IDC&W Law Wins Injunction Against the City of New York

We at IDC&W Law understand the  importance of time off for our hard working union clients. It is particularly critical for first responders.  Recently, in response to the New York City COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the City issued a policy to penalize employees who called out sick on ordered overtime with a loss of ability to exchange work shifts with other employees. This rule was so broadly and poorly written, the employee could have been penalized for being quarantined due to exposure to or contracting COVID-19.  While the matter is subject to grievance arbitration, we also fought to ensure that union members would not be harmed while the arbitration is pending. Under a unique provision of New York State law, we  sought court intervention to prevent the City  from implementing the policy change prior to the arbitration hearing.

Despite the Courts regularly denying injunction requests that are related to COVID-19 policies, we were able to successfully  obtain a temporary restraining order in aid of arbitration. The grievance is now pending arbitration and the injunction maintaining the status quo is presently  in effect.

The union was represented by IDC&W Law Partner Liam L. Castro.

Isaacs Devasia Castro & Wien LLP Fights to Keep Essential Workers’ Time Off.

The pandemic showed how important essential workers are. The truth is, they always were. They fought for us when we needed them most, working long hours risking their and their family’s health. That is particularly why their time off is important and sacred. 

In May 2021 the City eliminated the use of compensatory time off for its Fire Alarm Dispatchers; it was previously two slots per shift per borough. IDC&W jumped into action, the next day filing an action in Court seeking a restraining order. Within days, without need for a court order, based upon the strength and persuasiveness of our arguments, the City, and IDC&W and our client resolved the matter ensuring that the Fire Alarm Dispatchers’ compensatory time off was preserved. This City also agreed to grant all prior requests for compensatory time that were denied.

Liam L. Castro, Esq.Isaacs Devasia Castro & Wien, LLP80 Broad Street, 5th floor | New York, NY 10004

Tel: 917.551.1300/917.837.7121| e-mail:

Koehler & Isaacs LLP Adds New Partners and Is Now Isaacs Devasia Castro & Wien LLP

We are pleased to announce that Koehler & Isaacs LLP has added three new partners and will now be known as Isaacs Devasia Castro & Wien LLP. At this time, with mixed emotions, we also announce the retirement of Founding Partner, Richard J. Koehler from the firm. 

The new partners are long-time associates Cynthia Devasia, Liam Castro and Howard Wien who have a collective sixty years of litigating, mediating, and negotiating legal issues affecting workers and public and private sector labor unions and employee fringe benefit funds. All three have extensive experience negotiating collective bargaining agreements and conducting hundreds of labor arbitrations litigating disciplinary charges, contract grievance violations and line of duty injury benefits. They also advise our union and employee benefits clients in corporate governance and regulatory compliance matters. In their own way, each has been an indispensable asset to the firm and our clients: 

Our clients have benefited from Ms. Devasia’s extensive federal court practice entailing novel Constitutional claims, civil rights (plaintiff and defense), and employee benefits litigation including ERISA delinquency actions leading to the collection of millions of dollars in plan assets.  Ms. Devasia is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law where she has taught doctrinal law and legal writing, research, and lawyering skills. 

Our clients have found Mr. Castro’s representation in state court matters essential to obtaining injunctive relief protecting against excessive work hours and preserving worker’s pay, leave time, and health benefits.  He also has a successful track record in appellate advocacy arguing in three of the four Appellate Divisions and also before the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, where he was victorious each time.  

Our clients have thrived under Mr. Wien’s guidance in forming local and national level labor unions, protecting the rights of public sector supervisory workers to organize, running successful union organizing campaigns, and navigating the intricacies of internal union disputes. Mr. Wien is a former Commissioner of the Yonkers Commission of Human Rights and also a trained mediator and experienced arbitrator.  

“Cynthia, Liam, and Howard epitomize the dedication and exemplary service our firm provides.  They are exceptionally talented, have been an integral part of our long-standing success and we look forward to continuing the same high-caliber and innovative legal representation we have provided for over 20 years,” said Founding Partner Steven A. Isaacs. 

The firm was founded under the Koehler & Isaacs moniker in 1999 by Mr. Isaacs and Richard J. Koehler, a longtime labor relations advocate and former Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction and New York City Police Department Chief of Personnel, as a unique, full service law firm designed to meet the legal needs of working families, their unions and their employee benefit funds.  The firm has represented clients in various public and private sector industries including law enforcement, security, transportation, education and construction. During this time, Mr. Koehler has been our captain, guiding force, and a man widely respected for his service to his clients, the legal profession, his City and Country.  We wish him the very best and thank him for his stewardship and, more importantly, the many years of friendship. 

More information about Isaacs Devasia Castro & Wien LLP can be found at

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP Saves Jobs and Secures Enforcement of Fundamental Union Rights

Your Privacy is not Private: Social Media and Employee Discipline

Social Media platforms provide an easy way to engage with “friends” and share your opinions. All social media platforms currently provide “privacy” settings by which you can limit the recipients of your posts to those you have selected as your friends. So, you should feel secure that what you say on social media will not come back to haunt you. WRONG! NOTHING IS TRULY PRIVATE ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

That lack of privacy has direct consequences for union members. YOU CAN AND WILL BE PUNISHED FOR WHAT YOU SAY ON SOCIAL MEDIA. In the private sector, the only question is whether there is some connection between your comments and your job. If you post carelessly, your comments may be perceived as racist or sexist and you may be disciplined for those comments simply by virtue of the fact that all employees in the United States are expected to be able to work with others regardless of race, religion, gender or other legally protected characteristics.  Even outside the scope of bigotry, adverse comments about your employer can lead to discipline as employees are expected to maintain a reasonable degree of loyalty to the employer during their employment. 

In the public sector, employees are protected by the First Amendment but only to a point. Although the First Amendment protects your comments on issues of public concern, comments on social media that make their way to the workplace and cause “disruption” can result in discipline.  This is particularly true when you express your opinions on hot button issues with words of hostility or where your comments are race or gender based. Consider the following, which was the subject of an employee discipline case recently handled by Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP. 

Remember, white people: Your sole purpose during this time is to protect people of color while they’re destroying the city. Obey. Submit.” 

This post, on the employee’s supposedly private social media account resulted in his suspension from employment, the employer’s attempt to terminate his employment, an arbitration hearing where the Arbitrator found termination inappropriate but imposed a six month, multi-level demotion, with corresponding loss of pay, a time-served suspension, and an ultimately unsuccessful appeal by the employer to the courts in an attempt to have the arbitration award thrown out.  

The quoted post was stated in sarcasm. It was a response to a prior post stating that there should be more violence and property destruction in police misconduct protest and that the role of sympathetic white people was to be a “white wall” protecting ethnic minorities while they commit riotous acts. The sarcasm was intended to indicate opposition to both the call for violence and the race based roles in the prior post. 

The comment, however, caused extensive outrage among co-workers, was widely reported in the news media and was the repeated subject of a podcast popular among this employee’s co-workers. Additionally, many of the employee’s subordinates wrote to the employer demanding discipline and stating that they could not work under the employee’s supervision. The comment, finally, was deemed by the arbitrator to reflect the employee’s “racist attitude” and imposed the penalty discussed above. Imagine how different things would have been if the employee has simply stated: “I find your call for violence and your bigotry to be wrong and offensive.”  Clearly, there is nothing outrageous or racist about this comment which would have saved the employee months of anxiety, public humiliation and tens of thousands of dollars. The lesson: Speak your mind, but do so with care. 

The additional lesson is; union representation matters. Had the employee not been represented by a labor union, he would have been fired with no recourse. The First Amendment, here, provided no protection because of the disruption in the workplace and it was only the union collective bargaining agreement and its clause prohibiting termination without just cause that saved this employee. That clause required arbitration which although final and binding on paper was still subject to an appeal by the public employer. Such an appeal, known as an “application to vacate an arbitration award,” meant that the Arbitrator’s decision remained unenforceable for many months after it was issued. Only after Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP secured a victory for the employee and the union, did he return to his original position with the employer. 

It cannot be overstated. Absent a labor union contract, most employees work in an “at-will” environment meaning they can be terminated for any reason, no reason, or even bad reason, so long as the termination isn’t independently illegal under anti-discrimination statutes. Even with civil service protection, the hearing a public employee is entitled to is not before an independent body. The hearing officer is an employee or contractor hired by the public employer and the ultimate decision is made by the public employer. Only arbitration gained through collective bargaining provides for an independent evaluation in disciplinary cases. Again, union representation matters. 

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP is expert in the intricacies of collective bargaining, arbitration and litigation with respect to arbitration awards and is proud to have achieved these results for the union and it member. 

Howard Wien represented the union in this matter. 

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP secures a check on the power of the New York City Board of Corrections

For many years, the New York City Board of Corrections has stood as an obstacle to the safety of the staff in the City’s jails. During the current Mayoral administration, the Board has passed rule after rule making a dangerous job nearly impossible. Correction Department staff have suffered exacerbation in both the number and severity of assaults by inmates directly due to well-intentioned but misguided reforms imposed by the Board. The Board is responsible for establishing “minimum standards” of care for inmates and, consequently, has the ability to draft rules that extensively tie the hands of Correction Officers in their efforts to quell jail violence. 

The Board has repeatedly restricted the use of punitive segregation, which requires isolation of highly assaultive inmates. That restriction directly led to increased jail violence by inmates against not only law enforcement staff but against other inmates and civilian staff creating chaos in the city jail system. During 2019, the Board yet again published proposed rules to further restrict the use of this life-saving law enforcement tool. Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP took the matter to the New York City Board of Collective Bargaining claiming that the imposition of these rules constituted a safety threat to officers and that the failure to bargain with their union beforehand constituted an improper employment practice. 

The City moved to dismiss the case arguing that the Board of Collective Bargaining had no jurisdiction over the Board of Correction.  The Board of Collective Bargaining, however, rejected that argument.  It noted that the fact that the New York City Department of Correction is obligated to comply with the Board of Correction’s rulemaking does not eliminate the Board of Collective Bargaining’s jurisdiction because “it is well established that a public employer has an obligation to bargain over matters within the scope of bargaining even if it is complying with a law, regulation, or directive that it did not promulgate.” As a result, the Board of Collective Bargaining clarified that rules promulgated by the Board of Correction are subject to the same improper practice analysis as any other public employer.  

This clarification means the unions representing the over ten thousand members of the Department of Corrections’ staff can directly challenge Board of Correction rules at the Board of Collective Bargaining. For the uninitiated, the Board of Collective Bargaining is the local, New York City, version of the New York State Public Employment Relations Board or the National Labor Relations Board. As such, it is the only recourse for City employees’ and their unions’ claims of improper employer practices such as failing to bargain in good faith or interference, restraint, coercion or discrimination against employees in the exercise of their rights to form, join and participate in labor unions.  A decision clarifying the Board of Collective Bargaining’s jurisdiction over rule-making bodies such as the Board of Correction is critical victory for public employees and their unions. 

Howard Wien represented the union charging party in this matter.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP makes Inmates pay for assaults on Correction Officers.

On December 13, 2016, a New York City Correction Officer was assaulted at the Otis Bantum Correction Center on Rikers Island by a detainee of the New York City Department of Correction awaiting trial on drug charges. The officer suffered significant physical injuries in the assault including facial bruises and cuts, sprains to his left wrist and left ankle and chronic back pain. He missed work for four months as a result of the assault followed by two months of medically restricted duty. He suffered psychological trauma and continued to suffer pain to his ankle, wrist and back for several months after the incident forcing his resignation during June, 2017.  The detainee was convicted and sentenced on October 24, 2018 to a term of five years’ incarceration and five years’ post release supervision for his attack on the officer. This conviction, however, provided no direct compensation for the officer.  

On February 10, 2018, another New York City Correction Officer was assaulted at the George Motchan Detention Center, also on Rikers Island, by five detainees. The detainees were members of the Bloods street gang. The assault was planned in advance in retaliation for the officer’s prior write-ups of their ring-leader who was being detained on attempted murder charges. The officer suffered a fractured neck and cranial bleeding in the attack. The ring-leader was eventually convicted of assault and sentenced to jail but that conviction, again, provided no direct compensation to the officer. 

During 2018, both the first assailant and the ring-leader in the second assault were transferred to Albany County. Both sued Albany County and New York City during June, 2019 claiming the transfers constituted a variety of civil rights violations. New York City and Albany County settled this lawsuit agreeing to pay these violent criminals hundreds of thousands of dollars. Neither New York City nor Albany County gave any thought to the Correction Officer victims of these criminals and the settlement agreement did not mention them at all.   

When Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP learned that these criminals were in line to receive such large sums of money, it sued them on the officers’ behalf for assault. In the meantime, Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP worked closely with the New York State Office of Victims Services to secure compensation for the officers. Under New York’s “Son of Sam” law, criminals are not permitted to profit off their criminal acts. Thus, where criminals are to receive financial awards, the Office of Victims Services can, on the victims’ behalf, obtain an injunction preventing the release of money until the time the victim’s suit against the assailant is settled. Using this process, Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP has secured compensation for these officer of forty and eighty thousand dollars respectively, money directly reducing the settlement amounts reached between the assailants and New York City and Albany County with payments coming directly from those municipalities. 

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP is proud to have stood up for these officers and ensure that inmate assailants pay for assaulting Correction Officers. 

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP attorneys Steven Isaacs and Howard Wien were counsel in these matters.  

Mount Vernon Cops Challenging City on Pay for Military Reservists

Jonathan Bandler, Rockland/Westchester Journal News

A Mount Vernon police officer on military reserve duty in Washington, D.C., in the wake of last week’s riots, may have trouble getting his proper city pay while he is away.

And depending on how the city handles his case, Officer Raiton Betty could join his sister and a third city cop in a lawsuit challenging how the police department is paying reservists.

Officers Samantha Betty and Thalia Santos claim they have had pay withheld since the fall while they were on reserve duty assisting with the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“It’s sad that the department has picked now to try and change the way this has been done,” said police Lt. Nicholas Mastrogiorgio, who became president of the Mount Vernon Police Association this month. “We’re in the middle of the worst crisis the world has ever seen and then to top it off with the unrest in D.C., it’s mind-blowing how they can do this out of nowhere.”

The city has yet to respond to the lawsuit, which was filed by the union and the two officers last month in state Supreme Court in White Plains. It names police Commissioner Glenn Scott, the police department and the city.

Reservist pay is not covered in the Mount Vernon police contract but rather in the city charter.

Read more here

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP Organizes the Unorganized

December 7, 2020 – Today, Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP’s client, the National Association of Transportation Supervisors (“NATS”) was certified by the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (“PERC”) as the collective bargaining agent for over a hundred formerly unrepresented employees at New Jersey Transit in the Foreman I and Foreman II titles.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP has a wealth of experience assisting its union clients to “organize the unorganized.” During 2018 and 2019 Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP client, the United Transit Leadership Organization (“UTLO”), was certified by the New York Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) to represent nearly one thousand employees at several subsidiaries of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority in spite of the employers’ classification of them as “managers” where applicable law excludes managers from union eligibility.

During 2019, Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLPsecured representation rights by NATS for several employee titles at the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail. In the process, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) overruled the employer’s claim that the employees were “supervisors” which would have excluded them from eligibility for representation under the National Labor Relations Act.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP attorney Howard Wien represented NATS at PERC and the NLRB and represented UTLO at PERB in these matters.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP, File Suits to Protect NYC Correction Officers’ Employment and Contractual Rights

By: Steven Isaacs

Partner, Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP

General Counsel, Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association

Under the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association’s recent Memorandum of Agreement, The New York City Department of Correction (DOC) “shall send the union a copy of any directive or order affecting terms and conditions of employment at least ten (10) calendar days prior to issuance, except where the Department determines emergency circumstances make such a timeframe impracticable, in which case the policy will be shared as soon as practicable prior to issuance.”  This important provision exists for many reasons, including, before the policy comes into effect, (1) providing COBA an opportunity to review it; (2) possibly challenge it in Court; and (3) discuss it with the DOC in order to suggest important changes.  On July 24, 2020, the DOC provided to COBA a copy of Operations Order 10/20, which specifically impacts and modifies the command discipline process.  The DOC did not provide COBA with the ten days for which it bargained.  COBA filed a grievance, seeking arbitration, and is now seeking a Court order to stop the effectiveness of the policy pending arbitration.  

On August 3, 2020, COBA filed an improper practice petition with the New York City Office of Collective Bargaining seeking an immediate injunction preventing the implementation and enforcement of DOC Operations Order 10/20. Operations Order 10/20 permits the DOC to conduct Use of Force disciplinary proceedings as both Command Discipline and Memoranda of Complaints for a single incident. This will result in harsher penalties, duplicate proceeding and an acceleration of the loss of the Command Discipline option for Correction Officers. Operations Order 10/20 was implemented without prior negotiations as required by the New York City Collective Bargaining Law. COBA argues in its petition that the failure to bargain will result in immediate and irreparable harm to officers with both Command Discipline and Memoranda of Complaints currently pending and any who may be charged in either process going forward.  As the City has a mandatory duty to bargain over disciplinary procedure, COBA argues that the failure to bargain over Operations Order 10/20 prior to implementation violates the Collective Bargaining Law and that the instant nature of the harm warrants injunctive relief.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP Aggressive Legal Actions Prevents Correction Officers from Working Triple Tours of Duty and Postpones Virtual Oath Trials

In April, 2020 at the height of the Coronavirus pandemic, Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP, as General Counsel to the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association (COBA), sued the City of New York, seeking a Judicial order that would prevent Correction Officers from being forced to work triple tours of duty.
The lawsuit also sought a judicial order compelling Correction Officers to test negative for COVID-19, prior to returning back to work if they had previously tested positive or self- quarantined. At the time, well over 1,000 Correction Officers had tested positive for COVID-19 and many more were out sick.

As a result, the New York City Department of Correction ordered a number of Correction Officers to work triple tours of duty, often forcing them to miss meals and jeopardize their physical health and welfare.

COBA’s initial request for a temporary restraining order was denied and the case was adjourned to allow the court to hear further arguments.  Upon further review by a different Judge, Judge Pamela Jackman-Brown, COBA’s request was granted and a preliminary injunction is now in place, preventing the City of New York from ordering Correction Officers to work triple tours of duty, pending further proceedings and a possible trial. Commenting on the significance of Judge Jackman-Brown’s decision, COBA’s Attorney, Steven Isaacs, said, “The granting of a preliminary injunction against the City of New York is an extraordinary measure that is rarely achieved. In this action, we maintained that the Department of Correction violated the fundamental rights of Correction Officers to bodily integrity protection, which is firmly established under our State Constitution.” In addition to Judge Blackman-Brown’s decision, Mayor Bill de Blaisio, in a rare move, explicitly agreed that the practice of triple tours was a “horrible, dumb mistake” and would not be allowed moving forward. Concerning the issue of negative testing, the Judge denied COBA’s request for an order requiring negative testing, maintaining that the science is very unclear as to the best testing measures and that the City is following CDC guidelines.
“There is no higher priority for us than ensuring our members work under the safest working conditions possible,” said COBA President Benny Boscio. “We are pleased that the Judge in this matter agreed with our arguments over triple tours and we will continue to hold the Department of Correction accountable whenever it violates our employment rights. This injunction will maintain even greater significance if a second wave of COVID-19 hits our jails again, forcing our members to self-quarantine.”

In another important legal victory for COBA, COBA’s Attorneys, Koehler and Isaacs, were successful in temporarily preventing the Office of Trials and Administrative Hearings (OATH) from holding virtual disciplinary hearings for Correction Officers, which would have posed serious implications for the rights of Correction Officers litigating their disciplinary charges in a potentially public forum. The union will pursue this litigation in a trial expected to be held in November.