Dunn v. New York State Dep't of Labor

No. 73 Civ. 1656 (KTD) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 1994) ; Clearinghouse Number: 10204

Description

Motion to Find New York Agency in Contempt for Failing to Comply with Order to Provide Prompt Hearings Is Denied

Abstract

The district court has denied plaintiffs' motion to find defendant New York State Department of Labor (DOL) in civil contempt for failing to comply with a court order to provide administrative hearings on a timely basis. Plaintiffs had filed this class action alleging that DOL failed to provide prompt hearings on appeals from denials of unemployment compensation benefits. In 1979, the court granted plaintiffs summary judgment and ordered DOL to comply with federal appeals promptness standards. In this latest development, plaintiffs moved for an order (1) holding DOL in civil contempt for failing to comply with the 1979 order; (2) declaring that plaintiffs are entitled to relief to enforce the judgment; (3) appointing a special master to recommend a long-term remedial plan or other relief; (4) requiring reassignment of temporary ALJs to increase timely handling of hearings pending implementation of a remedial plan; and (5) consolidating this action with MLC v. Sitkin, 79 Civ. 5899 (RLC Mar. 2, 1983). Concluding that DOL had acted with reasonable diligence in attempting to comply with the order, the court denied the motion. The court reasoned that, although DOL had met promptness standards in only 9 of the past 127 months, complex social problems and economic conditions dramatically affected DOL's caseload—factors over which DOL had no control. The court also noted that New York was near the national average in meeting the promptness standards. The court warned, however, that DOL was not in substantial compliance, despite its finding of reasonable diligence, and that measures were necessary to ensure consistent compliance. It ordered DOL to submit biannual reports containing (1) lower- and higher-authority promptness percentages filed with DOL; (2) number of unfilled ALJ positions; (3) percentage of cases not in compliance with the consent order entered in MLC; and (4) any written recommendations proposed by plaintiffs.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiffs represented by Jill Zuccardy, John Gray, Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. B, 105 Court St., Brooklyn, NY 11201, (718) 237-5500.
Docket Date
1994-02-14 00:00:00+00:00

Files

No files available.

Filed under: