Employee may be disciplined for excessive absence from work
Gradel v Sullivan Co. Public Works, 257 AD2d 972
May an individual who has been authorized to take time off from work be disciplined for “excessive absence” based on an accumulation of “authorized” absences?
The Gradel case involved Section 75 disciplinary charges that were filed against Len Gradel, a Sullivan County sanitation worker. The charges alleged misconduct in the form of excessive absences, as well as poor job performance and insubordination, notwithstanding Gradel’s claim that he was authorized to take the time off.
“[T]he fact that [Gradel] was authorized to take the days off does not preclude a finding of guilt, especially where, as here, [Gradel] was repeatedly informed by memoranda that his pattern of absences was disruptive and burdensome to his employer and co-workers,” the Appellate Division ruled, citing Romano v Town Bd. of Town of Colonie, 200 AD2d 934.
Another issue involved the penalty imposed. Finding Gradel guilty of all of the charges filed against him, a hearing officer recommended that Gradel be suspended without pay for four days and placed on probation for one year.
The county, while agreeing with the hearing officer’s determination as to guilt, imposed the penalty of termination instead of the penalty recommended by the hearing officer. Gradel contended that the penalty imposed was excessive.
The Appellate Division rejected his arguments, holding that there was ample evidence in the record to support the hearing officer’s findings and confirm the county’s decision as to the penalty imposed. The court said that it was “unpersuaded by [Gradel’s] contention that the penalty of termination, which exceed that recommended by the Hearing Officer, was disproportionate to the offenses committed as to shock one’s sense of fairness.”
NYPPL