<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0"><channel><atom:id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610</atom:id><lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:22:33 +0000</lastBuildDate><title>New York Public Personnel Law</title><description>Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State

ISSN 1937-4895</description><link>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/</link><managingEditor>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</managingEditor><generator>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>1581</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/Ilee" type="application/rss+xml" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" /><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-6996924681613703909</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:46:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-06T07:46:00.759-05:00</atom:updated><title>Adverse changes in the employees’ working environment following their involvement in a protected activity deemed a “constructive discharged”</title><atom:summary>Adverse changes in the employees’ working environment following their involvement in a protected activity deemed a “constructive discharged”Albunio v City of New York, 2009 NY Slip Op 07928, Decided on November 5, 2009, Appellate Division, First DepartmentFollowing a jury trial, New York State Supreme Court, Judge Martin Shulman awarded Robert Sorrenti $491,706 plus attorney's fees in the amount </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/DSja8nOhq2c/adverse-changes-in-employees-working.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/adverse-changes-in-employees-working.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-5955326439603943417</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:06:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-06T07:39:29.792-05:00</atom:updated><title>Evaluating claims for back pay upon reinstatement from a leave of absence</title><atom:summary>Evaluating claims for back pay upon reinstatement from a leave of absenceMatter of New York State Correctional Officer &amp; Police Benevolent Assn., Inc. v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 2009 NY Slip Op 07720, decided on October 29, 2009, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentElsie Pierre, a correction officer, suffered a work-related injury and was placed on workers' compensation </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/tZZbFPrzxN4/evaluating-claims-for-back-pay-upon.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/evaluating-claims-for-back-pay-upon.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-1190925397820719370</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:04:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-06T07:40:14.429-05:00</atom:updated><title>Payments to an employee to induce him or her to resign rather that being served with charges not included in final average salary calculation</title><atom:summary>Payments to an employee to induce him or her to resign rather that being served with charges not included in final average salary calculationHorowitz v NYS Teachers' Retirement System, App. Div., 3rd Dept., 293 AD2d 861The Horowitz case concerns the impact of making a lump-sum payment to an employee as an inducement to his or her submitting a resignation in lieu of being served with disciplinary </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/uN-5aKu0qMY/payments-to-employee-to-induce-him-or.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/payments-to-employee-to-induce-him-or.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-3845055761728785135</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:01:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-06T07:41:09.984-05:00</atom:updated><title>Employee’s claim of constructive notice of a triggering event underlying his or her applying for disability retirement rejected</title><atom:summary>Employee’s claim of constructive notice of a triggering event underlying his or her applying for disability retirement rejectedMatter of Koebel v New York State Comptroller, 2009 NY Slip Op 07727, Decided on October 29, 2009, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentTeresa M. Koebel, a member of the New York State Employees’ Retirement System, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/XqFkGVRUTnI/employees-claim-of-constructive-notice.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/employees-claim-of-constructive-notice.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-3496969578664577028</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:54:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-06T07:41:37.435-05:00</atom:updated><title>News Related to Civil Rights Litigation</title><atom:summary>News Related to Civil Rights LitigationSource: iNews © 2009 John D. Sargent - eeoinews@yahoo.com - All Rights ReservedU.S. Supreme CourtPublic Citizen’s most recent Sup Ct Watch list hereSCOTUSblog’s most recent Petitions to Watch hereRoss Runkel’s US Sup Ct Employment Law Cases – Pending &amp; decided hereOctober Term 2009Certiorari GrantedTitle VII Lewis, et al. v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974When </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/2ksKdWSX2fE/news-related-to-civil-rights-litigation.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/news-related-to-civil-rights-litigation.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-8855078248352209209</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:45:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-05T07:45:01.255-05:00</atom:updated><title>Election of retired public officers and employees to public office</title><atom:summary>Civil Service Law §150 - Suspension of pension and annuity benefits during public employmentA number of reports of election results indicate that some successful candidates currently employed by a New York State public employer have announced their intention of retiring from their current position in the public service. Some may find themselves confronting the so-called Law of Unforeseen </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/iSN5UyDqavc/election-of-retired-public-officers-and.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/election-of-retired-public-officers-and.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-310062199965561601</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:35:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-05T07:35:00.351-05:00</atom:updated><title>Authority of the Commissioner of Education to provide certain remedies in an Education Law Section 310 appeal</title><atom:summary>Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, 15,596; 15,597From time to time a petitioner will ask the Commissioner of Education to provide redress in addition to sustaining his or her appeal from a decision by school administrators or a school board.In a recent decision the Commissioner noted that he does not have the authority to sanction or reprimand board members or district staff [see Matter </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/ejg7nQA7TFw/authority-of-commissioner-of-education.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/authority-of-commissioner-of-education.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-6823443407078717037</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:20:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-06T22:40:17.116-05:00</atom:updated><title>Violating the terms and conditions of a disciplinary probationary period</title><atom:summary>Davis v Division of Military and Naval Affairs, 291 AD2d 778Disciplinary action was initiated against Randall Davis by his employer, the New York State Division of Military Affairs and Naval Affairs [DMNA], based on allegations that Davis was guilty of violating DMNA's Internet policy by using DMNA computers to visit inappropriate websites, including pornographic websites, and by using a </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/_WVsADn1_rg/violating-terms-and-conditions-of.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/violating-terms-and-conditions-of.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-2859032776882039864</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:20:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-05T06:20:00.839-05:00</atom:updated><title>Absence from work without permission during a strike creates a rebuttable presumption that individuals so absent are participating in the strike</title><atom:summary>Ahern [et al] v Jones, 292 A.D.2d 854Civil Service Law Section 210(2)(b), the Taylor Law, establishes a presumption that “For purposes of this subdivision an employee who is absent from work without permission, or who abstains wholly or in part from the full performance of his duties in his [or her] normal manner without permission, on the date or dates when a strike occurs, shall be presumed to </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/MLOq5HuvdUg/absence-from-work-without-permission.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/absence-from-work-without-permission.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-6441514904497999035</guid><pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:14:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-05T06:14:00.280-05:00</atom:updated><title>Retaliatory Personnel Action</title><atom:summary>Source: AELE Law Enforcement Legal Center, http://www.aele.org/, Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2009 AELEAELE has published an article entitled What constitutes employer retaliation?The article addresses performance ratings, blacklisting, unfriendly behavior, reassignments and transfers, and fitness for duty evaluations.The article is posted on the Internet at:http://www.aele.org/law/</atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/H6mqbigVXv4/retaliatory-personnel-action.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/retaliatory-personnel-action.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-8784182570971084561</guid><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:20:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-04T07:20:00.511-05:00</atom:updated><title>Processing resignations</title><atom:summary>Appeal of Christian Hodge from action of the Board of Education of the Gates-Chili Central School District regarding employment, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 15,992Christian Hodge challenged the decision of the Board of Education of the Gates-Chili Central School District to “accept his resignation” as director of physical education and athletics. The Commissioner </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/uSto8CehDh4/processing-resignations.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/processing-resignations.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-7430514900130630195</guid><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:53:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-04T06:53:00.347-05:00</atom:updated><title>An appeal from a Section 3020-a disciplinary determination must be filed within 10-days</title><atom:summary>Matter of Watkins v Board of Educ. of Port Jefferson Union Free School District, 26 A.D.3d 336Allen Watkins filed a petition pursuant to Article 78 challenging his termination following a disciplinary hearing held pursuant to Section 3020-a of the Education Law. He contended that “he had been denied a fair hearing, and that the hearing officer's determination was ‘arbitrary capricious and not </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/QjWy9XRl9_w/appeal-from-section-3020-disciplinary.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/appeal-from-section-3020-disciplinary.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-2414152639264576594</guid><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:46:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-04T06:46:00.498-05:00</atom:updated><title>Tests applied by courts in resolving a challenge to an arbitration award</title><atom:summary>Steuben County v CSEA Local 1000, 292 A.D.2d 810, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 98 N.Y.2d 606Unhappy with the decision of the arbitrator, Steuben County obtained an order from a State Supreme Court judge vacating the arbitrator's award. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, holding that:1. Steuben County did not meet its "heavy burden of demonstrating that the </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/IyHrrDPFDpc/tests-applied-by-courts-in-resolving.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/tests-applied-by-courts-in-resolving.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-2407701487210797343</guid><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-05T06:25:06.312-05:00</atom:updated><title>Police officer required to show his or her disability occurred while performing the duties of his or her position to qualify for GML 207-c benefits</title><atom:summary>White v Cortland County, Court of Appeals, 97 NY2d 336The White case explores the nature of the proof that a claimant must demonstrate to qualify for benefits under General Municipal Law Section 207-c.*In this case, the Court of Appeals said that Herbert I. White, a Cortland County corrections officer, did not have to prove that his performance of his job duties caused or contributed to his </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/viXrxbhduq8/police-officer-required-to-show-his-or.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/police-officer-required-to-show-his-or.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-8602455647789406238</guid><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:03:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-04T06:03:00.270-05:00</atom:updated><title>Duty to defend and indemnify a public officer or employee being sued in his or her official capacity</title><atom:summary>Bigger v Orange County, 293 A.D.2d 746Public Officers Law Section 18 authorizes a municipality to provide for the defense and indemnification of its officers and employees who are sued as a result of alleged acts or omissions involving the performance of their official duties.*Orange County Local Law 3 authorizes the County to provide for the defense and indemnification of its officers and </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/dlH_Wi3CGas/duty-to-defend-and-indemnify-public.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/duty-to-defend-and-indemnify-public.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-4517536424247471468</guid><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:36:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-05T06:26:54.338-05:00</atom:updated><title>Layoff/bumping to a lower grade position claimed to constitute age discrimination</title><atom:summary>Roundtree v Niagara Falls CSD, 294 A.D.2d 876Ernest A. Roundtree had about 40 years of service. He was demoted to a lower grade position after he said he would not retire from his position of maintenance foreman with the Niagara Falls City School District. Then 65 years old, Roundtree sued, claiming unlawful discrimination because of age. Supreme Court rejected the School District's motion to </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/6ZWq29pNR88/layoffbumping-to-lower-grade-position.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/layoffbumping-to-lower-grade-position.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-5409533844135113753</guid><pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:10:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-03T07:10:00.054-05:00</atom:updated><title>Determining eligibility for accidental disability retirement after being assigned to serve in a “light duty” position</title><atom:summary>Matter of Keil v New York State Comptroller, 2009 NY Slip Op 07732, Decided on October 29, 2009, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentPolice officer Robert W. Keil suffered a shoulder injury in the line of duty. After a period of sick leave, it was determined that Keil was able to perform limited-duty work. Assigned to perform light duty, he thereafter underwent surgery and upon his return </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/oKrLd7FSVaU/determining-eligibility-for-accidental.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/determining-eligibility-for-accidental.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-5923170509326414468</guid><pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:50:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-03T06:50:00.641-05:00</atom:updated><title>Determining if an employee’s job assignment constitutes out-of-title work</title><atom:summary>Arciello v Nassau County, 1 A.D.3d 300The general rule is that Section 61.2 of the Civil Service Law bars an employee from performing out-of-title work, other than that out-of-title work being performed on an emergency basis. How is "out-of-title work" determined? As the Court of Appeals said in Gavigan v McCoy, 37 NY2d 548, the job specifications for a title determines those tasks which may be </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/KkBzSsc5d_I/determining-if-employees-job-assignment.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/determining-if-employees-job-assignment.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-5106585388782294490</guid><pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:50:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-03T06:51:01.773-05:00</atom:updated><title>Suspension without pay pending resolution of a disciplinary action</title><atom:summary>Elmore v Mills, 296 AD2d 704Among the several issues considered by the Appellate Division, Third Department, in Elmore case was the suspension of a tenured teacher without pay pending resolution of disciplinary charges filed against the educator.Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District filed disciplinary charges against Edwin Elmore pursuant to Section 3020-a of the Education Law.Section </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/YWbfFpQwU3Q/suspension-without-pay-pending.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/suspension-without-pay-pending.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-6857029964603771979</guid><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:20:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-02T07:20:00.618-05:00</atom:updated><title>Employee suffering an illness or injury while at work is entitled to the statutory presumption that the disability arose in the course of employment</title><atom:summary>Matter of Browne v New York City Tr. Auth., 2009 NY Slip Op 07719, decided on October 29, 2009, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentThe Workers' Compensation Board ruled that there was no prima facie medical evidence that Rufus Browne, a New York City Transit Authority railroad track employee, claimed that he had suffered a work-related injury. Brown had experience “weakness” while on the job and</atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/FxJbVX0dbzY/employee-suffering-illness-or-injury.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/employee-suffering-illness-or-injury.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-8643348331730228546</guid><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:16:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-02T07:16:00.108-05:00</atom:updated><title>Exhausting administrative remedies</title><atom:summary>Matter of Newfield Cent. School Dist. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2009 NY Slip Op 07731, decided on October 29, 2009, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentThe State Division of Human Rights [SDHR] received separate complaints from the parents of two male students that attend Newfield Central School District schools that their sons had been the victims of gender discrimination in the way</atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/SUPFwM_4SgQ/exhausting-administrative-remedies.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/exhausting-administrative-remedies.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-1396055074797888461</guid><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:08:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-02T07:08:00.518-05:00</atom:updated><title>The Affordable Health Care for America Act</title><atom:summary>Source: The House of Representative, Committee on Education and LaborThe text of the proposed Affordable Health Care for America Act is available on the Internet. Click here: H.R. 3962 to view a copy of this 1,990 page document.Also available are various documents explaining the House version of the Act explaining the bill and its scope prepared by the House Committee on Education and Labor at: </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/p30b7hpWVqA/affordable-health-care-for-america-act.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/affordable-health-care-for-america-act.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-3651151786905658809</guid><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:04:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-02T07:04:00.658-05:00</atom:updated><title>Employee not entitled to a due process hearing following denial of employer’s rejecting claim for GML 207-c benefits</title><atom:summary>Matter of Schnurr v Nassau County, 2009 NY Slip Op 07853, Decided on October 27, 2009, Appellate Division, Second DepartmentThe Nassau County Sheriff's Department denied Lawrence Schnurr benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-c. Schnurr appealed the Department’s decision, first to Supreme Court and subsequently the Appellate Division.Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed Schnurr’s </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/yjNwx8ts2Wc/employee-not-entitled-to-due-process.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/employee-not-entitled-to-due-process.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-7770411092963100101</guid><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:32:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-02T06:32:00.382-05:00</atom:updated><title>Application for disability retirement benefits must be timely filed</title><atom:summary>Banks v NYS Employees' Retirement System, 271 AD2d 252 Section 62(aa)(2) of the Retirement and Social Security Law requires that a member seeking ordinary disability retirement benefits file his or her application for such benefits while actually in service or within 90 days of his or her discontinuance of service ... provided that the member was disabled prior to such discontinuance.The New York</atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/tK2mbcpixUg/application-for-disability-retirement.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/application-for-disability-retirement.html</feedburner:origLink></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2591491714418426610.post-2184422790940486730</guid><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:26:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-11-02T06:26:00.072-05:00</atom:updated><title>Standing to challenge administrative decisions by certain individuals and groups</title><atom:summary>Matter of Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v Common Council of the City of Albany, 2009 NY Slip Op 07667, decided on October 27, 2009, Court of AppealsIn this action, the Court of Appeals decided that “a person who can prove that he or she uses and enjoys a natural resource more than most other members of the public has standing under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) to challenge </atom:summary><link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/Ilee/~3/wGNHbr8rCHU/standing-to-challenge-administrative.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Public Employment Law Press)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/standing-to-challenge-administrative.html</feedburner:origLink></item></channel></rss>
