NYRA Racing Secretary ‘Suspended,’ Escorted Off Grounds By Security

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by onefast99

If you were representing this client would you like it if NYRA released any information before you had the chance to know the facts that led to your clients dismissal?

There's a difference between ruling off the grounds and prosecution.

This is the ACLU's position on no fly lists and I think it is correct. When the government bars you from doing something they shoud have to tell you and the public why, whatever the effect on ongoing investigatioms.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

There's a difference between ruling off the grounds and prosecution.

This is the ACLU's position on no fly lists and I think it is correct. When the government bars you from doing something they should have to tell you and the public why, whatever the effect on ongoing investigations.

There has to be more to this story, thank you for the info thus far.

[stuball]

Maybe we should have the FBI tap his phone...they are really good at that sort of thing...or maybe they did already

[Rutgers]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

NYRA has lost several court cases where they argued they aren't part of the government. As far as the law is concerned, they are absolutely a public agency.

Several court cases? I am not familiar with even one case where NYRA was ruled a government agency. Since the NYRA Bankruptcy was a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, and not Chapter 9, it should be pretty clear that NYRA is not a government agency as government agencies can not file under Chapter 11.

(as a side note, because NYRA is not a government agency, Mr. Salvato is not required to file a Notice of Claim within 90 days and be subjected to an Examination Under Oath should he wish to pursue a claim/litigation against NYRA over this matter. In this case, it would probably be more advantageous for NYRA if they were a government agency, but they are not.)

[cj]

http://www.drf.com/news/gaming-commi...ing-linda-rice

[GMB@BP]

Of all the trainers who take advantage of the entry box and scratch rules this is probably the least shocking of possible culprits.

[toddbowker]

Barring an employment contract or other agreement (union, for example) which prevents it, employers are generally not restricted from commenting on why someone was fired, as long as it's truthful.

Having said that, most employers in this litigious society don't. No one wants to take a chance that they will get sued for defamation if the employee doesn't like what was said, or in many cases the HR department might not even know if the company is large and it's a right to work State.

For an employee that was terminated, unless it was a simple layoff of an otherwise good employee, the most I would ever divulge is confirmation they worked for me, and what their job title was.

Otherwise, it's always the stock line "we don't comment on personnel matters".

[cj]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Of all the trainers who take advantage of the entry box and scratch rules this is probably the least shocking of possible culprits.

And she still scratches about 3x more than your average trainer, at least as of a year ago.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Rutgers

Several court cases? I am not familiar with even one case where NYRA was ruled a government agency. Since the NYRA Bankruptcy was a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, and not Chapter 9, it should be pretty clear that NYRA is not a government agency as government agencies can not file under Chapter 11.

(as a side note, because NYRA is not a government agency, Mr. Salvato is not required to file a Notice of Claim within 90 days and be subjected to an Examination Under Oath should he wish to pursue a claim/litigation against NYRA over this matter. In this case, it would probably be more advantageous for NYRA if they were a government agency, but they are not.)

Galvin v. New York Racing Ass'n,*70 F.Supp.2d 163, 173 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) ("The property interest in these state-issued licenses cannot be infringed by a state body, including the NYRA"); Saumell v. New York Racing Ass'n, 58 N.Y.2d 231, 237 (1983) ("NYRA concedes for the purposes of this proceeding that its exclusion of petitioner constitutes `State action.'"); Halpern v. Lomenzo, 367 N.Y.S.2d 653 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1975) ("The State has so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with [NYRA] . . . that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the challenged activity, which, on that account, cannot be considered to have been so purely private as to fall without the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment.").

I remember two other cases, Stevens and Alvarez, which held the same thing, but I am on my phone and couldn't pull it up.

NYRA is a state actor. They are also, as I said, a public trust, as the government excluded the private sector to give them the right to conduct racing at the tracks.