Skip to main content

Acting Within the Scope of Employment: Employees' Right to Have City Provide Defense



In the Matter of Deborah Sagal-Cotler v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, et al.

In the Matter of Josephine Thomas v. New York City Department of Education, et al.

Both cases were ruled upon by the New York Court of Appeals

Facts:  Both petitioners were paraprofessionals employed in New York City public schools who had been sued by students who alleged that the petitioners had hit them.  Both petitioners did not dispute that their actions, regarding corporal punishment of the students, violated a Rule of the Board of Regents which prohibited corporal punishment.  When both petitioners asked the City of New York to defend them, the city refused on the grounds that the petitioners actions precluded them from having the City pay for their defense.  The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to a defense paid for by the City under Education Law § 3028.  This section provided for a defense paid for by the City when a complained of action arose out of the actions of a City employee who was in the discharge of their duties within the scope of their employment.  The City argued that since the petitioners actions violated a regulation regarding corporal punishment, § 3028 did not apply. 

Holding:  For both cases, the court held that the employees of the New York City Department of Education were entitled to a defense provided by the City of New York, notwithstanding the fact that the employees' conduct violated a State regulation.  The Court reasoned that since the petitioners were acting with the scope of their employment, the authors of § 3028 intended to provide a defense even in situations in which an employee's use of corporal punishment violated a regulation.

Judgment:  The Court of Appeals reversed both cases and remitted them to the New York County Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the Court's position.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Smith

Date:  April 25, 2013

Opinion:  http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2013/Apr13/73-74opn13-Decision.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more