Category: Firm News

State Supreme Court Judge Awards Benefits to Correction Officer Who Sustained Serious Injuries During the Performance of His Duties

New York, New York July 31, 2002 – A Rockland County Correction Officer who was seriously injured while responding to an inmate disturbance, and who was subsequently denied Section 207-c benefits by the Rockland County Sheriffs Department, deserves all requested benefits, a State Supreme Court Justice has ruled. According to the Court’s decision, “This Court necessarily must find that respondents denial of Section 207-c benefits to petitioner was arbitrary and capricious, not rationally based, and an abuse of discretion.”

Correction Officer Dary Blanks suffered severe injuries to both his neck and back while assisting five other officers who were responding to an inmate disturbance on August 5, 1995. During the disturbance, the inmate struck one of the responding officers with a chair and a coffee pot. Immediately, Officer Blanks grabbed the inmate around his chest in an attempt to subdue him. The inmate continued to wail his arms and legs, at one point propelling Officer Blanks backwards onto the metal frame of the inmate’s bed.

While Officer Blanks continued to work after the incident, the injuries sustained to both his neck and back grew progressively worse, forcing him to seek continuous treatment from a number of specialists. According to a medical report performed by one of Mr. Blanks’ chiropractors, “based on the history of the accident as presented and examination findings, the examinee’s condition is a direct result of the accident of issue.” Subsequently, in September of 1996 Mr. Blanks filed a workers’ compensation claim and was awarded medical benefits thereafter.

Despite his unbearable discomfort, Mr. Blanks continued to work until the pain became so unbearable, given the physical nature of his duties, that he was forced to make two more visits to two different chiropractors, one in 2000 and the second in 2001. Following an MRI evaluation, which revealed that Mr. Blanks had, among other things, “broad based disc bulging” in his spine, Mr. Banks then filed for benefits under General Municipal Law Section 207-c.

The purpose behind Section 207-c is to compensate specified municipal employees for injuries incurred in the performance of special work, related to nature or heightened risks and duties. A month later, the Rockland County Sheriff’s Review Board informed officer Blanks that his request had been denied because “there is no medical documentation relating to a present casual relationship being established.”

In response to the denial of benefits, Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP attorney, Joey Jackson, filed an Article 78 petition challenging the board’s claim on the basis that their decision was, “arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion, given the substantial trail of medical documentation provided by Mr. Blanks. The causal link between officer Blanks’ injuries and the 1995 incident was unquestionable.”

Attorneys for the Rockland County’s Sheriff’s Department rested their argument for denying Mr. Banks’ 207-c benefits, primarily on the fact that it took the officer over six years to file for 207-c benefits. However, as Mr. Jackson noted, in his arguments, neither General Municipal Law Section 207-c nor Section II of the Rockland County Jail’s procedures, set forth any time frame or statute of limitation period for filing of benefits under Section 207-c.

Ultimately, State Supreme Court Justice, Andrew P. O’Rourke, concurred with Mr. Jackson noting, “rather than punishing petitioner for his delay in seeking benefits, as respondent implicitly suggests is appropriate, petitioner’s restraint in seeking benefits should be lauded as being in the public’s best interests.”

Speaking on behalf of officer Blanks and all Rockland County Correction Officers, the President of Rockland County Correction Officers Benevolent Association, William Hickey remarked, “This decision is a victory for all members of law enforcement who consistently put the public’s safety ahead of their own, during the performance of their dangerous duties.”

Charges Filed with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Allege That the New York City Department of Transportation Has a Pattern of Discriminating Against Female Applicants for Bridge Painter Positions

New York, New York May 8, 2002 – In five separate charges, with the fifth charge as recent as April 4, 2002, The Structural Steel and Bridge Painters of Greater New York, Local Union 806 and several of its members, allege that New York City’s Department of Transportation has a “pattern and practice of gender-based discrimination against female applicants for Bridge Painter”, according to the charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The allegations are based upon the DOT’s refusal to hire four qualified female applicants referred by Local 806 to the DOT for the position of Bridge Painter and the hiring of less qualified male applicants.

In each year since 1998, the Department of Transportation interviewed for Bridge Painter positions. During that time, the four women named in the discrimination charges submitted resumes as applications. In 1999, no female applicant was granted an interview. In 2000, only one female was interviewed. She was not hired and was also the only female interviewed for a Bridge Painter position. In 2001, again, only one female applicant was interviewed and she too was not hired.

At the time of their applications, all four applicants had been employed as bridge painters in the private sector for several years, and were graduates of a certified apprenticeship program and met the DOT’s requirement of sixty months of experience. Eight newly hired, male employees were not apprenticeship program graduates and, at least one male employee did not have sixty months of experience.

“When four obviously qualified female applicants are denied Bridge Painter positions, time and time again, it becomes excruciatingly clear that the DOT has established a pattern of discrimination against females for Bridge Painter positions,” said Joe Ramaglia, Business Representative to Local 806. “There is no place for discrimination of any kind, and the fact that a municipal agency has engaged in such apparent gender discrimination makes these circumstances even more disgraceful”.

After learning that she would not be interviewed in 2000, one of the applicants called the DOT’s personnel office and was told that she would not be interviewed because she did not have a commercial driver’s license. Although such a license is required for the Bridge Painter position, the DOT in fact, hired thirteen men for that position in 2000, and at least three of them did not possess that license when hired. These men were given a grace period to obtain a commercial driver’s license, during which they were permitted to work at full pay and benefits. No female applicant to the Bridge Painter position has ever been afforded this opportunity. In fact, in the history of the DOT, no female has ever been employed in the Bridge Painter civil service title.

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Rockland County and Its Sheriff’s
Department Reveals Violations of Correction Officers 1st and 14th Amendment Rights

New York, New York March 18, 2002 – Attorneys representing three Rockland County Correction Officers today filed a federal civil complaint against Rockland County and its Sheriff’s Department. The complaint, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, brings to light a pattern of racist conduct committed by officials in the Sheriff’s Department. The three plaintiffs, a white male of German descent, an African-American male and an African-American female, claim that they were wrongfully disciplined by their supervisors, who, among other things, depicted their faces on racist flyers and directed racial epithets at them, all within the confines of a taxpayer-financed facility, the Rockland County Sheriff’s Department.

According to the complaint, after the three correction officers had complained to their supervisors that the Sheriff’s Department had improperly reduced the number of full time correction officers in the Transport Division (New York State Commission of Corrections requires that there be at least nine full time correction officers in the Transport Division, particularly for safety reasons), they were allegedly harassed by both their supervisors and by part time transport officers who among other things, created a flyer, which superimposed their faces on the body of a Nazi Officer in the company of Adolph Hitler. Indeed, it was reported that a department manager personally posted this flyer.

When the three correction officers objected to this outrageous behavior, not only were they further ridiculed, they were transferred to work in the Jail Division, resulting in a loss of their seniority in the Department. Specifically, after one African-American correction officer began to complain about this treatment, a part time transport officer asked him whether he could “talk Black to him” and whether he “wanted a coupon for fried chicken.” All of these remarks were made in earshot of one of the supervising lieutenants, who did nothing to reprimand the part time transport officer.

Speaking on behalf of the three Correction Officers, William Hickey, President of the Correction Officer’s Benevolent Association of Rockland County stated, “What occurred here is a clear violation of the New York State Commission of Correction Mandates. Replacing full time correction officers with less experienced, less qualified, part time transport officers endangers public safety. A destructive smear campaign was clearly waged against those officers who were considering the public’s best interest and trying to prevent this violation from continuing. What we’re talking about here is the well-being of the entire Rockland County community.”

# # #

For further information, members of the press are invited to attend a news conference with the President of the Correction Officers Benevolent Association of Rockland County, the three plaintiffs, and their attorneys, on Tuesday, March 19, 2002 at 12:00 PM in the law offices of Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP, 120 Broadway 29th Floor, New York, NY 10271. Telephone: 917-551-1300.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP is a full service law firm, which specializes in labor and employment law. The firm’s Senior Partner, Richard J. Koehler, is a former Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections and former Chief of Personnel of the New York City Police Department.

Detective Investigator to Receive Benefits in Excess of $9,000

New York, New York October 22, 2001 – New York State’s Appellate Division, Second Department, unanimously overturned a Kings County Supreme Court Judge and awarded Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office Detective Investigator Gregory Deboer line of duty injury pay.

Deboer suffered severe injuries while effecting an off duty arrest of three perpetrators. His injuries required surgery and rendered him unable to return to duty for four months.

Deboer requested both workers compensation and line of duty benefits injury under General Municipal Law Section 207-c for his injuries. Although the workers compensation application was granted, the Kings County District Attorney’s Office denied line of duty injury benefits and Deboer’s request for an evidentiary hearing.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP, filed an Article 78 petition challenging the denial of benefits in May of 2000. The Supreme Court Judge denied the petition ruling that Deboer’s injuries were not in the line of duty because the arrest was an “off duty” arrest.

Richard Koehler, of Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP, argued the appeal of the Judge’s decision before the Second Department stating that Detective Investigators perform line of duty functions when they effectuate an arrest even if that arrest occurs while technically “off duty.” Mr. Koehler asked the court to look past the technicality and recognize that, having been granted the responsibility of making arrests either on or off regular tours of duty, the law must reflect that all arrests are within the line of duty.

The Second Department agreed and expressly found that the lower court judge erred in his definition of “line of duty.” As a result, Deboer was awarded line of duty injury benefits retroactive to February 21, 2000, an amount in excess of $9,000.00. An elated Deboer commenting on the case stated, “this decision is not only good for me and my family, but for all members of law enforcement.” Mr. Koehler indicated that 207-c issues are a recurring cause of conflict between union members and public employers across the state. He believes that if the state legislature would structure an objective review process for employees, litigation could be minimized.

Paragraph

Detective Investigator to Receive Benefits in Excess of $9,000