Arthur Eliav’s lawsuit against RIOC executives, now in New York State court, is complex, but it brings out some troubling RIOC defense tactics. They are also a bust for RIOC, whoever prevails, because they seek winning over doing right.
by David Stone
The Roosevelt Island Daily News
Arthur Eliav’s Lawsuit
First, a disclaimer. I am not a lawyer, and I have no stake in how Eliav’s lawsuit will play out. I read the many RIOC legal entanglements for the stories they tell about how governing works here, how power gets wielded and the behind the scene machinations.
Over the years, I’ve learned a lot from reading the paperwork that I’d never have learned from observing and asking questions. That’s not a good reflection on how government works, the lack of transparency, but it’s the best we’ve got.
The saddest thing that stands out with RIOC is that its legal positions are dominated by technicalities. That is, the state agency seldom defends against accusations thrown its way by ex-employees; it dodges them on technical grounds.
There is no “We would never do that. It violates our values or policies.” Instead, there’s an impression that “Yeah, we might’ve done that, but we think we can get away with it.”
What Eliav alleges…
Eliav worked at RIOC as a staff attorney for 17 years. His lawsuit details what he believes is a long history of work in a hostile workplace. He cits two reasons. First, he testified truthfully in former Chief Counsel Don Lewis’s successful lawsuit against RIOC. But there’s also an insidious overlay of bigotry against his religious observances as an Orthodox Jew.
These two, according to Eliav, brewed a stew of prejudices working against him. Finally, they led to his dismissal without prior notice or warning by President/CEO Shelton J. Haynes after 17 years on the job.
Among other lesser slights, Eliav tells of being passed over for Chief Counsel four times and being asked to train all four who won the job he was denied. Each was a newcomer and usually with less relevant experience. Once, he filled the position for months but ended up training someone else.
Worse yet, at times, were off-limits remarks about Orthodox Jewish practices that did not belong in the workplace.
Nowhere in its most recent filing, a motion to dismiss, does RIOC deny the ugly conditions Eliav said that he worked under. Instead, consistent with other legal actions, it insists that technicalities absolve it of any consequences. (See the full file attached below.)
This may be a successful defense, but politically and morally, it’s sickening.
When things went bad fast…
After years of dealing with hostility, one dramatic sequence abruptly ended Eliav’s time with RIOC after 17 years. From his internship until the fall of 2021, he never worked for any other employer.
When, in September 2021, he saw a new position opening in RIOC’s developing budget. He met with Haynes, expressing his desire for a deserved promotion. According to Eliav, Haynes was amenable. Haynes neither agrees nor disagrees with this assessment. In an email included as evidence, he says he has a different understanding.
Then, however, comes a kind of multi-car pile up. After meeting with Eliav and a co-worker, encouraging them to apply, Chief Counsel Gretchen Robinson posts a Deputy General Counsel opening with requirements neither can meet and that have never been needed before.
Eliav senses bad faith, the culmination of years of prejudices against him. He also cites his perception of Haynes clearing out Caucasians from management within RIOC.
The minimum qualifications are “10 years of total experience with ‘five or more years of which must have been in trial/litigation in a lead capacity (civil or criminal) from inception to verdict'” These are nonsensical, Eliav insists, because RIOC always farms out trial litigation, a practice that continues to this day.
According to Eliav, the requirements were reverse-engineered to disqualify him while promoting another attorney, Markus Sztejnberg, who had far less seniority than him. When Eliav protested via email, accusing Haynes and Robinson of “rigging” the hiring process, that word evolved as the singular cause for his dismissal.
Its motion also suggests a poor work history, but there is no record of anything like that. Throughout his career, Eliav received regular raises based on his performance on the job.
While Eliav’s claim dovetails with Sztejnberg’s resume and subsequent promotion, there are more troubling implications. The most serious is that, despite a pile of lawsuits, RIOC continues farming out litigation as it always has.
And tellingly, when Sztejnberg left to join a New Jersey law firm, future hires were not expected to meet the contested requirements. The move was a one-off.
Then, another vehicle hits the Eliav lawsuit…
Another potential cause for Eliav’s dismissal involves The Daily.
Full Disclosure: At the time of our FOIL request, we were not in touch with Eliav or aware of internal issues affecting the legal department.
In October 2021, concerned about staffing expenses, we foiled RIOC, asking for a list of all staff members and their salaries. What we got back was staggering. It wasn’t just the volume of bloated salaries as much as it was, we found, that Haynes paid himself more than the governor earned.
The number was $226,000 per year for overseeing our little town. That’s a take-your-breath-away number.
Haynes, Eliav alleges, was outraged when the salaries became public. He demanded that the attorney handling FOIL requests provide legal justification for releasing the information.
But there’s a back story here too because, Eliav says, Robinson set up and Haynes approved stalling tactics against any information requested from The Daily. Before he stepped in, insisting on legal compliance, Eliav reports in his lawsuit several likely illegal delaying and diverting tactics suggested by Robinson.
Just days after this, while home on sick leave, Eliav received notification of his firing in an email after 17 productive years at RIOC.
Was this whistleblower retaliation?
Finally…
In its filings, RIOC never directly denies Eliav’s lawsuit claims. Instead, it cites timeframes and other technical grounds in asking for a dismissal. While these may be successful legal tactics, they are political suicide.
If the state cannot make a case for the behavior of its executives where serious charges have been leveled, it’s a virtual concession of wrongdoing. In his lawsuit, Eliav pours out his heart over losing a job he held for the entirety of his career.
And all RIOC has to say is that his complaint lacks merit on technical grounds… Really?
An Emergency, Apparently
Read the full article to learn more about this story.
1 COMMENTS