Posted on February 22, 2007 by Kevin Sheerin

MTA retiree not entitled to Health Insurance - less than 10 years service

Bahr v. MTA 2007 NY Slip Op 50038U January 04, 2007 (Approx. 2 pages)

Petitioner was an employee of New York City Transit Authority. After his retirement, he brought this suit against New York City Transit Authority when he was informed that he would no longer be receiving health insurance as part of his retirement benefits.

Under Respondent’s system, an employee must have five years of credited service to vest in pension benefits and ten years of credited service to vest for health insurance coverage. Petitioner satisfied the requirements for pension benefits, but was improperly given post retirement health insurance. Respondent had sent Petitioner a letter letting him know he was eligible for post retirement health insurance benefits, and after he had received these benefits for two years, Respondent discovered that he in fact was not eligible for these benefits. Subsequently, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter informing him that he was not eligible for health insurance benefits and his coverage would be terminated. After his insurance coverage was terminated, Petitioner requested for the Court to set aside Respondent’s rule that requires ten years of credited service to be eligible for health insurance. The Court decided against Petitioner stating “Petitioner fails to provide the support for the grounds of such relief and the legal authority of the court to grant such.”

The MTA employment website is www.mta.info/mta/employment/index.html

Tags:
Posted on February 22, 2007 by Kevin Sheerin

Retiree allowed post retirement hearing for "name clearing"

Murphy v. City of New York 35 A.D.3d 319, 827 N.Y.S.2d 46 N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2006. December 28, 2006

Petitioner claimed that he was forced to retire from his position with the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, and asked for a pre-termination hearing on his forced retirement and a post-termination hearing to clear his name. The Court denied the pre-termination hearing holding that Petitioner’s retirement is deemed voluntary so no trial or hearing on the issue was warranted. The Court held for Petitioner on the matter of the name-clearing post-termination hearing. It held that the report prepared Respondents’ Department of Investigation contained inaccuracies that were stigmatizing to Petitioner. The court held that the requirement of loss of employment had been met regardless of whether or not Petitioner was fired or had retired.

Tags:
Posted on February 22, 2007 by Kevin Sheerin

No new list created for Petitioners placed on eligible list one month before expiration

Carozza v. City of New York N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2007 - February 13, 2007

Public employees were improperly disqualified from the promotions list. They were placed on the promotions list one month before its expiration. They petitioned to have a separate promotions list established for them that wouldn’t expire in one month. The Court rejected this because the initial improper disqualification wasn’t a flaw in the entire process that would require the Court not to recognize the expiring list and therefore replace it with the separate list requested.

The Department of Citywide Administrative Services handles NYC personnel issues.

Tags:
Posted on February 22, 2007 by Kevin Sheerin

Late Notice dooms suit for School Employee

Matter of Angarano v. Harrison Cent. School Dist. (Special Term, Westchester County)

Petitioner was a probationary employee of Respondent School District.  During his probationary period, Petitioner was accused of sexual harassment by two co-workers and subsequently terminated based on Respondents’ findings during the investigation of the sexual harassment claims.  Petitioner sought reinstatement claiming that Respondents’ decision to terminate him was in bad faith because it was not based on the sexual harassment claims, but, instead, those claims were solicited and used as a pretext for respondent to terminate Petitioner.  The Court found for Respondents, but never reached the merits of the case.  Instead, it dismissed Petitioner’s claim for failure to file a notice of claim to the School District within the appropriate three month time period.  While not deciding the case on the issue of whether termination was proper, the court discussed that issue and reasoned Respondents’ decision was based in good faith and neither arbitrary nor capricious, so still would be upheld.

The Harrison Central School District website is

www.harrisoncsd.org/

Tags: ,
Posted on February 22, 2007 by Kevin Sheerin

Deputy Sheriff's Article 78 denied - Firing for off duty investigation was proper

Matter of Eck v. County of Del. (App Div Third Dept)

A deputy Sheriff was terminated after it was found that he had engaged in an off-duty investigation of another employee and his ex-wife.  Petitioner brought an Article 78 appeal for reinstatement.  Termination was upheld as proper.  It was determined that there was sufficient evidence to show that he used his position to conduct the surveillance and his conduct amounted to conduct unbecoming of  a County employee.

Tags: ,
Posted on February 19, 2007 by Kevin Sheerin

Firefighter firing for false statements on application upheld

Matter of Tezeno v. City of Watertown  (App Div Fourth Dept)

A firefighter was fired from his position for making false statements on his job application.  Following his termination, Petitioner brought an Article 78 appeal to challenge this determination. The court found for Respondent holding its decision was supported by ample evidence and termination was not too disproportionate to the offense.

Tags: