114 A.D.2d 108 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1986
Lead Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
In April 1984, petitioner, age 51, filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights (Division), charging that he had been unlawfully discriminated against by Galgón Corporation on the basis of his age. Petitioner was engaged by Galgón in a sales capacity under the terms of a written contract which permitted termination upon the giving of 30 days’ notice. Galgón terminated the contract in June 1983. Petitioner alleged that he was dismissed from his position with Galgón and also subjected to discrimination during the course of his service with Galgón in that he was denied equal terms, conditions and privileges of employment (see, Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]). Petitioner concurrently made application for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Law (Labor Law art 18).
The Division ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to accept petitioner’s discrimination complaint and, accordingly, dismissed it. That decision was predicated on the Division’s determination that petitioner was not an employee of Galgón, but rather an independent contractor. In reaching that decision, the Division had before it the contract between petitioner and Galgón, the decisions made at the various stages of appeal in the unemployment insurance proceeding, as well as submissions and written arguments of the parties. The contract required petitioner to pay his own travel and other related expenses. It specifically noted that an employer-employee relationship was not being created. He was referred to as a "commission agent”. Petitioner’s work hours and day-today routine were under his control. Based upon the evidence before it, the Division could rationally determine that petitioner was an independent contractor rather than an employee of Galgón.
The Court of Appeals has held that collateral estoppel effect will be given to quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies "when rendered pursuant to the adjudicatory authority of an agency to decide cases brought before its tribunals employing procedures substantially similar to those used in a court of law” (Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 499). In determining whether collateral estoppel is applicable, a crucial inquiry is whether the issue on which estoppel is sought was necessarily decided in the prior agency decision (supra, at pp 500-501). Since administrative agencies are normally charged with making determinations based on unique, and often times complex, statutes and regulations which apply specifically to them, care must be taken in identifying the precise issue necessarily decided in the first proceeding and comparing it to the issue involved in the second proceeding. Such inquiry is not particularly difficult when the question is whether to give collateral estoppel effect to determinations of pure or evidentiary facts (see, Siegel, NY Prac § 463, at 612). However, where the determination involves an ultimate fact, or more appropriately a mixed issue of fact and law, the inquiry is more troublesome. This is so because the Legislature normally vests great discretion in an agency to rule on such an issue based on what considerations the agency believes are most appropriate. Thus, agency decisions on such ultimate facts are imbued with policy considerations as well as the expertise of the agency.
In the instant case, the issue before both agencies, i.e., whether petitioner was an employee of Calgon, appears at first glance to be identical. However, Labor Law § 511 (1) (a) broadly defines employment as "any service under any contract of employment for hire, express or implied, written, or oral”. The Human Rights Law does not define employment, but it has been held that the word is intended to be interpreted in its accepted and dictionary meaning (State Div. of Human Rights v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 98 AD2d 958, appeal dismissed 62 NY2d 645; see, Matter of Board of Higher Educ. v Carter, 14 NY2d 138, 147). Thus, the term is not
This situation is not unlike that found in civil actions where an ultimate fact is involved. In Hinchey v Sellers (7 NY2d 287), a New Hampshire court found, in a declaratory judgment action between a driver of a car which had been involved in an accident and the car owner’s insurer, that the driver had not been driving the car with permission. In a later New York action grounded on the statute imputing a driver’s conduct to the car owner when the car is being operated with the owner’s permission,
Finally, this result is not at odds with the decision of the Court of Appeals in Ryan v New York Tel. Co. (62 NY2d 494, supra), wherein a decision of the Board denying a claimant benefits because he was discharged for misconduct was held to preclude his later tort and breach of contract action against
In conclusion, since the issue of employment is an ultimate fact, the resolution of which is committed to the discretion of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and the Division of Human Rights under independent bodies of law, there is no identity of issue and the Board’s finding of employment does not automatically mandate a similar finding by the Division. Accordingly, the Division’s determination must be confirmed.
. Vehicle and Traffic Law former § 59 (renum § 388).
. The meaning of the term "misconduct” for purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Law is narrower than the meaning of the same term for the purpose of justifiable discharge (Matter ofHulse [Levine], 41 NY2d 813, 814).
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). I cannot agree that collateral estoppel
is inapplicable in the circumstances of this case.
The Court of Appeals recently "made clear that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are applicable to give conclusive effect to the quasi-judicial determinations of
The same rationale should apply where, as here, the proceedings were held before unrelated administrative bodies. "What is controlling is the identity of the issue which has necessarily been decided in the prior action or proceeding” (Ryan v New York Tel Co., supra, p 500).
In both the prior proceeding before the Board and the instant proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights (Division), the issue was whether petitioner was an employee or an independent contractor. The prior proceeding considered the issue in the context of Labor Law article 18, while the issue herein was decided under Executive Law article 15. It must be determined whether this distinction renders the issues sufficiently different to justify conflicting results. I think not.
Collateral estoppel, of course, cannot be applied against a party who has not had a full and fair opportunity in the prior proceeding to contest the issue now said to be controlling (Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485), but Calgon cannot make such a claim.
Having concluded that Calgon is precluded from relitigating the question of whether petitioner is an employee, I would annul the Division’s determination.
Kane, J., concurs with Mahoney, P. J.; Harvey and Main,
Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring). We concur with the opinion of Presiding Justice Mahoney for the reasons stated. However, we would confirm for an additional reason. In our view, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel have undergone an extensive process of refinement, particularly during the last 25 years. Heretofore, however, no appellate court has addressed the special problem created by the "substantial evidence” standard of proof applicable to most administrative determinations. Administrative decisions do not require a preponderance of the evidence (Matter of Acosta v Wollett, 55 NY2d 761; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180). In many instances, courts find substantial evidence supporting both sides of an issue but do not disturb the administrative agency’s decision (see, Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assoc. [Roberts], 60 NY2d 734, 736; Matter of Clute v Chu, 106 AD2d 841, 843). In our view, giving estoppel effect to such decisions effectively denies a litigant his day in court. When an administrative decision is made on less than a preponderance of proof, no agency should be denied its right of determination merely because another agency had previously made a determination on the same evidence.