Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, an employee of a commercial cleaning company, was injured after falling from a ladder while providing janitorial services for a retail store. Plaintiff was dusting a display shelf when he fell. Plaintiff brought an action under N.Y. Lab. Law 240(1) against the retail store and the building owner. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that the statute did not apply to workers employed on a daily basis to conduct routine commercial cleaning, such as the dusting, sweeping, mopping, and general tidying that Plaintiff was engaged in at the time of his injury. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiff was not engaged in an activity that fell within the purview of Labor Law 240(1) at the time of his injury. View "Soto v. J. Crew Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner was a State employee. Suspecting that Petitioner was submitting false time reports, the State attached a global positioning system (GPS) device to Petitioner's car. After a report by the Inspector General based on evidence obtained from the GPS device, the Commissioner of Labor terminated Petitioner's employment. The appellate division confirmed the Commissioner's determination and dismissed the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) pursuant to People v. Weaver and United States v. Jones, the State's action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions; (2) the search in this case did not require a warrant; but (3) the State failed to demonstrate that the search was reasonable. Remanded. View "Cunningham v. State Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant, which operated floating dry docks where workers repaired and maintained vessels for tug and barge companies and for the City of New York. Plaintiffs sued Defendant and its sureties seeking enforcement of contractual provisions requiring the payment of the prevailing rate of wages and supplemental benefits. Specifically, Plaintiffs contended the vehicles they worked on were "public works" within the meaning of N.Y. Lab. Law 220 and N.Y. Const. art. I, 17. The lower courts found that the vessels in question were not "public works" and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) a three-prong test should be applied to determine whether a particular project is subject to the prevailing wage requirements of Labor Law 200 and N.Y. Const. art. I, 17; and (2) because the three-prong test was met in this case, including the requirement that the vessels' primary objective is to benefit the general public, Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability should be granted. View "De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co." on Justia Law

Under N.Y. Labor Law 196-d, an employer's "agent" may not retain tips. Two former Starbucks baristas brought a putative class action in the U.S. district court alleging that Starbucks' policy of allowing shift supervisors to receive distributions violated section 196-d. The district court concluded that the supervisors could participate in tip pools because their responsibilities did not render them Starbucks agents. Meanwhile, several former Starbucks assistant store managers filed a separate complaint asserting that assistant store managers should be entitled to participate in the tips pools. The U.S. district court concluded that section 196-d does not compel an employer to include any particular eligible employee in a tip pool. On appeal from both cases, the court of appeals certified two questions of law to the New York Court of Appeals, which answered by holding (1) an employee whose personal service to patrons is a principal part of his duties may participate in a tip allocation arrangement under section 196-d even if he possesses limited supervisory responsibilities, but an employee granted meaningful control over subordinates is not eligible to participate in a tip pool; and (2) Starbucks' decision to exclude assistant store managers from the tip pool was not contrary to section 196-d. View "Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp." on Justia Law

In 2003, School District announced to its faculty and staff, who were represented by Union, that the district's practice of reimbursing Medicare Part B premiums of retirees sixty-five years or older would be terminated. Union filed a contract grievance, alleging that School District violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the parties by failing to negotiate cancellation of Medicare Part B premium reimbursement. After a hearing, an arbitrator concluded that the district was not contractually obligated to reimburse Medicare Part B premiums. The Union also filed an improper practice charge with the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). An ALJ concluded that School District had violated N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law 209-a(1) because the district promised in the past to reimburse current employees' post-retirement Medicare Part B premiums. PERB denied the district's exceptions and affirmed the ALJ. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) it was reasonable for PERB not to defer to the arbitrator's findings relating to past practice; (2) PERB's decision in regard to past practice was supported by substantial evidence; and (3) the continued Medicare Part B premium reimbursement was not unconstitutional. View "Chenango Forks Cent. Sch. Dist. v. State Pub. Employee Relations Bd." on Justia Law

In 2002, the City of Yonkers and Yonkers Fire Fighters entered into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Pursuant to the CBA, the City offered its firefighters the option of enrolling in retirement plans in which the City would bear the complete cost of contributions. In the CBA terminated in June 2009. In 2010, the Legislature enacted N.Y. Retir. & Soc. Sec. 22, which required new members of the state and local fire retirement system to contribute three percent of their salaries toward their pensions. Thereafter, the City required firefighters who were hired after June 2009 to pay three percent of their wages toward retirement benefits. The Union protested to the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that the City erred in failing to apply the CBA to firefighters hired by the City after the CBA's termination date. PERB referred the matter to arbitration. The City requested a permanent stay of arbitration on the ground that arbitration was statutorily barred. The Court of Appeals found that the arbitration sought by the Union was barred as an impermissible negotiation of pension benefits, as the non-contributory pension benefits to which firefighters were entitled pursuant to the CBA were prohibited by article 22. View "City of Yonkers v. Yonkers Fire Fighters, Local 628" on Justia Law

Claimant sustained a back injury while employed by Respondent. Claimant applied for and received workers' compensation benefits. Later, Claimant entered a plea of guilty to insurance fraud in the fourth degree by entering an Alford plea. At a subsequent workers' compensation hearing, Respondent's workers' compensation carrier sought to preclude Claimant from further benefits based on the guilty plea. The Workers' Compensation Board gave preclusive effect to Claimant's guilty plea and found Claimant violated the Workers' Compensation Law. The appellate division reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that it was impossible to conclude that Claimant's conviction was based upon the same circumstances alleged to be fraudulent in the workers' compensation proceeding, and therefore, the plea did not prohibit Claimant from challenging the workers' compensation violation alleged. View "Howard v. Stature Elec., Inc." on Justia Law

The Bath Volunteer Fire Department (BVFD), a not-for-profit fire corporation, obtained its own financing for the construction of a new firehouse and hired Petitioner as the general contractor. The Department of Labor subsequently concluded that the firehouse project was a public work subject to the prevailing wage law. BVFD agreed to indemnify Petitioner and its subcontractors against any liability resulting from their failure to pay the prevailing wages, and thereafter, the project was completed. The Appellate Division confirmed the determination that the project was subject to the prevailing wage law. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because no public agency, as contemplated by N.Y. Labor Law 220, was a party to the contract, the prevailing wage law did not apply. View "M.G.M. Insulation, Inc. v. Gardner" on Justia Law

These three cases stemmed from a residency policy that called for employees of the City of Niagara Falls School District hired or promoted after the policy's effective date to reside in the City and maintain residency there during their employment. Here the District's Administrator for Human Resources notified three employees that they were suspected of violating the residency policy. The Board then terminated the employees' employment for failure to comply with the policy. On appeal, the Appellate Court (1) found that the District did not meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the employee had changed her domicile in the first case; (2) found the Board's determination was not arbitrary and capricious in the second case; and (3) determined that the third employee's termination was arbitrary and capricious. The Court of Appeals reversed in the first case, affirmed in the second case, and reversed and remanded in the third case, holding (1) the residency policy and its implementing regulations were clear and unambiguous; (2) the District's notice-and-hearing procedures easily complied with due process; and (3) in the majority of these cases, the Board's determinations were not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. View "Beck-Nichols v. Bianco" on Justia Law

Each of these consolidated appeals involved a police officer who responded to provide assistance at the World Trade Center following the September 11, 2001 attacks. Two officers sought accidental disability retirement benefits (Bitchatchi and Macri), and the surviving spouse of another officer made a claim for line-of-duty death benefits (Maldonado). The primary issue was whether the pension fund Respondents produced competent evidence to rebut the statutory World Trade Center (WTC) presumption accorded to Petitioners' claims. The WTC presumption states that an officer's disability or death as a result of a qualifying condition is presumed to be caused by his or her exposure at the WTC site for purposes of benefit upgrades. The Supreme Court held that Respondents in these cases did not meet their burden of disproving that the officers' disabilities or death were causally related to their work at the WTC and related sites, thus affirming in Bitchatchi and Macri and reversing in Maldonado. View "Bitchatchi v. N.Y. City Police Dep't Pension Fund Bd. of Trs." on Justia Law