Considering the employee's personnel record in setting a disciplinary penalty
Thomas v Mt. Vernon, 267 AD2d 241
The Thomas ruling points out the elements that must be observed if the appointing officer wishes to consider an employee’s personnel record in setting a disciplinary penalty.
Robin Thomas was employed by the Mount Vernon Department of Public Safety. She was terminated from her position after being found guilty of habitual lateness. Thomas appealed the Commissioner of Public Safety’s determination.
Although the Appellate Division sustained the commissioner’s decision finding her guilty of the charges filed against her, it remanded the matter to him “for a new determination as to the penalty to be imposed” (Thomas v City of Mount Vernon, 249 AD2d 483).
When the original penalty - dismissal - was again imposed, Thomas again appealed. She contended that her “prior disciplinary record” was considered in setting the penalty.
Thomas argued that although the commissioner considered her prior disciplinary record, he failed to comply with the procedures set out by the Court of Appeals in Bigelow v Village of Gouverneur (63 NY2d 470) in such situations.
The Appellate Division observed that an employee’s prior disciplinary history could be considered in setting a disciplinary penalty if:
1. The individual is advised that his or her prior disciplinary record would be considered in setting the penalty to be imposed; and
2. The employee is given an opportunity to submit a written response to any adverse material contained in the record or offer “mitigating circumstances.”
The court said that there was nothing in the record to support Thomas’ claim that she was denied an opportunity to review her personnel record or to submit her objections in writing prior to the commissioner making his determination as to the appropriate penalty to be imposed. Accordingly, it ruled that the commissioner had complied with the standards set out by the Court of Appeals in Bigelow.
As to the penalty imposed - dismissal - the Appellate Division said that it was persuaded that the penalty met the Pell standard as it was not “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” [Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222].
Commenting that Thomas’ conduct that resulted in this disciplinary action, together with her conduct underlying a previous suspension, “established a pattern of excessive absences and a failure to correct this behavior after her suspension,” the Appellate Division sustained her termination and dismissed her appeal.