Commission Says Female Applicants for Bridge Painter Position Were More Qualified Than the Men Actually Hired

New York, New York September 17, 2003 – Following charges of discrimination filed in May of 2002, by the Structural Steel and Bridge Painters of Greater New York, Local Union 806, and four female Bridge Painters, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has found reasonable cause to believe the New York City Department of Transportation discriminated against four female applicants for the position of Bridge Painter. The women and Local Union 806, their union, alleged that the Department of Transportation refused to hire female applicants referred by Local 806 to the DOT for the position of Bridge Painter and instead, hired less qualified male applicants.

“This decision confirms what we’ve known for years,” said Local 806 Business Representative, Angelo Serse. “There is no place for discrimination of any kind, and the fact that it’s a municipal agency makes it even more disgraceful. Hopefully, this ruling will pave a path of employment opportunities for many other qualified female Bridge Painters in the future.”

The charges alleged that in each year since 1998 the Department of Transportation interviewed for Bridge Painter positions and, during that time, the four women submitted resumes as applications. In 1999, no female applicant was granted an interview. In 2000, only one of the women 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 women had been employed as Bridge Painters in the private sector for several years, were graduates of certified apprenticeship program and met the DOT’s requirement of sixty months experience. According to the Complainants, eight newly hired, male employees were not apprenticeship program graduates and at least one male employee did not have sixty months of experience. The EEOC agreed that the four women were more qualified than some men actually hired stating that “the record shows that [the Complainants are] more qualified than at least three of the males hired…”

One Complainant also alleged that after learning that she would not be interviewed in 2000, she 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 Complainants alleged that the DOT hired thirteen male Bridge Painters in 2000, that at least three of them did not possess the license when hired, that these men were given a grace period to obtain the license during which they were permitted to work at full pay and benefits and that 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.

The EEOC’s decision includes an invitation to the parties to engage in conciliation. According to the attorney representing Local Union 806 and the four female Bridge Painters, Howard Wien, of Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP, a demand for placement, as well as salary and benefits back to the date the complainants submitted their resumes, was filed with the EEOC immediately after the reasonable cause determination was made.

COBA President Norman Seabrook Claims DOC Commissioner Horn ‘Vindictively Retaliated’ Against COs After COBA Called For the Ouster of Commissioner Horn

New York, New York August 22, 2003 – Norman Seabrook, president of the 8,400-member New York City Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association (COBA), yesterday filed a federal complaint in United States Southern District Court against the New York City Department of Correction, alleging that the Commissioner of the Department of Correction, Martin Horn, vindictively retaliated against his members by filing disciplinary charges against them after they were unable to report for duty on the day of the blackout and the next day, August 15, 2003.

According to the federal complaint, many correction officers who, like most of New York City workers, were unable to report for work on Thursday evening and on Friday due to the massive blackout, have already been notified by the DOC that the DOC intends to slap them with a disciplinary charge of Absent Without Leave (“AWOL”). No other agency in the City of New York other than DOC has filed disciplinary charges against employees who were unable to report for duty during the blackout. These disciplinary charges came in the wake of Mr. Seabrook’s call for Commissioner Horn’s termination for jeopardizing the safety and security of correction officers by instituting layoffs in May 2003.

“I have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the safety of 8,400 New York City correction officers. The fact of the matter is that since Commissioner Horn commenced these dangerous layoffs, there has been a 20% increase in attacks on correction officers. Of the 315 correction jobs lost, at least 84 of the eliminated positions involved direct supervision of inmates,” Mr. Seabrook said. “I also have a duty to communicate to every correction officer and inform them that their union will not sit by idly while their lives at risk. Clearly, by slapping these officers with ludicrous charges of being “AWOL”, during the worst blackout in United States history, the commissioner has sunk to a new low.”

Mr. Seabrook continued, “Instead of vindictively retaliating against me and my members, for exercising our constitutional rights to free speech, Commissioner Horn should focus on protecting the well being of the dedicated men and women who boldly protect the public from society’s worst criminals.”

Mr. Seabrook, on behalf of COBA, filed the complaint in federal court as the charges allege that the DOC violated Mr. Seabrook’s First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and the DOC violated the rights of COBA members to equal protection under the law.

Correction Officers Who Were Suspended for Failing to Detect Contraband at the Queens Detention Complex Will Be Fully Reimbursed for Time Lost

New York, New York July 30, 2003 – New York City’s Civil Service Commission unanimously reversed an Administrative Law Judge’s decision and awarded New York City Correction Officers Keith Morgan and Patricia Jordan back pay for time lost during their suspensions of 45 days and 35 days, respectively.

The two veteran correction officers, who serve in the Queens Detention Complex (QDC), were accused of allegedly failing to detect the introduction of an automatic pistol that ultimately found its way into the hands of an inmate. Correction Officer Morgan had been the housing area officer responsible for searching the inmates and Correction Officer Jordan had been the package room officer responsible for searching their packages.

According to the Department of Correction, the two officers failed to detect the gun. The DOC also contended that Officer Jordan was “tired and therefore was unable to perform her job efficiently.” Despite the fact that the DOC acknowledged that it was possible for the gun to get in through intake or by another visitor, the DOC maintained that it was impossible for the gun to have entered the facility the day before. The DOC argued that the gun entered the facility as an accident because Officer Jordan did not properly inspect the inmate’s girlfriend’s package, where the gun had been stashed and because Officer Morgan was “bored with his job and lacked concern for his duties and therefore was performing them inefficiently.”

At the Civil Service Commission hearing, the correction officers’ attorney, Joey Jackson, of Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP, argued that the DOC’s charges were flawed for a number of reasons. First, Mr. Jackson asserted that the only evidence against the two officers was the inmate’s own self-serving statement claiming that the gun was in one of his shoes. Second, Mr. Jackson noted that the inmate’s girlfriend had denied to the officers that she was carrying a gun. Furthermore, Mr. Jackson noted that the Supervising Investigator for the Department of Investigation interviewed the inmate and at no point during the interview did the inmate claim that his girlfriend had brought the gun or that he had asked her to; the inmate was arrested and charged with promoting contraband, yet no charges were brought against his girlfriend.

After a detailed review of the evidence presented, the Civil Service Commission reversed the determination by the ALJ and the Department of Correction, noting that the inmate’s testimony was the only evidence against Officers Jordan and Morgan. Furthermore, they noted that “there was no causal link between the officers and the gun….and that the mere presence alone is not enough to conclude that the two correction officers are at fault for the gun’s presence.”

Commenting on the commission’s decision, Norman Seabrook, reelected president of the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association for a third consecutive term said, “This case was without merit from the beginning. These two veteran officers have a combined 30 years of experience with the DOC and they never have been disciplined or reprimanded for allowing contraband into the institution. Instead of trying to find fault with these officers, the DOC should recognize these two veterans for their continuous dedication and professionalism that they bring to the Department.”

State Supreme Court Justice Orders Sheriff’s Department to Restore 207-c Benefits to Two Correction Officers

New York, New York June 4, 2003 – In response to a lawsuit filed by two Rockland County Correction Officers, State Supreme Court Justice William A. Kelly has ruled that the Rockland County Sheriff’s Department must continue to provide 207-c benefits to two officers who were injured while performing their duties. According to the complaint filed in New York State Supreme Court in September of 2002, the Rockland County Sheriff’s Review Committee had originally granted both officers 207-c benefits for injuries incurred during the course of their public duties, but then the department rescinded those benefits without providing a reason and without providing the officers their federal right to a hearing prior to terminating their 207-c benefits. The purpose behind Section 207-c is to compensate specified municipal employees for injuries incurred in the performance of special work related to heightened risks and duties.

On April 17, 2001, correction officer David Oliver, crushed his left hand in between two doors in the course of inspecting an area for contraband. Despite immense pain, Officer Oliver continued to report to work. When the pain grew worse, Officer Oliver consulted his family doctor, who referred him to an orthopedic surgeon. The surgeon advised him to wear a splint and recuperate at home for four to five days. As his hand continued to be in pain, he requested benefits under General Municipal Law 207-c in July of 2001.

Four months later, in November of 2001, the Administrative Review Committee approved Officer Oliver’s request for 207-c status for the April 17, 2001 incident. The approval, however, was only granted for 180 days beginning on April 17, 2001 and expiring on October 17, 2001. No reason was offered for the October 17, 2001 expiration date for Officer Oliver’s 207-c benefits. The county credited back to Officer Oliver a total of 52 hours of vacation accruals and 28 hours of sick time accruals which were taken from him since the incident.

Since Officer Oliver continued to be disabled as a result of the April 17, 2001 injury, he was forced to re-apply to the Administrative Review Committee for 207-c status. In March of 2001, the committee notified Officer Oliver to submit to a second independent medical examination.

In a report dated April 9, 2002, the department’s examiner concluded that, “It is my opinion that the examinee continues to demonstrate a mild partial disability. Some permanency is anticipated. He has not reached a medical end point.” One month later, in May of 2002, the review board extended Officer Oliver’s request to extend his 207-c status. However, the Review Board summarily terminated Oliver’s 207-c benefits retroactive to April 9, 2002. The committee gave no explanation for its decision to deny benefits after April 9, 2002, other than to say that it was based partly on the independent examiner’s most recent report. The county failed to afford Officer Oliver a hearing before terminating his 207-c benefits after April 9, 2002 and ignored requests to cease their unlawful conduct.

On December 18, 1997, while working at the Rockland County Jail, correction officer Evan Washington hurt his back, his right wrist and his left pinky finger while restraining an inmate during a fight with another inmate. Six days later, Officer Washington requested 207-c benefits for his injuries sustained on December 18th.

Over a year later, the Administrative Review Committee finally notified Officer Washington that they approved his request. The award was made retroactive to the date of the December 18, 1997 incident.

On January 30, 2002, Officer Washington submitted to an independent medical examination by the department’s doctor. Then, on May 3, 2002, the Administrative Review Committee notified Officer Washington that it was revoking his 207-c status retroactive to January 30, 2002, the date on which he was last examined by the department’s examiner. Like Officer Oliver before him, Officer Washington was provided neither an explanation for this decision, nor afforded a hearing before the decision was made.

In an effort to avoid litigation, the attorney representing both correction officers, Mercedes M. Maldonado, of Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP, sent the department three letters requesting the department to restore the officers’ 207-c benefits and grant them a hearing if the department wished to terminate their benefits. All three requests were ignored.

In the complaint, Ms. Maldonado argued that the Sheriff’s Department’s Administrative Review Committee decisions were in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In his ruling on the case, Justice Kelly asserted that “Once granted, a recipient has a vested property right in GML 207-c benefits. This vested property right may not be terminated without due process. In this case, the discontinuance of the officers’ benefits without a hearing amounted to the taking of property without due process.” Accordingly, the judge vacated the decision of the Administrative Review Committee and returned the officers to their status prior to the termination of their benefits.

Commenting on the judge’s ruling, William Hickey, President of the Rockland County Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association said, “This case is yet another example of the intransigence of officials in the Rockland County Sheriff’s Department. They refused to give these two veteran officers the due process hearing, which they were clearly entitled to and they have needlessly put us at impasse in collective bargaining negotiations for a new contract.”

Officers Seek to Hold Department Liable for Damages After Terminating Their 207-c Benefits Without a Hearing

New York, New York September 26, 2002 – Two Rockland County Correction Officers who were injured while performing their duties, have filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, against the Rockland County Sheriff’s Department and its legal counsel, Joseph Suarez, among others, for failing to afford them their constitutional right to a hearing before the department decided to terminate their 207-c benefits.

According to the complaint filed in New York State Supreme Court, the Rockland County Sheriff’s Review Committee had originally granted both officers 207-c benefits for injuries incurred during the course of their public duties, but then the department rescinded those benefits without providing a reason and without providing the officers their federal right to a hearing prior to terminating their 207-c benefits. The purpose behind Section 207-c is to compensate specified municipal employees for injuries incurred in the performance of special work, related to the nature or heightened risks and duties.

On April 17, 2001, correction officer David Oliver, crushed his left hand in between two doors in the course of inspecting an area for contraband. Despite immense pain, Officer Oliver continued to report to work. When the pain grew worse, Officer Oliver consulted his family doctor, who referred him to an orthopedic surgeon. The surgeon advised him to wear a splint and recuperate at home for four to five days. As his hand continued to be in pain, he requested benefits under General Municipal Law 207-c in July of 2001.

Four months later, in November of 2001, the Administrative Review Committee approved Officer Oliver’s request for 207-c status for the April 17, 2001 incident. The approval however, was only granted for 180 days beginning on April 17, 2001 and expiring on October 17, 2001. No reason was offered for the October 17, 2001 expiration date for Officer Oliver’s 207-c benefits. The county credited back to Officer Oliver a total of 52 hours of vacation accruals and 28 hours of sick time accruals which were taken from him since the incident.

Since Officer Oliver continued to be disabled as a result of the April 17, 2001 injury, he was forced to re-apply to the Administrative Review Committee for 207-c status. In March of 2001, the committee notified Officer Oliver to submit to a second independent medical examination, scheduled for April 7, 2002. Officer Oliver complied and the examination took place as scheduled.

The independent examiner concluded that, “It is my opinion that the examinee continues to demonstrate a mild partial disability. Some permanency is anticipated. He has not reached a medical end point.” One month later, in May of 2002, the review board extended Officer Oliver’s request to extend his 207-c status. However, the Review Board summarily terminated Oliver’s 207-c benefits on April 9, 2002. The committee gave no explanation for its decision to deny benefits after April 9, 2002, other than to say that it was based partly on the independent examiner’s most recent report. The county failed to afford Officer Oliver a hearing before terminating his 207-c benefits after April 9, 2002 and has ignored requests to cease their unlawful conduct.

On December 18, 1997, while working at the Rockland County Jail, correction officer Evan Washington hurt his back, his right wrist and his left pinky finger while restraining an inmate during a fight with another inmate. Six days later, Officer Washington requested 207-c benefits for his injuries sustained on December 18th. In addition, Officer Washington applied for and received workers’ compensation benefits. The workers’ compensation ’Notice of Decision’ confirmed that Officer Washington had work-related injuries to the back, right wrist and left 5th finger.

Approximately one year later, Officer Washington had surgery performed on his right wrist and submitted yet another request for 207-c benefits. Over a year later, the Administrative Review Committee finally notified Officer Washington that they approved his request. The award was made retroactive to the date of the December 18, 1997 incident.

On February 4, 2000 and again on January 30, 2002, Officer Washington submitted to two independent medical examinations. The January 30th examination concluded that Officer Washington’s “intermittent lost time” from work “was necessary.” However, on May 3, 2002, the Administrative Review Committee notified Officer Washington that it was revoking his 207-c status retroactive to January 30, 2002, the date on which he was last examined by the independent examiner. Like Officer Oliver before him, Officer Washington was provided neither an explanation for this decision, nor afforded a hearing before the decision was made. The attorney representing both correction officers, Mercedes M. Maldonado, of Koehler & Isaacs, has argued that the sheriff’s department’s administrative review committee decisions were arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.