Preparing witnesses for an administrative hearing or a trial

Preparing witnesses for an administrative hearing or a trial
Health & Hospital Corp. [Queens Hospital Center] v Toval, OATH Index #500/11

It is good practice to prepare each witness for an administrative hearing or a trial separately.
A recent case adjudicated by an OATH Administrative Law Judge highlights potential pitfalls of preparing multiple witnesses for trial together.

In this case a witness admitted that she had difficulty remembering what happened on the night of the charged incident and that her testimony were based in part on a conversation she had with another witness while the pair were being prepared for trial on the previous day. It was unclear what portions of the witness' testimony was based upon her independent recollection and what aspects were based on information provided by the other witness.

Administrative Law Judge Miller found that the joint trial preparation undermined the reliability of both witnesses.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-500.pdf

Public employee not always entitled to a name-clearing hearing

Public employee not always entitled to a name-clearing hearing
Brown v Simmons, 478 F.3d 922

The lesson in Brown v Simmons is that a public employee is not entitled to a name-clearing hearing to rebut statements of a defamatory nature except when he or she has been terminated by the employer.*

Jim Brown, a teacher, sued James Simmons, the superintendent of the Conway (Arkansas) Public School District, alleging that Simmons infringed Brown’s procedural due process rights by denying him a name-clearing hearing. Brown contended that he was entitled to a name-clearing hearing because he was stigmatized by defamatory statements made by other school officials. In the words of the Circuit Court of Appeals, “Brown filed a “stigma plus” claim.”

The district court dismissed Brown’s complaint, finding that he failed to “state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The Circuit court affirmed the district court’s ruling.

It noted that defaming a governmental employee’s reputation, good name, honor, or integrity in connection with terminating the employee, without giving the employee a name-clearing hearing, is a deprivation of the employee’s constitutionally protected liberty interest.

To state a “stigma plus” claim, the employee must allege:

(1) an official made a defamatory statement that resulted in a stigma;

(2) the defamatory statement occurred during the course of terminating the employee;

(3) the defamatory statement was made public; and

(4) an alteration or extinguishment of a right or legal status.

In response to Simmons’ motion to dismiss Brown’s cause of action, Brown alleged he had been transferred and lost pay. The district court, however, said that “even if accepted, [Brown’s claims] are insufficient to trigger the protection of the due process clause.”

The court, quoting from Hughes v. Whitmer, 714 F.2d 1407, said:

“the constitution does not require the government to give to its stigmatized employee a hearing if the public employee remains a public employee” and “the internal transfer of an employee, unless [the transfer] constitutes such a change of status as to be regarded essentially as a loss of employment, does not . . . give rise to a liberty interest meriting protection under the due process clause.

The Simmons decision appears consistent with the law in New York – dismissal is the triggering event entitling an individual to a name-clearing hearing.

As the New York State Court of Appeals held in Matter of Stanziale, 55 NY2d 735, -- where the basis for dismissal is of a "stigmatizing nature" the individual is entitled to some due process so as to clear his or her name.

In Matter of Murphy v City of New York, 2006 NY Slip Op 10135, decided December 28, 2006, Appellate Division, First Department, Index 109352/05, the court ruled that Murphy was entitled to a name clearing hearing following his “coerced retirement.” The Retirement System conceded that there had been dissemination of a report prepared by Retirement System that contained inaccuracies and was stigmatizing. Regardless whether Murphy resigned or was fired, the court said that he has satisfied the requirement of loss of employment that is necessary to demand a name-clearing hearing.**

For the full text of the decision, go to:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-right-to-name-clearing-hearing.html

* The “New York Rule” in such situations is discussed in Ortiz v Ward, 546 NYS2d 624. In considering the need for a "name-clearing hearing," the Appellate Division noted that Ortiz was not entitled to such a hearing as he did not show that his employer had publicly disclosed the stigmatizing reasons for his discharge. New York courts have ruled that the internal disclosure of stigmatizing reasons for the discharge of a probationer to agency administrators did not constitute a public disclosure of such information and thus a "name-clearing hearing" was not required because of such intra-agency communications.

** See also of Johnston v Kelly, 35 AD3d 297, where the court said “the sole purpose of a name-clearing hearing is to afford the employee an opportunity to prove that the stigmatizing material in the personnel file is false."

Leave of absence from former position upon appointment from an open-competitive eligible list not required

Leave of absence from former position upon appointment from an open-competitive eligible list not required
Bethel v McKechnie, Ct. of Appeals, 95 NY2d 7

Is an appointing authority required to hold open a permanent employee’s position until the individual has completed his or her probationary period in a position to which he or she has been appointed from an open-competitive eligible list?

In Bethel the Court of Appeals ruled that a public employee who accepts an appointment to a position from an open competitive examination effectively resigned from his or her former position.

Earlene Bethel applied for, and was granted, a leave of absence from her permanent position as Contract Specialist II with New York City’s Community Development Agency [CDA] to accept a provisional appointment as a Staff Analyst with CDA. New York City’s Human Resources Administration [HRA] approved the provisional appointment with CDA, and, presumably her leave of absence from her permanent position.

In April 1995, the list for Staff Analyst was certified to HRA and Bethel was permanently appointed to the title, subject to her satisfactory completion of a one-year probationary period. After starting her probationary period, HRA told Bethel that her leave from her Contract Specialist position was canceled. Bethel did not challenged HRA’s action at that time.

Bethel was terminated before completing her probationary period for allegedly committing several acts of insubordination. When CDA refused to reinstate Bethel to her former position of Contract Specialist, she sued, claiming that she could not be terminated except after notice and hearing in accordance with Section 75 of the Civil Service Law because she held a permanent appointment as a Contract Specialist. The critical issue to be resolved:

Was Bethel promoted to the Staff Analyst position as that term is used in the Civil Service Law?

Section 63(1) of the Civil Service Law provides that when probationary service is required upon an employee’s promotion, the position formerly held by the individual promoted shall be held for him and shall not be filled, except on a temporary basis, pending completion of his or her probationary term.*

The Court of Appeals decided that Bethel had not been promoted and thus Section 63(1) did not apply to her situation. Citing Engoren v County of Nassau, 163 AD2d 520, leave to appeal denied 77 NY2d 805, the court said that Section 63(1) provides job security to a permanent employee who is transferred or promoted to a position in which he or she is required to serve, but does not satisfactorily complete, a probationary period.**

Although the Court of Appeals noted that the term promotion is not explicitly defined in the Civil Service Law, the law clearly distinguishes between open competitive examinations and promotional examinations.

While Bethel received a higher salary in the new position, the court decided that she was not promoted within the meaning of the Civil Service Law because under Section 52.9 of the Civil Service Law, an increase in salary will be deemed a promotion only if the employee receives compensation beyond the limit fixed for the grade in which such office or position is classified.***

The Court said that agencies are not (1) required to keep open a prior permanent position for a probationary employee who has been neither promoted nor transferred and (2) Bethel was not entitled to a hearing prior to the cancellation of her leave of absence from her former position.

Concluding that Bethel was not promoted within the meaning of the Civil Service Law, the Court of Appeals ruled that Bethel effectively resigned her permanent position upon her accepting a permanent appointment as a Staff Analyst.

* Although a temporary appointment [see subdivisions 1 and 2 or Civil Service Law Section 64] or a contingent permanent appointment [see Civil Service Law Section 64.4] may be made to the resulting vacancy in such situations, a provisional appointment cannot be made to such a vacancy as the position “is not wholly vacant” [see Civil Service Law Section 65].

** Engoren, a caseworker, was appointed Probation Officer Trainee [POT] after passing an open competitive examination rather than a promotion examination. As there was no evidence existed that the open competitive examination was conducted in lieu of or simultaneously with a promotional examination, or that Engoren’s service as a Caseworker qualified her for a promotion as a POT, the court decided that she failed to prove that she had been promoted when appointed as a POT.

*** The Court of Appeals also noted that “Except as provided in [Civil Service Law] section fifty-one,” vacancies in positions in the competitive class are typically to be filled “by promotion from among persons holding competitive class positions in a lower grade in the department in which the vacancy exists, provided that such lower grade positions are in direct line of promotion, as determined by the state civil service department or municipal commission…”

Employer's failure to explain selection decision to rebut eligible's claim of denial promotion negates summary dismissal of employee's petition

Employer's failure to explain selection decision to rebut eligible's claim of denial promotion negates summary dismissal of employee's petition
Baker v Elmira, 271 AD2d 906

What may individual who believes that he or she has been passed-over for appointment to a position in the competitive class for political reasons do in such a situation? James A. Baker, Sr., decided that he would sue the City of Elmira when he was not selected for promotion to fire lieutenant for what he alleged were partisan political reasons.

Baker, an Elmira firefighter since 1974, took and passed the promotion test for fire lieutenant. The first four firefighters on the list were promoted before the list expired; Baker was fifth on the list.

Prior to the expiration of the list Fire Chief Donald Harrison told the Elmira city manager W. Gregg LaMar that there would soon be additional vacancies as result of retirement. Commenting that Baker was next on the list, he recommended three appointments: Baker, Eugene Ottaviani and Patrick Shaw. All had identical examination and seniority scores. Ottaviani was promoted.

Baker sued, submitting affidavits indicating that he was not being promoted because of his political affiliation. Although a State Supreme Court judge summarily dismissed Baker’s complaint, the Appellate Division reversed. Quoting from McManus v Grippen, 244 AD2d 632, the court said “it was incumbent upon [the defendant] to come forward with admissible evidence showing that plaintiff [‘s] political affiliations and activities did not play a substantial part in its decision.”

While Elmira made a prima facie showing of the propriety of the promotion, it provided no explanation as to why LaMar chose one eligible over the other candidates, since they were all equally qualified. This, said the court, meant that summarily dismissing the case was improper.

Employee’s failure to provide an adequate urine sample attributed to employer’s failure to comply federal procedures rather than employee misconduct

Employee’s failure to provide an adequate urine sample attributed to employer’s failure to comply federal procedures rather than employee misconduct
Dept. of Sanitation v Anonymous, OATH Index No. 765/11

OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin Casey dismissed a charge alleging that a sanitation worker had refused to submit to a random drug test. The worker, who became ill during the testing procedure and was later diagnosed with a medical condition, was unable to provide a sufficient urine sample, despite repeated attempts.

ALJ Casey found the department failed to provide the worker with forty ounces of water to drink over a period of three hours, as required by federal regulation. Hence, the employee's failure to produce sufficient urine for testing was not misconduct.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/11_Cases/11-765.pdf

Firefighter’s training exercise injury not an accident for disability benefit purposes

Firefighter’s training exercise injury not an accident for disability benefit purposes
Matter of Stimpson v Hevesi, 38 AD3d 979

Christopher W. Stimpson, a firefighter employed by the Village of Scarsdale Fire Department in Westchester County, was injured during a training exercise.

His foot became wedged while participating in a simulation rescue, resulting in an injury to his right knee. Stimpson’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied on the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law Section 363.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Retirement System’s determination, ruling that an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law is a "'sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact." In this instance, said the court, the injury Stimpson suffered "was the result of a training program [incident] constituting an ordinary part of [his] job duties and the normal risks arising therefrom."

Accordingly, the court confirmed the System’s ruling and dismissed Stimpson’s petition.

For the full text of the decision, go to:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/03/injury-during-training-exercise-ruled.html

=============================
If you are interested in learning more about General Municipal Law §207-a or §207-c disability benefits and procedures please click here: http://section207.blogspot.com/2011/03/v-behaviorurldefaultvml-o.html
=============================

Salary upon appointment

Salary upon appointment
Golanec v Culross, 272 AD2d 471

Rye police officer Jeffrey Golanec claimed that in consideration of his experience as a police officer, he was entitled to be appointed at a higher salary step of the salary grade of his position rather than at the entrance level rate.

The Appellate Division, sustaining a lower court ruling, pointed out that Golanec failed to prove that other police officers with the same or similar training and experience as police officers were appointed at higher starting salary levels.

Had Golanec been able to demonstrate that other police officers having training and experience similar to his were initially appointed at a higher salary, presumably the court would have required the appointing authority to explain why it had appointed him at the entrance level of the pay scale.

Health insurance coverage for domestic partners

Health insurance coverage for domestic partners
Matter of Putnam/Northern Westchester Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs. v Westchester County Human Rights Commn, 2011 NY Slip Op 01030, Appellate Division, Second Department

A woman employed by a school district that provides its employees with health insurance coverage through a BOCES "Health Benefits Consortium" had lived with a male partner in a romantic relationship for more than 30 years. Never married, she and her partner registered their domestic partnership with Westchester County in 2006

When the Consortium’s Board voted to extend dependent health care benefits to same-sex domestic partners of “member employees,” the employee asked for "Domestic Partner health coverage" for her opposite-sex domestic partner pursuant to the Plan's "Domestic Partner Policy." The Consortium, however, advised the employee that it had denied her request because its “Domestic Partner Policy” only applied to those in a same-sex domestic partner relationship.

The employee filed a complaint with the Westchester County Human Rights Commission alleging that she had been unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation and her marital status in violation of the Westchester County Human Rights Law §700.03.

Ultimately the Westchester County Human Rights Commission agreed with the employee, finding that the Consortium had violated §700.03 by unlawfully discriminating against the employee on the basis of her sexual orientation and marital status.

The Commission ruled that the employee was entitled to domestic partner health care benefits for her opposite-sex domestic partner to the same extent "as if he were her same-sex domestic partner." It enjoined the Consortium from maintaining its policy of extending health care benefits to same-sex domestic partners and not to opposite-sex domestic partners and awarded the employee $24,178 in “damages.”

The Appellate Division annulled the Commission’s determination.

As to the employee's claim of discrimination on the basis of marital status, the court held that the employee had “failed to meet her burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination based upon marital status because eligibility for the domestic partner health care benefits for which she applied ‘[does] not turn on the marital status’ of the employee.”

Turning to the employee's allegation that she had been the victim of unlawful discrimination based on her sexual orientation, the court said that the employee had established a prima facie case by demonstrating that “the provision of health care benefits to same-sex domestic partners and denial of such benefits to her and her opposite-sex domestic partner” sets out an inference of discrimination.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division said that the burden shifted to the Consortium to set forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to extend domestic partner benefits only to same-sex couples.

The court decided that the Consortium had, in fact, met its burden by demonstrating that the reason for its offering health care benefits only to same-sex domestic partners is that same-sex domestic partners cannot obtain benefits offered by the Board to an employee's spouse because those in a same-sex domestic partner relationship cannot lawfully marry in this State at this time. The decision notes that the Consortium’s “Domestic Partner Policy” stated that it may be rescinded in the event that same-sex marriage becomes legal in the participant's "state of residence."

This, the Appellate Division concluded, set out a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for the Consortium's decision to offer dependent health insurance coverage only in situations involving same-sex couples in consideration of the current impediment to same-sex couples marrying in New York State.

In contrast, participating employers in the New York State Health Insurance Plan [NYSHIP], if the participating employer has elected to offer “domestic partner” health insurance coverage to its employees and their dependants, dependent coverage is available to both an employee’s same-sex domestic partner or an employee's opposite-sex domestic partner.

A domestic partnership, for the purposes of eligibility for coverage in NYSHIP, is one in which the participant and the participant’s partner are 18 years of age or older, unmarried and not related in a way that would otherwise bar marriage, living together, involved in a lifetime relationship and financially interdependent. To enroll a domestic partner in NYSHIP the participant must have been in the partnership for at least six months and be able to provide "proof of residency and financial interdependence."

In addition, persons who are party to a same sex marriage, validly entered into in a jurisdiction where same sex marriage is permitted, are eligible for spousal benefits.

NYSHIP also advises that "Under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules, the fair market value of the health insurance benefits is treated as income for tax purposes when a person who is not a qualified dependent under federal IRS rules is covered in NYSHIP."

NYSHIP also notes that the employee’s extra cost for domestic partner coverage "cannot be paid with pre-tax dollars" and suggests that participants consult with his or her tax advisor concerning how enrolling his or her domestic partner will affect his or her personal income tax liability.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01030.htm
.

Guidelines and procedures for appointments pursuant to §§55-b and 55-c of the Civil Service Law

Guidelines and procedures for appointments pursuant to §§55-b and 55-c of the Civil Service Law
Source: New York State Department of Civil Service - Division of Staffing Services

The New York State Department of Civil Service has published Policy Bulletin 11-01, setting out program guidelines and procedures for appointments pursuant to Civil Service Law §55-b [employment of persons with disabilities by the State as an employer] and Civil Service Law §55-c [employment of veterans with disabilities by the State as an employer].*

The text of the Policy Bulletin is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.cs.state.ny.us/ssd/Manuals/SPMM/1800Appointments/Policy%20Bulletin%2011-01.htm

A PDF version of the Policy Bulletin, suitable for printing, is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.cs.state.ny.us/ssd/pdf/pb11-01.pdf

* §55-a of the Civil Service Law provides for the employment of persons with disabilities by municipalities as an employer.

Candidate ineligible for appointment from the expired list

Candidate ineligible for appointment from the expired list
Hancock v The City of New York, 272 AD2d 80

New York State Supreme Court Justice Ira Gammerman issued an order directing the New York City Department of Correctional Services to complete [Louis Hancock’s] hiring process and to pay him back pay from July 6, 1989, the date on which the department decided not to appoint Hancock, reduced by actual earnings from other employment.

There were a number of problems with Judge Gammerman’s remedy, however, and the Appellate Division vacated the order.

The eligible list on which Hancock’s name was certified had expired prior to Judge Gammerman’s ruling. The Appellate Division said that Hancock was no longer entitled to be hired as a corrections officer, notwithstanding the fact that he was improperly declared to have been ineligible for the job.

However, the Appellate Division said that Hancock was entitled to some compensation and remanded the case to Judge Gammerman for re-calculation of compensatory damages for the period July 6, 1989 to January 5, 1995, the first day of his trial.

Availability of direct action in the event the employee organizations refuses to process unit member’s grievance to arbitration

Availability of direct action in the event the employee organizations refuses to process unit member’s grievance to arbitration
Burning v Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System and Local 1342, 273 AD2d 830, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 95 NY2d 765

Few collective bargaining agreements allow a unit member to file a demand to arbitrate a grievance. In the absence of such authority, the general rule is that only the employee organization can demand that a grievance be submitted to arbitration.

Suppose the employee organization decides not to appeal a disciplinary or other grievance to arbitration. What, if any, action -- usually referred to as direct action -- can the unit member take in an attempt to challenge or go around the union’s decision?

The Burning case considers the major exception to the general rule barring direct action by a unit member -- the unit member may initiate direct action against the employer if he or she can establish that he or she was denied fair representation by employee organization.

Kenneth L. Burning was terminated from his position with the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority.

Burning sued in an effort to overturn his dismissal, contending that his union, Local 1342, Amalgamated Transit Union, breached its duty of fair representation when it decided not to demand arbitration challenging his termination by the Authority.

The Appellate Division, however, noted that the mere failure of a union to proceed to arbitration does not establish a breach of the duty of fair representation.

If an employee organization declines to arbitrate a grievance over the objections of its member the individual may take direct action only if he or she can demonstrate that the Union’s conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.

As Burning did not show that the union’s decision was arbitrary, discriminatory or made in bad faith, the Fourth Department ruled that Supreme Court properly dismissed Burning’s petition challenging his dismissal.

Disciplinary penalty ruled too severe remanded to appointing authority for imposition of a lesser penalty

Disciplinary penalty ruled too severe remanded to appointing authority for imposition of a lesser penalty
Rapkiewicz v Middle Country School District; 273 AD2d 392, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 95 NY2d 765
Tiano v Middle Country School District, App. Div., Second Dept., 273 AD2d 396, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 95 NY2d 766

The Pell doctrine, typically used to test the reasonableness of a disciplinary penalty, basically states that a disciplinary penalty imposed by a public employer will be sustained unless it is found to be disproportionate to the offense [Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d, 222].

In the Rapkiewicz and Tiano appeals, the application of the Pell doctrine resulted in the Appellate Division remanding both cases to the Middle Country School District for the imposition of a less severe penalty. The penalty that had been earlier imposed by the district: dismissal.

In 1998 Adam Rapkiewicz and Frank Tiano, then employed as custodians by the district, were found guilty of disciplinary charges that the court described as misconduct, while serious, was an isolated event.... The Appellate Division concluded that mitigating circumstances required it to vacate their respective terminations.

The mitigating factors: Rapkiewicz had received outstanding ratings during his seven years of service with the district, while Tiano had over 10 years of satisfactory service with the district -- and both were found guilty of an isolated event of misconduct.

Although the court held that the findings that both were guilty of misconduct was supported by substantial evidence in the record, it ruled that under all of the circumstances, the penalty of dismissal was so disproportionate to the offense committed as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.

However, the Appellate Division only annulled the penalty imposed by the district and directed it to impose a less harsh penalty -- its order provided no other relief such as the awarding of back pay and benefits.

Typically, back pay and benefits are awarded when the court finds that the underlying disciplinary action was in some way defective such as the hearing officer lacking jurisdiction or a failure of administrative due process.

Here, however, the decision indicates that the disciplinary procedure was conducted properly; the only objection voiced by the court was the severity of the penalty imposed.

The fact that Appellate Division decided against directing the district to reinstate Rapkiewicz and Tiano to their former positions suggests that the court would not require the district to provide for an award of back salary in fashioning a penalty less severe than termination.

============================================
If you are interested in learning more about disciplinary procedures involving public officers and employees, please click here: http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/
============================================

Statute of limitations to serve Civil Service Law Section 75 disciplinary charges extended where charges would constitute a crime

Statute of limitations to serve Civil Service Law Section 75 disciplinary charges extended where charges would constitute a crime
Mieles v Safir, 272 AD2d 199

The Mieles case provides an example of the application of the exception to statute of limitations set out in Section 75.4 of the Civil Service Law. Section 75.4 provides that the relevant statute of limitations for bringing disciplinary action does not apply where the incompetency or misconduct alleged would, if proved in a court of appropriate jurisdiction, constitute a crime.

Manuel Mieles, a New York City police officer, was dismissed from his position after being found guilty of having used false pretenses to trick the owner of a broken-down vehicle into giving him the title to the vehicle. Mieles then moved the vehicle from the street and sold it to a salvage company.

The department charge Mieles with unauthorized exercise of his official functions, in violation of Section 104-01, page 3, paragraph 4 of the Police Department Patrol Guide’s prohibition against conduct prejudicial to good order, efficiency or discipline of the department.

Mieles appealed his termination. One of the grounds he contended supported vacating the disciplinary action was that the charges filed against him were untimely as they were barred by the 18-month Statute of Limitations in Civil Service Law Section 75(4). The Appellate Division, First Department dismissed Mieles’ appeal.

The court said that [t]here is no merit to [Mieles’] argument that the charges filed against him were barred by Section 75.4’s 18-month Statute of Limitations. As the court explained, “the misconduct charged also constituted the crime of official misconduct under Section 195.00[1] of the Penal Law. Accordingly, Mieles was charged with, and found guilty of, acts of misconduct that were expressly excluded from the time bar of Section 75(4)....”

============================================

If you are interested in learning more about disciplinary procedures involving public officers and employees, please click here: http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/

============================================

If the WCB determines the individual involuntarily withdraw from the workforce, it cannot require a claimant to seek work within medical limitations

If the WCB determines the individual involuntarily withdraw from the workforce, it cannot require a claimant to seek work within medical limitations
Matter of Funke v Eastern Suffolk BOCES, 2011 NY Slip Op 00144, Appellate Division, Third Department

Sandra R. Funke, a former teacher's assistant for special needs students, sustained a work-related injury to her neck, back and shoulder. She was awarded workers' compensation benefits and returned to work. Subsequently she amended her claim to include consequential posttraumatic stress disorder and was awarded appropriate benefits.

She retired March 2009, but continued to work sporadically for the employer as a substitute teacher's assistant. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately denied her application for postretirement benefits. While the Board said that Funke’s retirement was involuntary — that is, causally related to her disability — it then concluded that her subsequent loss of earnings was due to unrelated factors not caused by her disability.

The Appellate Division disagreed with the Board’s action.

First the court said that it has "long held that a retirement is an involuntary withdrawal if the claimant's disability caused or contributed to the decision to retire."

As the Board credited Funke’s testimony that she retired due to pain caused by her disability, that testimony provides substantial evidence to support the Board's initial finding that "claimant's retirement was causally related as she was not able to continue working in the same capacity for the employer" — i.e., that her retirement was involuntary.”

That being the case, said the Appellate Division, "an inference arises that . . . earning capacity is reduced by the disability and claimant is [therefore] entitled to compensation until the inference is removed from the case." Further, noted the court, once "the withdrawal [is] found to be involuntary, . . . it become[s] inherently inconsistent to hold that a claimant is obligated to search for work within medical limitations."

However, notes the decision, the failure to seek additional work does not defeat the inference that arises upon a finding of involuntary retirement or constitute proof that something other than the disability is the cause of a claimant's reduced earnings, referring to Burns v Town of Colonie, 66 AD3d at 1070, among other decisions.

Reversing the Board’s ruling, the Appellate Division remitted the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Board “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's decision.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_00144.htm

Dismissal for excessive absence found an appropriate disciplinary penalty

Dismissal for excessive absence found an appropriate disciplinary penalty
McKinnon v North Bellmore UFSD, 273 AD2d 240

According the Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissing an employee who is guilty of excessive absence is consistent with the Pell standard (Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222).

The North Bellmore Union Free School district dismissed Hugh McKinnon, a teacher, after he had been found guilty of charges of (1) failing to comply with the district has established call-in procedure to report his absences and (2) incompetence based on his excessive absences.

Finding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings that McKinnon was guilty of the charges filed against him, the court said that it did not find that imposing a penalty of dismissal so disproportionate to McKinnon’s misconduct as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness and dismissed his appeal.

Significantly, the court held that the charge of incompetence based on McKinnon’s excessive absences was supported by substantial evidence in the record notwithstanding the fact that the validity of the reasons for his absences was not contested by the district.

Apparently the court decided that the district’s failure to challenge the reasons tendered by McKinnon to excuse his excessive absences did not have any adverse impact on the probative value of such evidence for the purposes of finding him guilty of such charges nor did this form any basis for mitigating the penalty imposed by the district.

============================================

If you are interested in learning more about disciplinary procedures involving public officers and employees, please click here: http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/

============================================