Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Mr. Dourdounas, a high school math teacher, was assigned to the Absent Teacher Reserve (ATR) in 2012. The ATR is a pool of teachers whose positions were eliminated but who were not terminated. In 2017, the DOE and UFT created a voluntary severance package for ATR teachers. Mr. Dourdounas, believing he was still in the ATR pool, applied for the severance package but was denied because the DOE claimed he had been permanently hired at Bronx International High School.Mr. Dourdounas followed the grievance process outlined in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the DOE and UFT. After exhausting the grievance process, including an internal appeal within the UFT, he commenced an article 78 proceeding against the City, alleging breach of contract for denying him the retirement incentive. The DOE moved to dismiss the petition on several grounds, including timeliness and failure to state a cause of action.The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as time-barred, and the Appellate Division affirmed, stating that the statute of limitations began when Mr. Dourdounas was informed of the denial in July 2017. The Appellate Division held that pursuing the grievance process did not toll the statute of limitations.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but on different grounds. The court held that under the precedent set in Ambach, an employee cannot seek judicial review of a claim arising under a CBA without alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by the union. Since Mr. Dourdounas did not allege such a breach, his claim was dismissed. The court also clarified that claims arising solely from a CBA must be brought as a breach of contract action, not through an article 78 proceeding. View "Matter of Dourdounas v City of New York" on Justia Law

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on June 30, 2017, when Henry Bello, a former employee of Bronx-Lebanon Hospital (BLH), entered the hospital armed with a rifle and opened fire, killing one doctor and wounding five members of the medical staff, including Justin Timperio, a first-year resident. Bello and Timperio were strangers prior to the shooting; they never worked at BLH at the same time and had no other prior contact. Following the incident, BLH notified the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) of Timperio's injuries. Timperio also filed a negligence action in federal court against BLH and the store that sold Bello the rifle.The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined that Timperio's injuries were compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law (WCL). Timperio appealed to the WCB, which affirmed the decision. However, the Appellate Division reversed the decision, holding that the lack of record evidence establishing any employment-related animus was sufficient to rebut the presumption in WCL § 21 (1) and concluded that the claim was therefore not compensable.The New York Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Appellate Division. The court clarified the operation of the rebuttable presumption set forth in Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (1), which provides that when an injury arises in the course of a worker's employment, it is presumed to arise out of that worker's employment and therefore is compensable, absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The court held that in cases involving assaults that occur at work, a lack of evidence as to the motivation for the assault does not rebut that presumption. The court concluded that the presumption applied and was unrebutted in this case, and the Appellate Division's contrary conclusion was error. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the decision of the Workers' Compensation Board was reinstated. View "In re Timperio v Bronx-Lebanon Hospital" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, an adjunct professor at New York University (NYU), experienced offensive and demeaning conduct from her colleagues, including unsolicited offensive mail and online impersonation. She reported these incidents to NYU, which conducted investigations and took measures to limit the impact on her. However, dissatisfied with NYU's response, she filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against NYU and certain administrators, as well as the individuals she claimed were responsible for the conduct against her. The lawsuit alleged discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.The federal court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that NYU responded negligently or that her termination was a pretext for discrimination. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (State HRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL), dismissing those claims without prejudice. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her hostile work environment and retaliation claims, and the Second Circuit affirmed.While her appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed a nearly identical suit in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, alleging violations of the State and City HRLs, renewing her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, adding another NYU administrator as a defendant, and asserting a new protected category of disability. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint as barred by collateral estoppel and for failing to state a claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, and the plaintiff appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the plaintiff's claims were barred by collateral estoppel based on the findings of the federal district court. The court also held that the individual defendants, who were the plaintiff's co-workers rather than her supervisors, could not be held liable under the City HRL. The court noted that while the City HRL provides for individual liability, it does so only for those who have a role in administering the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's employment. View "Russell v New York Univ." on Justia Law

In this case, the petitioners, who are members of Local 461, a union representing lifeguards employed by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, sought to enforce certain provisions in the union's local and parent constitutions governing the eligibility of seasonal lifeguard members to vote and run for office in union elections. However, the court below dismissed the petition on the grounds of a precedent case, Martin v Curran, which states that unless every individual member of the union authorized or ratified the challenged conduct, the case cannot move forward.The Court of Appeals clarified that Martin does not apply when union members seek non-monetary injunctive relief against a union. The court nevertheless upheld the lower courts' decisions denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court found that the union had reasonably interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the union's constitutions, which require members to maintain good standing through regular payment of dues to be eligible to vote and run for office. Even assuming that seasonal lifeguards were granted a six-month dues credit, they still would not meet the requirements for good standing in the 12 months before the election.Thus, the court affirmed the orders below, concluding that the union's interpretation of its constitutional provisions regarding member eligibility to vote and run for office was reasonable under the circumstances. View "In re Agramonte v Local 461" on Justia Law

The case involves a plaintiff, Nafeesa Syeed, an Asian-American woman who sued Bloomberg L.P., alleging employment discrimination. She claimed she was subjected to discrimination due to her sex and race while working for Bloomberg's Washington, D.C. bureau, and was denied promotions for positions she sought within Bloomberg's New York bureau.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed her claims under both the State and City Human Rights Laws, stating that she could not show how Bloomberg's conduct impacted her in New York State or City, as she neither lived nor worked there. The court held that the Human Rights Laws applied only to people who live or work in New York.This decision was appealed, and the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals: whether a nonresident plaintiff not yet employed in New York City or State satisfies the impact requirement of the New York City Human Rights Law or the New York State Human Rights Law if the plaintiff pleads and later proves that an employer deprived the plaintiff of a New York City- or State-based job opportunity on discriminatory grounds.The Court of Appeals held that the New York City and New York State Human Rights Laws each protect nonresidents who are not yet employed in the city or state but who proactively sought an actual city- or state-based job opportunity. The court reasoned that a nonresident who has been discriminatorily denied a job in New York City or State loses the chance to work, and perhaps live, within those geographic areas, and such a prospective inhabitant or employee fits within the Human Rights Laws' protection. The court highlighted that their decision was in line with the policy considerations addressed in the Human Rights Laws, protecting New York institutions and the general welfare of the state and city. View "Syeed v Bloomberg L.P." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Srecko Bazdaric, was injured while painting an escalator during a renovation project. The escalator was covered with a plastic sheet, which Bazdaric slipped on, sustaining injuries that left him unable to work. He and his wife sued the owners of the premises and the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6), which requires employers to provide safe working conditions. The Court of Appeals of New York held that the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment as to liability on their Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court found that the plastic covering was a slipping hazard that the defendants failed to remove, in violation of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), making the defendants liable under Labor Law § 241 (6). The court also found that the plastic covering was not integral to the paint job but was a nonessential and inherently slippery plastic that caused Bazdaric's injuries. The court reversed the lower court's conclusion to the contrary. View "Bazdaric v Almah Partners LLC" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals of the State of New York held that the plaintiff, a certified diesel technician, was not engaged in an activity protected by Labor Law § 240 (1) when he was injured while repairing a trailer. The plaintiff was working beneath a lifted trailer, fixing a faulty air brake system, when the trailer fell on him. He sued on the grounds that the defendant failed to provide him with adequate safety devices, as required by Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found that the statute was not intended to cover ordinary vehicle repair. The court reasoned that, while the statute protects workers from elevation-related risks in industries like construction, it does not cover every instance where a worker is injured as a result of an elevation differential. The court also noted that extending the statute's coverage to ordinary vehicle repair could lead to an overly broad interpretation that would place undue liability on car owners for injuries sustained by mechanics. Thus, the court affirmed the dismissal of the section 240 (1) cause of action against the defendant. View "Stoneham v Joseph Barsuk, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2018, a worker, Thomas Lazalee, filed a claim for benefits after suffering a right thumb injury and carpal tunnel syndrome, for which he underwent surgery. His employer, Wegman's Food Markets, Inc., did not challenge the claim and compensated Lazalee at the temporary total disability rate. In 2019, Lazalee was diagnosed with similar injuries to his left hand, and again, Wegman's compensated him at the temporary total disability rate. Lazalee then requested a hearing to amend the previous award to include these additional injuries.At the hearing, Wegman's accepted liability but sought to cross-examine Lazalee's doctor regarding the degree of impairment during Lazalee's most recent period out of work. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied this request, ruling that Lazalee's 11.2-week absence was not excessive. This decision was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board and the Appellate Division, with the latter finding that Wegman's request to cross-examine the doctor was disingenuous because it came after Wegman's had already paid Lazalee at the total disability rate until his return to work, and was based solely on the employer's counsel's interpretation of the medical reports without any credible medical evidence to the contrary.However, the New York Court of Appeals reversed these decisions, holding that under the rules of the Workers' Compensation Board, if an employer wishes to cross-examine an attending physician whose report is on file, the referee must grant an adjournment for such purpose. The court found that the WCLJ did not have the discretion to deny Wegman's request for cross-examination made at the hearing before the WCLJ had rendered a decision on the merits. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division with instructions to remand to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings in accordance with the Court of Appeals' opinion. View "Matter of Lazalee v Wegman's Food Mkts., Inc." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the appellate division reversing the decision of Supreme Court granting Plaintiffs summary judgment and enjoining enforcement of New York City Administrative Code 10-181, which makes criminal the use of certain restraints by police officers during an arrest, holding that Administrative Code 10-181 does not violate the New York Constitution on either preemption or due process grounds.After Administrative Code 10-181 became law Plaintiffs - law enforcement unions - commenced this action seeking a declaration that the local law was unconstitutional because it was field and conflict preempted by a combination of state laws and that it was void for vagueness and seeking to enjoin the law's enforcement. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs and enjoined enforcement of section 10-181. The appellate division reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) section 10-181 was a valid exercise of the City's municipal law-making authority because the legislature has not preempted the field; and (2) Plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on their vagueness challenge. View "Police Benevolent Ass'n of City of New York, Inc. v. City of New York" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the appellate division affirming the judgment of Supreme Court granting in part Petitioners' combined N.Y. C.P.L.R. 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action to challenge Local Law No. 2 and its transfer of police disciplinary authority to the Police Accountability Board (PAB), holding that the appellate division did not err.In 2019, the City of Rochester approved Local Law No. 2 creating the PAB, a body of nine residents of the City granted the exclusive authority to "investigate and make determinations respecting" any police officer accused of misconduct, including the power to impose disciplinary sanctions such as dismissal if the officer is found guilty. Because these disciplinary procedures deviated from the procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) then in effect, Petitioner commenced this action challenging Local Law No. 2's transfer of police disciplinary authority to the PAB. The Court of Appeals held that the portion of the local law addressing police discipline exceeded the City's authority under the Municipal Home Rule Law and was invalid. View "Rochester Police Locust Club, Inc. v. City of Rochester" on Justia Law