Initiating disciplinary action based on anonymous allegations of wrongdoing

Initiating disciplinary action based on anonymous allegations of wrongdoing
Wilson v City of White Plains, 259 AD2d 756, reversed, 95 NY2d 783

Anonymous communications that allege improper conduct by an employee place the appointing authority on the horns of a dilemma. If the employer ignores the communication, it may later develop that there was some substance to the allegation, and the employer will be exposed to criticism (or liability) for failing to act “on the information.” On the other hand, if the appointing authority confronts the employee, relying solely on the information it received anonymously, it may be criticized for taking adverse action against the employee based on such information alone. Such was the situation that faced the appointing authority in the Wilson case.

White Plains firefighter Scott Wilson had been directed to submit to blood and urine tests based on what the Appellate Division characterized as “unsubstantiated information contained in an anonymous letter” that had been received by the department. Ultimately disciplinary charges were filed against Wilson. A hearing officer found Wilson guilty of six charges of misconduct. The Commissioner of Public Safety adopted the findings and recommendations of the hearing officer and dismissed Wilson from his position. Wilson appealed his termination and persuaded the court that his removal was arbitrary.

Noting that “there was no objective evidence which would have suggested that the [Wilson] was abusing alcohol or drugs,” the Appellate Division said that under these circumstances, ordering Wilson to undergo such testing “was arbitrary and without even a minimal basis of justification.” Finding that Wilson’s dismissal was improper under the circumstances, the court directed the department to reinstate him to his former position with back pay and benefits.

The key issue: Did the Department have “reasonable suspicion” to require Wilson to submit to blood and urine tests for alcohol or drugs? Finding that the order was based on “reasonable suspicion,” the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s ruling.

The court said that “Reversal is warranted because the [lower] Court erred in concluding that there was no objective evidence as to Wilson's substance abuse and overlooked the following findings of the Hearing Officer: In 1986, four years after joining the City of White Plains Fire Department, Wilson voluntarily sought treatment at a substance abuse facility.”

When he returned to duty, Wilson was told that he would be monitored for signs of recurring substance abuse and tested if he showed such signs.

Further, Wilson acknowledged that he understood that any repetition of his substance abuse would result in disciplinary charges.

In August 1996, the Fire Commissioner received an anonymous letter, indicating that Wilson had been reporting to work under the influence of alcohol. After reviewing the letter with other fire department officials, the Fire Commissioner decided to investigate the situation further. As a part of the investigation, fire department officials reviewed Wilson's personnel file, which revealed a history of chronic absenteeism.

In the words of the Court of Appeals: “A public agency may lawfully order an employee to submit to a drug test on reasonable suspicion of drug use.” The that this the Department had met this standard and, in addition, the Department’s “reasonable suspicion” was supported by far more than just the anonymous letter.

In addition to the letter, said the court, the City presented evidence of Wilson's physical manifestations of substance abuse the day he was tested, a long record of excessive absences, prior substance abuse problems, a reputation for showing up at work under the influence, as well as his understanding that he could be tested if he showed any signs of recurring substance abuse.
NYPPL