject of an indicated child maltreatment report.” No child had ever been harmed by petitioner and petitioner demonstrated serious and successful rehabilitative efforts.

… [T]he record establishes that petitioner had taken actions to show that she “[is] able to deal positively with [the] situation or problem that gave rise to the previous incident(s) of child . . . maltreatment” … . As petitioner contends, the ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] failed to consider the evidence of psychological rehabilitation showing that she could deal positively with the trauma she suffered as a result of the domestic violence inflicted upon her by the father, which precipitated the indicated report. Petitioner’s marriage and family therapist submitted a letter explaining that petitioner had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder “as a result of the relationship” with the father, but that petitioner “ha[d] made an enormous amount of progress and ha[d] reached her treatment goals,” and “in no way presented as an unfit parent” during the course of her treatment. The psychologist who performed a comprehensive evaluation and testing of petitioner opined that, despite having been “aggressively abused” by the father, there was no indication that petitioner harbored “resentments toward others,” petitioner showed “no defensiveness or tendency to distort the facts of the situation,” and petitioner scored “unusually low” on the potential for abuse scale, which demonstrated that petitioner had “none of the characteristics, personal status or problems with the child or family members that would raise the question of abusive potential on her part.” Petitioner also had a “significantly elevated score on the scale indicating . . . the tendency to maintain emotional stability and to adequately deal with interpersonal exchanges.” Moreover, the ALJ ignored petitioner’s testimony about her improved ability to deal positively with emotionally challenging situations and the letters from other individuals attesting to petitioner’s ability to properly parent the child. The record therefore indisputably establishes that petitioner is able to deal positively with the situation or problem that gave rise to the indicated report. Matter of Hastings v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 2024 NY Slip Op 02436, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: A person who has been found to have committed acts of child maltreatment can petition the NYS Office of Children and Family Services for a ruling precluding the agency from informing any childcare provider of licensing agency of the maltreatment, thereby clearing the way for that person’s employment in the childcare field.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF BROUGHT AN EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION ACTION IN FEDERAL COURT; DEFENDANTS WERE AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FEDERAL ACTION; BECAUSE THE FEDERAL COURT DID NOT EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S NYS AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF PURSUED THEM IN STATE COURT; HOWEVER ALL THE STATE ISSUES HAD BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE FEDERAL ACTION; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE STATE ACTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined that the employment discrimination and retaliation claims brought by plaintiff adjunct professor against New York University under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law were precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Plaintiff had brought a federal action based upon the same facts which was dismissed, but the District Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city Human Rights Law causes of action. Plaintiff therefore could pursue those causes of action in state court. But because all the issues had been sufficiently dealt with by the federal court, the collateral estoppel doctrine was triggered:

The courts below properly applied our established principles of collateral estoppel in the context of the unique requirements of the City Human Rights Law. Collateral estoppel “bars the relitigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment” and so “the determination of an essential issue is binding in a subsequent action, even if it recurs in the context of a different claim” … . If there is identity of issues between the prior determination and the instant litigation, and the precluded party had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination, collateral estoppel applies and the prior determination is binding in the subsequent action … . Russell v New York Univ., 2024 NY Slip Op 02226, CtApp 4-25-24

Practice Point: In an employment discrimination and retaliation case brought in federal court, a plaintiff can ask the federal court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over New York State and New York City Human Rights Law causes of action. Where, as here, the federal court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the plaintiff may pursue those actions in state court. Here, because plaintiff lost the federal case, and all the issues raised in the state case were addressed in the federal case, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the state action.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant employer in this traffic accident case did not demonstrate the defendant driver was an independent contractor as opposed to an employee acting within the scope of employment:

… [Plaintiff] allegedly was injured when a vehicle he was operating collided with a vehicle owned and operated by the defendant Luis F. Leal. * * * The plaintiffs alleged … that Leal was [defendant] Publishers’ employee, and that Leal was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. …

“The doctrine of respondeat superior renders a master vicariously liable for a tort committed by his [or her] servant within the scope of employment. Conversely, the general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor’s negligent acts” … . “[T]he critical inquiry in determining whether an employment relationship exists pertains to the degree of control exercised by the purported employer over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results” … . “Factors relevant to assessing control include whether the worker (1) worked at his [or her] own convenience, (2) was free to engage in other employment, (3) received fringe benefits, (4) was on the employer’s payroll and (5) was on a fixed schedule” … . “The fact that a contract exists designating a person as an independent contractor is to be considered, but is not dispositive” … . Whether an actor is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual issue for a jury … . Brielmeier v Leal, 2024 NY Slip Op 02163, Second Dept 4-24-24

Practice Point: An employer may be responsible for the negligence of an employee, but is not responsible for the negligence of an independent contractor. The fact that the employment contract uses the term “independent contractor” is not dispositive. The relevant criteria are explained.

 

, , ,

THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM’S DENIAL OF COURT EMPLOYEES’ APPLICATIONS FOR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE AFFIRMED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department affirmed the NYS Unified Court System’s (UCS’s) denial applications for religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine mandate. The issue was analyzed under both the US and NYS Constitutions. The USC held the petitioners (USC employees) failed to meet the qualifications for employment by not complying with the mandate. The decision is too detailed to fairly summarize here, but is well worth reading for the constitutional analyses:

Conducting the appropriate level of review, we find that the vaccine mandate was rationally related to the legitimate goals of slowing the spread of COVID-19 and fully reopening courts to “promote efficient access to justice” … . Indeed, “[w]hatever their merits or efficacy, it cannot be said that the State’s policies are an irrational means to achieve the legitimate goal of curbing the spread of COVID-19” … . Matter of Ferrelli v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 02012, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: The NYS Unified Court System’s denial of employees’ applications for religious exemptions from the COVID vaccine mandate did not violate the US or NYS Constitutions.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE “NO WAGE THEFT LOOPHOLE ACT” AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s claims for failure to pay wages and retaliation pursuant to Labor Law sections 193, 198 and  215 should not have been dismissed:

The court incorrectly dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law claims on the ground that the dispute was governed solely by the parties’ contract. Contrary to defendants’ contention, Labor Law claims for unpaid wages can be asserted alongside claims for breach of an employment contract … . …

The complaint … adequately states a claim for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” under the No Wage Theft Loophole Act … . Plaintiff alleges that his employment contract entitled him to an annual salary of $425,000 per year, which would increase in six months to $450,000 per year unless his performance was deemed “unsatisfactory,” and a cash bonus incentive … .” These “earnings . . . for labor or services rendered” constituted “wages” within the meaning of Labor Law 190(1) … . …

The complaint also states a claim for retaliation. Plaintiff’s notice of resignation subject to cure constituted protected activity, as plaintiff “made a complaint” to defendants that they had “engaged in conduct that [plaintiff], reasonably and in good faith, believe[d]” constituted unlawful withholding of his earned wages, specifically his nondiscretionary annual bonus (Labor Law § 215[1][a]). Plaintiff’s characterization of the bonus as “formulaic and a nondiscretionary wage” evidences his belief that he had a legal entitlement to the bonus and that defendants’ withholding of it was unlawful … . Neu v Amelia US LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02019, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged he was not paid the salary and bonuses called for in his employment contract. The complaint stated causes of action for “unauthorized failure to pay wages” and “retaliation” under the Labor Law.

 

THERE EXISTS A STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AN EMPLOYER’S FAILURE TO ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT A WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a cause of action under N-PCL 715-b (a) based on the employer’s (ZOA’s) alleged failure to adopt and implement whistleblower policies:

… [P]laintiff has sufficiently alleged a cause of action under N-PCL 715-b(a). This statute requires certain nonprofit organizations to adopt and implement whistleblower policies to protect individuals who report suspected improper conduct from retaliatory conduct and defendants failed to refute plaintiff’s allegation that he was an employee rather than an officer of ZOA … . Rosen v Zionist Org. of Am., 2024 NY Slip Op 01770, First Dept 3-28-24

Practice Point: N-PCL 715-b (a) provides a cause of action against an employer for failure to adopt and implement a policy to protect whistleblowers.

 

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