Lawsuit against the Town Of Cheektowaga.

[WNYresident]

If you are a business owner and you hire 12 employee, how can you guarantee that all of those employees will behave appropriately every minute of every day that they are on the time clock? How can you guarantee that they won't get into a squabble inside/outside of work and that one of them then accuses all the others of wrong-doing in the work place -- wrong doing that doesn't impact performance or is dishonest, just not very nice?

It's going to cost money to look into the matter. It's going to cost even more money if the accuser doesn't like the results of your in-house investigation which said the complaint was unfounded and decides to file a lawsuit. So, what are you going to do, Rez? Fire all 12? Fire only the 1 who complained? Fire the 11 who were accused? Explain to the complainer that the investigation doesn't support the accusations and hope he/she accepts that?

You can not guarantee that all employees will behave appropriately but the situation still has to be handled properly. Problem employees are terminated while new employees are hired and you move on.

You have to see if the complainer is a liar or not. If the story is true which opens up us to a lawsuit then you might end up firing all involved. Or you fire the liar because it is interfering with work of others. The other approach is you send all involved to "work place sexually harassment classes" but then again that would cost us property more money.

I get the feeling you think no employees should be held accountable for what they do.

[Dan Roman]

.10 cents on our tax bill. I wonder how Linda knows it was only .10 cents.

Linda? do you know the total amount that was spent on this issue? How did you get that info?


I'm interested in the monetary cost to us property/business owners.

Anyone know the number of tax paying properties in cheektowaga?

I searched "how many taxable properties in cheektowaga ny" and had this come up on google:

http://www.tocny.org/Departments/Assessors.aspx

I wonder if Jeneen knows the number of taxable properties in our town. We can take the amount spent on this and figure out how much it cost each property owner. I found this.


2013 Cheektowaga Final Assessment Roll



So I guess there are 35,065 taxable properties in the town. Correct?

That hovercraft fiasco was about $70,000 right? Including man hours spent of various town employees involved in that purchase, maintenance, training, meetings spent discussing the purchase and finally money spent on auctioning it off at a loss. I still can't believe with 7 people monitoring what goes on in our town (Town Board) we ended up with hovercraft.

Lets say that was another $20,000 spent on labor cost. $90,000K in total.

$90,000 / 35,065 properties = $2.56 each if we base the spending a year at a time.

If I am going to send in $2.56 more on my property tax I would rather see it spent on fixing the holes in my road instead of a hovercraft.

Or I'd rather go to Dairy Queen with a coupon and spend $2.56 on an ice cream instead of a hovercraft. Or lawsuit.

I can't say what should be done with the people involved because I don't have all the actual details of what happened and/or how the situation was handled over time.

Perhaps the root cause of this issue should be given a pink slip. Did the situation escalate to what it did because of the lack of supervision? I don't know.

I thought the hover craft was a grant paid for by the feds or something like that? Which still comes down to paid by us the taxpayer. I'm sure there was a lot of money spent on training, maint , etc though.

[WNYresident]

I thought the hover craft was a grant paid for by the feds or something like that? Which still comes down to paid by us the taxpayer. I'm sure there was a lot of money spent on training, maint , etc though.

Money is money. The group could have worked on a grant for $70,000 to get a road fixed. Did all the employees involved in this volunteer all their time with the hovercraft?

[4248]

There in is one of the publics main misconceptions -

Grants - no matter what level of Government approved it = Tax Dollars.

Also like Linda tried to do - they will quite often use the "Drop in the Bucket" excuse. - Like, "Oh, its 5 cents per house or its only $1.00 per tax payers - compared to the total budget - its nothing"

This happens hundreds of times , every year, every Village, Town, City , County and all the way to Washington. The long term affect is even if it starts as 10 cents a house per year local - it ends up being hundreds of dollars a month by the time the cumulative affect hits the federal level. - Then BILLIONS - where and when does it end ?

[Dan Roman]

Money is money. The group could have worked on a grant for $70,000 to get a road fixed. Did all the employees involved in this volunteer all their time with the hovercraft?

A hovercraft is sexy, wow factor, look what we got for "free". Road paving is boring.

Why would a town employee volunteer their time? I'm sure a boatload of money got pissed away on this debacle.

Looks like the town board was all in on this great deal, of course only one councilman is stilll in office.

Award of Bid - One (1) New and Unused Water Way
Maintenance and Rescue Vehicle
Sponsored By:
Councilmember Swiatek, Supervisor Holtz
WHEREAS, bids were received and opened by the Town Clerk at a public bid opening
held on June 1, 2011, for One (1) New and Unused 2011 Water Way Maintenance and Rescue
Vehicle for use by the Town of Cheektowaga Highway Department as a result of advertisement
thereof, and such bid was referred to the Superintendent of Highway for analysis, tabulation and
reports, AND
WHEREAS, bids were analyzed and completed, NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, the responsible bidder meeting bid specs for One (1) New and Unused
2011 Water Way Maintenance and Rescue Vehicle be awarded to Cyncon Equipment Inc.,
7494 West Henrietta Road, Rush, New York 14543 at a total bid price of $69,992.00 said bidder
meeting specifications of bid. AND BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that monies be charged to line item 300-1530-2407.
TABULATION FOR
ONE (1) NEW AND UNUSED 2011 WATER WAY MAINTENANCE
AND RESCUE VEHICLE
Neoteric Hovercraft Inc.
1649 Tippecanoe Street
Terre haute, IN 47807-2394 $69,960.00
Cyncon Equipment Inc.
7494 West Henrietta Road
Rush, NY 14543 $69,992.00
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:
Jeff Swiatek, Councilmember
SECONDER:
Mary Holtz, Supervisor
AYES:
Holtz, Jaworowicz, Swiatek, Rogowski, Zydel, Markel, Kaznowski

[nogods]

I did not get the impression that the Town's motion to dismiss was on good footing. In fact it read more like a motion to strike names and events. Based on my reading of the motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's response I believe the motion to dismiss was going to be denied. Whether or not the complaint would of survived a motion for summary judgment I have no idea.

I believe there is more than the job transfer/reinstatement otherwise there is no purpose behind the confidentiality agreement regardless of who wanted it. I would also like to see a copy of the confidentiality agreement and see if it covers more than just the settlement terms.
I believe the Town was motivated to settle at this stage because if the motion to dismiss was denied there would have been depositions surrounding the allegation which may be unfavorable to the town.

Which motion were you reading? The filed one was a rule 12b motion to dismiss the entire complaint:

Dismissing the complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6), on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted inasmuch as the First Cause of Action (for discrimination) fails to and cannot allege that Defendant was negligent in its handling of the Plaintiff’s complaints and the Second Cause of Action (for retaliation) fails to and cannot allege that Defendant took any tangible employment action against Plaintiff;

And the defendant's reply memorandum asked for the same:

For the reasons set forth herein as well as in the Town’s motion to dismiss or strike, the Complaint’s First Cause of Action (discrimination) should be dismissed inasmuch as Sprada has not and cannot allege any facts that the Town was negligent in responding to her belated internal complaints of discrimination. The Complaint’s Second Cause of Action (retaliation) should be dismissed because Sprada has not alleged that she suffered an adverse employment action. Sprada concedes that she cannot claim punitive damages against the Town, which is a municipality, and that portion of her prayer for relief should be stricken.

The pending motion to dismiss would have no impact on the defendant's settlement posture because if it was denied, the defendant would be in no worse position than before the motion, especially if the parties thought that it was going to be denied. Depositions would not have followed. The defendant would simply have make the same settlement offer that they would have made pre-motion.

The plaintiff, however, is the one with incentive to seek a settlement before the motion is decided, because if it was granted she gets a big fat zero. There is no "another day" for her like there would be for the defendant if the the motion was denied.

Moreover, an element of damages for her claim is loss earnings both past and future. If she had the upper hand in settlement negotiations, the only way to justify transferring her to a lower paying job would be to front load a cash settlement.

finally, it makes sense for a plaintiff seeking face saving to bargain for a confidentially agreement. It makes no sense for the town to do so knowing it could be forced to disclose it under FOIL. The plaintiff can hope that by forcing the Town to deny a FOIL request it will dissuade anyone from investing in an article 78 proceeding to obtain the settlement terms.

If the plaintiff had the upper hand in settlement, she would not want a confidentially agreement because she would want to publicize her victory and vindication. And the town would know that one of her family members or friends could do an article 78 and force the town to disclose the settlement.

[dtwarren]

Yes, depositions would follow if the motion to dismiss was denied and you know it.

I am sure you are also aware of the standard for a motion to dismiss. A court should consider a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) "accepting all factual allegations in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and citation omitted). To withstand dismissal, a plaintiff must set forth "enough facts to state [*6] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). "'A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'" Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 589 F.3d 542, 546 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)).

"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (alteration in original) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, "at a bare minimum, the operative standard requires the plaintiff [to] provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Goldstein v. Pataki, 516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

According to the article:

“She will be placed in a different job outside of the Sewer Department,” Schenk said. “She just didn’t want to go back there.”

A possibility is a lower-paying clerk’s job in the Records Department, he said.

A lower paying job is a possibility they do not say what will happen.

[WNYresident]

So nogods. Should we really care what is spent on items like this?

[nogods]

Yes, depositions would follow if the motion to dismiss was denied and you know it.

No, depositions would only follow if the plaintiff rejected a post decision settlement offer from the defendant. the parties aren't sitting around a table waiting to start depositions as soon as the receive the court's email notice of the decision on the motion.


Moreover the defendant has no reason to make a favorable settlement offer to the plaintiff while a motion to dismiss is pending because if the motion is denied, the defendant is in the same position as before the motion was decided. That is especially true if, as you thought, the parties expected the motion to be denied.

The plaintiff, however, has every reason to accept a face saving settlement offer before the motion is decided, because if the motion is granted the game is over for the plaintiff. Unlike an unfavorable decision for the defendant who is still in the ball game, an unfavorable decision for the plaintiff ends the game and she gets nada.

[nogods]

So nogods. Should we really care what is spent on items like this?

Yes, we should care, but there are a lot of factual issues - what was the defense cost? Was it reasonable given the nature of the claim, the town's exposure, and the skill of the lawyer? Was it paid for by the insurer?

Then there is the issue of what, if anything, should be done if the settlement came about because the allegations had significant truth to them.

[WNYresident]

Then there is the issue of what, if anything, should be done if the settlement came about because the allegations had significant truth to them.

Lets say it was true. What do you think should be done?

Here is the problem when you have friends/family all working together you get nepotism.

[Linda_D]

You can not guarantee that all employees will behave appropriately but the situation still has to be handled properly. Problem employees are terminated while new employees are hired and you move on.

You have to see if the complainer is a liar or not. If the story is true which opens up us to a lawsuit then you might end up firing all involved. Or you fire the liar because it is interfering with work of others. The other approach is you send all involved to "work place sexually harassment classes" but then again that would cost us property more money.

I get the feeling you think no employees should be held accountable for what they do.

How do you determine who's the "problem employee", Rez? How do you determine who's the "liar"? What if it's a simple question of interpretation? You've NEVER said something meaning one thing that somebody else thought meant something else and got offended by it? What if the aggrieved employee isn't satisfied with your handling of the situation?

One of the reasons that there's so many civil law suits is because people can't agree. Sometimes both parties are at fault. Sometimes one party tries to force his/her will on another party. Sometimes somebody who is vindictive will use the legal system to try to get back at someone. Sometimes the parties just misunderstand/misinterpret things.

[WNYresident]

The supervisors of each department should have a clue how the employees act/behave.


You will never make everyone happy aggrieved employee or not. Property/business owners best interest come first. The "bosses". The ones who pay the bills. This is the part that the small local political parties that use us as employment agencies have forgotten.



Go review the beginning of this thread. This seems to have been an ongoing issue.

LindaD
You've NEVER said something meaning one thing that somebody else thought meant something else and got offended by it?

While she was employed as a clerk typist, Defendant’s Supervisor, Bob Latshaw, told Ms. Sprada that some of the men who worked in the Sewer Maintenance Department behaved inappropriately at work. Supervisor Latshaw told Ms. Sprada that one male employee masturbated in one of the work trucks

How would you take that? What would you think that meant?

Within a month or two of transferring to the position of Sewer Maintenance Worker, Ms. Sprada spoke to Supervisor Latshaw about the men’s comments when she went to the restroom. In response, Supervisor Latshaw laughed and said that the comments insinuating that anyone who went upstairs was going to perform oral sex on the managers
was a “long standing joke.”

Do you think Supervisor Latshaw handling of the issue was correct? Let it continue because it was a "long standing joke"?

Ms. Sprada observed that any co-workers who complained about the men’s behavior was either ostracized or harassed. As such, she was fearful to complain.

I wonder if any of these co-workers came forward to back up her claims? We don't know.

[nogods]

The supervisors of each department should have a clue how the employees act/behave.


You will never make everyone happy aggrieved employee or not. Property/business owners best interest come first. The "bosses". The ones who pay the bills. This is the part that the small local political parties that use us as employment agencies have forgotten.



Go review the beginning of this thread. This seems to have been an ongoing issue.






How would you take that? What would you think that meant?




Do you think Supervisor Latshaw handling of the issue was correct? Let it continue because it was a "long standing joke"?



I wonder if any of these co-workers came forward to back up her claims? We don't know.

Why are you assuming any of it is true?

What if it is all false? How do those employees who were dragged through the mud get recompensed for the false charges?

[WNYresident]

I'm not assuming any of it is true. If it is not true then we are employing a liar which we simply do not have to employ. Why deal with it and put other employee through that?

Why would they get re-compensated? I'm pretty sure when all this was going on they were on the clock.