COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS

MINUTES

JUNE 3, 1996

12:25 P.M.

ATTENDANCE:

B & A MEMBERS: Wishnie, Delfino, Young, LaMotte, Darcy

OTHERS: C.E.’s Office: Jamie Hastings, Gina Angiulo; Budget Dept.: Joe Phelan, Legislators: Carsky, Oros, Bronz, Stewart Cousins, Latimer; CBAC: George Hosey, Barbara Strauss; Press: Davis McKay Wilson; Amy Paulin; BOL: Robert J. Boland, Glenn Guzi, Tina Seckerson

Co-Chair Wishnie called the meeting to order at 12:25 p.m.

DISCUSSION: (There is a cassette tape on file for more detailed information):

1. RE: Barbara Annis v. County of Westchester, Anthony Mosca and Ernest J. Colaneri

93 Civ. 3487 (WCC)

Mr. Wishnie explained that at this time there was no need to take any action on the floor of the Board. This lawsuit has been decided and the Judge asked counsel to appear in his Chambers or Court to discuss a possible settlement other than the award made by the jury. After that discussion takes place the parties would have to come back to the BOL and the Board would have to vote on the solution that may be arrived at through negotiations by the County’s counsel and representatives. He continued that there is no need at this time to publicly indicate how the Board would recommend settling this case. It was made clear in Executive Session last week to counsel how the BOL would prefer to see the matter settled. The Committee will go into Executive Session shortly to clarify the position.

2. COUNTY ATTORNEY: Proposed Act authorizing the County Attorney to settle the

lawsuit of Lisa M. Kounitz and Martin S. Kounitz v. Marilyn J. Slaatten, individually and as Westchester County Attorney, Carol Van Scoyoc, individually and as Deputy County Attorney for the County of Westchester and the County of Westchester. (5/6/96)

A letter was received by the BOL from special consultant, Jill Rosenberg, a partner of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliff. She appeared before the Committee at its last session. She states in the letter that the case is in the discovery stages and will require continuing discovery on an expedited basis, followed by a trial, if this matter is not settled today, at substantial cost to the parties. Despite the lack of wrongdoing a jury could find in favor of the plaintiffs. In that event the County defendants could be responsible for back pay, front pay, and compensatory damages. Punitive damages could also be awarded. Given the employee’s salary, back and front pay alone would far exceed the proposed settlement of this matter. Compensatory damages in recent pregnancy discrimination cases have averaged in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Back pay plus compensatory damages and counsel fees could easily put

COMMITTEE ON BUDGET & APPROPRIATIONS

MINUTES - JUNE 3, 1996

PAGE 2

this case in the one-half million dollar range without even an award of punitive damages. Such an award could occur despite the absence of wrongdoing by the county defendants. Often the mere fact that the plaintiff was pregnant and an adverse action was taken during the pregnancy is sufficient for a jury to believe that the plaintiff has been wronged. Additionally, the assumption by department heads that they can treat their employees as professionals and not generate written documentation of every conversation or criticism can work against the department heads when such a lawsuit is brought. She indicates that the proposed settlement of $100,000 for this matter is a good one and recommended.

On motion of Legislator Wishnie, seconded by Legislator Darcy, the motion to go into Executive Session at 12:30 p.m. to discuss these items in further detail was carried by a vote of 5-0.

On motion of Legislator Wishnie, seconded by Legislator Delfino, the motion to come out of Executive Session at 12:46 p.m. was carried by a vote of 5-0.

There being no further items for discussion, on motion of Legislator Darcy, seconded by Legislator LaMotte, the meeting was adjourned at 12:46 p.m.