Articles Posted in Public Employees’ Rights

An often misunderstood part of America’s guarantee of “free speech” is that the Constitution (the source of free speech rights), restricts only the government’s ability to regulate speech. Private citizens are not prohibited from restricting speech. For example, a restaurant owner may deny service to a customer who is wearing a political shirt which the owner finds offensive. But, the city in which the restaurant is located cannot pass an ordinance which requires restaurants to deny service to customers who wear a shirt which supports a specific political party.

Thus, for an individual to have a lawsuit under the First Amendment for a violation of free speech, the individual must first be able to prove “state action,” i.e. that the government, and not a private individual, caused the deprivation of rights.

Usually, this distinction is not difficult. Typically, its apparent whether the government is restricting speech or whether a private individual is restricting speech. On March 18, 2024, however, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case where the distinction was not easy to determine. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the decision issued in Lindke v. Freed.

On Tuesday September 14, 2021, two judges issued orders blocking vaccine mandate requirements from taking effect in New York. One ruling from a federal judge, blocks a state requirement concerning health care workers and another ruling from a state court judge blocks a New York City requirement concerning city workers. What do these rulings mean for the future of the mandates? Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses these orders.

Federal Judge Blocks State Health Care Worker Vaccine Mandate

On August 26, 2021, New York State’s Department of Health issued a rule that requires that healthcare workers in the state get a Covid-19 vaccine. Workers in hospitals and nursing homes must receive a first dose by September 27, 2021 and others must receive a first dose by October 7.

On April 1, 2021, Long Island employment lawyers Famighetti & Weinick PLLC filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The Petition asks the court to take up a case concerning the due process rights of public employees. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the case and the petition.

Since 2019, employment attorney Matt Weinick has worked as co-counsel representing four former high ranking New York City Police Department officers. On behalf of the officers and along with co-counsel, the firm filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging that the City of New York Police Department deprived the officers of due process by coercing their resignations without providing notice of charges against them or an opportunity to be heard about allegations of wrongdoing, constituting a deprivation of due process. The complaint alleged that the City acted to avoid a departmental hearing and wanted the officers removed from the department to take the fall for ongoing allegations of widespread corruption in the department. The case received press attention from, among other papers, the New York Post.

After the lawsuit was filed, the City ask the court to dismiss the case. The City argued that a 1984 case decided by New York’s federal appellate court, prohibited employees from suing municipalities for a violation of due process, when the claim is based on an allegation that the employees’ resignations were coerced. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.

Long Island employment lawyer Peter Famighetti has won a ruling on a threshold issue concerning an arbitration for a faculty member of Nassau Community College. Famighetti represents a college professor in a dispute related to the professor’s bid to become chairperson of his department. The professor alleged the teachers’ collective bargaining agreement was violated during the election process and ultimately filed a grievance to challenge the election process. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discuss what happened next in the grievance process.

After the professor started the grievance process via his union, the college challenged whether the professor’s issue could be heard in an arbitration. The college asserted two primary arguments. First, the college lodged a procedural arbitrability argument. This means that the college argued that the professor’s issues could not be arbitrated because, procedurally, he waited too long to file an initial grievance. In other words, the college alleged that the union contract’s deadlines for filing a grievance were not met by the professor.

Second, the college made a substantive arbitrability argument. This means the college argued that the professor’s issue could not be arbitrated because a determination had already been made in another professor’s grievance proceeding which addressed the same issues presented in this professor’s grievance. Because of that determination, the professor could not arbitrate his claims.

On April 10, 2019, the South Huntington Water District sent a letter to Juliet Irving. The Water District had been providing health insurance benefits to Irving as the surviving enrollee on a deceased employee’s insurance policy. The letter indicated the District would be revoking Irving’s health insurance coverage. Then, Irving hired Long Island employment lawyers Famighetti & Weinick PLLC who took the District to court and won a decision prohibiting the District from revoking the insurance. Today’s Long Island employment law blog discusses the case.

The foregoing is taken from the Court’s decision.

Irving had been a domestic partner of a District employee. Though they were not married, they considered themselves life partners. The employee received health insurance benefits from the District. The employee added Irving to his plan based on his understanding that the District participated in the New York State Health Insurance Program’s domestic partner coverage.

Long Island employment lawyer Peter J. Famighetti secured a sizeable settlement for a firm’s employment litigation client. The settlement amount totals just shy of $295,000 and was based on claims that the public employer violated constitutional due process and civil service laws. As discussed below, the case shows that Famighetti & Weinick PLLC is able to use a wide range of tactics along with its depth of knowledge of employment laws, to obtain quick and substantial results for clients, oftentimes without ever needing to file a lawsuit, as was the case here.

Public employees are employees who work for the state, city, town, or local government. Public employees can also be employed by quasi-government agencies or public benefit corporations, such as the MTA.

In New York, many public employees are entitled to job protections. These employees cannot be fired without cause and must be provided a hearing to determine whether cause exists. Further, the constitution requires that employees who enjoy these protections, must also be provided with a notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard on the charges, before a termination is made effective.  Whether public employees are entitled to job protections can be a fact specific inquiry, dependent on whether the employee is subject to a collective bargaining agreement, the civil service title, the type of civil service appointment, and the employee’s job responsibilities and reporting hierarchy.