22 N.Y.3d 665 (2014)

An employee is entitled to a defense under Education Law § 3028 if their actions arise out of disciplinary action taken against a student while in the discharge of their duties within the scope of their employment, even if the employee’s conduct violates a state regulation prohibiting corporal punishment.

Summary

This case addresses whether the New York City Department of Education must provide a defense to paraprofessionals sued for using corporal punishment, despite a state regulation prohibiting it. The Court of Appeals held that under Education Law § 3028, the City must defend employees whose actions arise from disciplinary actions within the scope of their employment, irrespective of whether those actions violate regulations. The Court reasoned that the statute’s language and legislative intent support providing a defense even in cases of questionable conduct, as evidenced by the statute’s applicability to both civil and criminal actions.

Facts

Two paraprofessionals employed by the New York City Department of Education were sued by students alleging physical abuse. One paraprofessional admitted to slapping a student, while the other was accused of hitting a student on the head. Both actions violated a rule of the Board of Regents (8 NYCRR 19.5[a]) prohibiting corporal punishment.

Procedural History

Both paraprofessionals requested the City of New York to defend them in the lawsuits. The City refused. In Sagal-Cotler, the Supreme Court initially granted the relief sought, but the Appellate Division reversed. In Thomas, the Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division in both cases.

Issue(s)

Whether employees of the New York City Department of Education, sued for using corporal punishment, are entitled to a defense provided by the City under Education Law § 3028, even though their conduct violated a state regulation.

Holding

Yes, because Education Law § 3028 mandates that school districts provide a defense to employees in civil actions arising out of disciplinary actions taken against a student while the employee is acting within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether the employee’s actions violated a regulation.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that Education Law § 3028 requires the City to provide an attorney for employees facing civil or criminal actions arising from disciplinary actions against students within the scope of their employment. The court rejected the City’s argument that violating regulations falls outside the “discharge of duties,” finding the phrase interchangeable with “scope of employment.” The court referenced previous cases like Joseph v City of Buffalo and Matter of Williams v City of New York, which treated these terms synonymously. The court noted that General Municipal Law § 50-k (9) explicitly states that section 50-k does not impair rights to defense under other state laws, including § 3028. The court highlighted that the legislature could have explicitly excluded cases involving regulatory violations, as it did in General Municipal Law § 50-k (2), but it did not. As stated in the opinion, “[a]n employee acts in the scope of his employment when he is doing something in furtherance of the duties he owes to his employer and where the employer is, or could be, exercising some control. . . over the employee’s activities.” The Court concluded that the legislature intended to provide a defense even when an employee’s use of corporal punishment violated regulations, as evidenced by the inclusion of criminal cases in the statute’s scope.