An individual must prove his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence” in order to prevail at a “name-clearing hearing”
Casale v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2010 NY Slip Op 06218, decided on July 27, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department
Nicholas Casale, claiming that certain statements in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's letter to him terminating his employment* characterizing his actions as “dishonest” were false, demanded a name-clearing hearing.**
The hearing officer ruled that Casale was required to prove that the Authority’s statements to which he objected were false by a preponderance of the evidence and that Casale failed to meet this test.
The hearing officer found that Casle had repeatedly mischaracterized his source of information in an investigation of corruption as a confidential informant, concluding that “this conduct was dishonest.”
The Appellate Division said that such a determination by a hearing officer is not foreclosed as a matter of law even if the hearing officer believed that Casale was acting to benefit the Authority rather than for his own personal gain. The court said that the hearing officer is to determine the issue of an employee's dishonesty “with reference to the employer's general business or the employee's own functions and that is precisely what occurred here.”
Nor, said the court, did the hearing officer exceed his jurisdiction in "finding that petitioner engaged in a pattern of dishonesty." The terms of the stipulation governing the name-clearing hearing did not limit the inquiry to the fabrication of the existence of a confidential informant.
* Although Casale’s tenure status is not indicated in the decision, typically New York courts have directed "name-clearing hearings" for probationary employees and for employee without tenure who allege that they have been "stigmatized" as a result of “State action” and the employer has made such "stigmatizing" information public.
** A name clearing hearing serves only one purpose - to provide the individual with an opportunity to clear his or her “good name and reputation” in situations where he or she alleges that information of a stigmatizing nature has been made public by his or her former employer. Courts have held that the internal disclosure of allegedly stigmatizing reasons for the discharge or demotion of an employee to the individual and, or, to agency administrators “having a right to know” does not constitute a public disclosure of such information and thus a name-clearing hearing" is not required because of such intra-agency communications.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06218.htm