Author: admin

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP Organizes the Unorganized

Posted on

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

Posted on

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

Posted on

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.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP-Writing the Use of Force or Use of Force Witness Report

Posted on

By: Steven Isaacs

 General Counsel to NYC COBA

                During the course of your career, as a Correction Officer, you are called upon to write reports about incidents or occurrences related to your employment with the Department. One of the most important reports, if not the most important report you may have to write is a Use of Force Report or a Use of Force Witness Report. This article provides advice on to how to best write either of those reports.

                First, before you begin to write your report, make sure you are physically and mentally able to do so. Your health and safety are always the priority.  If as a result of the Use of Force you are injured, you should seek treatment pursuant to the Directive. A Use of Force or Witness Report is your official version of what occurred and will be reviewed by the Department for truthfulness and accuracy.  If you are unable to complete a report as soon as practicable after an incident because of an injury, the Directive permits you time to do so. You do not want to be rushed into writing your report unless you have a clear mind and can, to the best of your ability, recall the facts that led to your actions or observations.

If you are able to write your report following a Use of Force, you must follow the Department’s procedures set forth in the Use of Force Directive. Whenever you are writing either of these reports, you should have a copy of the Directive with you. The Directive is your guide to what you need to describe in your report. There is no reason you should not have your copy of the Directive with you as you write your report and refer to as needed to make sure you are complying with the Directive. Your report is your opportunity to explain the facts and circumstances, from your perspective, as to why using force was necessary.

One of the issues we have repeatedly seen in regards to Use of Force or Witness Reports is that Officers often report certain actions that they themselves are unsure of.  One of the reasons for this is that Uses of Force are often quick, stressful, and dangerous.  These are not optimal circumstances for complete and accurate recollection.  As you know, most, if not all of the Department’s facilities have cameras that record Uses of Force. Your report will be compared to the video for truthfulness and accuracy. If you are not sure of all of your actions, it is ok to write that. As long as you are providing a truthful and accurate report, you should only report those actions you are sure of.  After your initial report is submitted, the Directive and the Department’s Orders allow you to ask to review video footage of the Use of Force and provide a supplemental report to add to or correct any inaccuracies in your initial report. You will not be able to change your initial report. If your facility does not allow you to review the video after you have requested to do so, you should still write a supplemental report indicating you requested to review the video and provide a supplemental report but your request was denied. This will help us address issues in regards to your report if it is later called into question.

As always, please feel free to call our firm at 917-551-1300 and ask to speak with any of the attorneys in our Criminal/Disciplinary Practice and they will be happy to answer any questions on this subject that you may have.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP Wins Reinstatement & Full Back Pay of $30,000 for NYC CO!

Posted on

This case involved a Correction Officer, assigned to Horizon Juvenile Detention Center, who was fired for failing to fill out Horizon forms. We brought an Article 78 suit , which argued that the CO should have been given the same chance to fill out forms like everyone else, after initially refusing, but she was denied the opportunity to do so and was terminated. We successfully won her reinstatement with full back pay of $30,000.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP Wins Reinstatement & Full Back Pay of $25,000 for NYC CO!

Posted on

This case involved a Correction Officer, assigned to Horizon Juvenile Detention Center, who was fired for failing to fill out Horizon forms. We brought an Article 78 suit , which argued that the CO should have been given the same chance to fill out forms like everyone else, after initially refusing, but he was denied the opportunity to do so and was terminated. We successfully won his reinstatement with full back pay of $25,000.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP Wins Reinstatement & Full Back Pay for NYC CO!

Posted on

This case involved a Correction Officer, assigned to Horizon Juvenile Detention Center, who was fired for failing to fill out Horizon forms. We brought an Article 78 suit , which argued that the CO should have been given the same chance to fill out forms like everyone else, after initially refusing, but he was denied the opportunity to do so and was terminated. We successfully won his reinstatement with full back pay.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP Wins Reinstatement & Full Back Pay for NYC CO!

Posted on

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP successfully represented a New York City Correction officer who was injured in two Use of Force cases. The CO was MMR for a year and then returned to work full duty. The DOC subsequently terminated him months after he returned to duty. Koehler & Isaacs sued, alleging violation of disability discrimination laws. Thanks to our vigorous legal representation and advocacy, we secured his reinstatement with full back pay.

Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP – Personal Injury Attorneys

Posted on

Each year, millions of people in the United States are injured in accidents. Many of these accidents are unfortunately caused by the preventable carelessness or malicious intent of others. The law protects those harmed by negligent parties and allows the injured to seek compensation for their suffering. If you or a loved one has been injured in an accident resulting from negligence or intentional harm of others, you may be entitled to receive just compensation for your physical and psychological injuries.

To protect your rights and make certain that you are taking all of the necessary actions in the recovery process, you should contact a Personal Injury lawyer. The attorneys working with our firm handles all personal injury cases including:

  • Motor Vehicle Accidents
  • Trucking Accidents
  • Motorcycle Accidents
  • Pedestrian Accidents
  • Drunk Driving Accidents
  • Brain Injuries
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Professional Negligence
  • Catastrophic Injury/Accidental Death
  • Class Action Lawsuits

Our skilled attorneys will take the time to learn all about your case and assess whether or not you should take the initial settlement offered by the insurance company. We have the foresight and skill to look at the road ahead and consider future damages which may harm the victim for years to come including pain, emotional trauma and subsequent injuries. With this knowledge, our personal injury law firm can properly evaluate the full extent of the damage and help to determine if the initial settlement is fair and adequate to ensure your full physical and financial recovery. 

If our attorneys feel the initial settlement offered was unjust, we will aggressively pursue damages against the individual or company that caused the harm. This claim may be based on:

  • Negligence—When the injury was a direct result of the defendant’s failure to act.
  • Causation—When the actions of an individual or company cause the injury
  • Malicious Intent—When the injury is the result of intentional harm. When this is the basis of the claim, a criminal case is usually involved as well.
  • Product Liability—When a product does not meet safety standards.

In the days following our initial meeting with you, we will reconstruct the accident and obtain evidence to support your claim. We routinely work with medical professionals, forensic experts and private investigators that can conduct a detailed investigation and produce an independent analysis of your accident. 

In far too many cases, one’s rights are permanently forfeited because the injured person believed what he or she was told by the insurance company. Insurance companies will employ significant resources to challenge your claim in order to maximize their profits. With powerful legal teams and years of experience, these large corporations often have the edge when dealing with the injured. In such difficult situations, you take a tremendous risk if you don’t have solid legal counsel and representation on your side.  Our experienced personal injury attorneys, however, can help to level the playing field and will work diligently to ensure you receive the compensation you deserve.

While our personal injury law firm cannot undo injury or suffering, we can put that suffering into words so that we can seek damages for our injured clients. We are dedicated to obtaining the very best recovery possible for you through experienced, professional and aggressive representation.