ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

September 09, 2011

Settlement of disciplinary charges


Settlement of disciplinary charges
Ivory v NYS Dept. of Civil Service, NYS Supreme Court, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Often the employer and the employee will agree to settle a disciplinary action on mutually acceptable terms rather than proceed with an administrative hearing or submit the matter to arbitration. One of the issues in the Ivory case concerned an administrative “settlement” of a proposed disciplinary action. As the decision notes, courts will not vacate such types of agreements lightly when entered into knowingly and in good faith.

Ivory was employed as a secretary by State University of New York Maritime College for about 10 years. On April 15, 1999, the College Ivory told that she would be charged with misconduct that could lead to her termination. The college had alleged that Ivory's “work performance was poor, that she had unauthorized absences from work, and that she threatened the Personnel Director at the College.”

Ultimately, Ivory and the College agreed to resolve the matter administratively and on June 21, 1999, the parties entered into a “stipulation of settlement.” They mutually agreed that, “in return for the [College's] removal of grievances and a notice of discipline from her official file, [Ivory] would be laid off from her position at the College.”

Ivory later filed a number of race and disability discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission [EEOC]. EEOC dismissed her charges finding that “it was unable to conclude that the information obtained established violations of any of the relevant statutes.”

Ivory also sued the College and the New York State Civil Service Commission in State court. One of her motions asked the court to void the June 21, 1999 settlement agreement.

The court, declined to do so, stating that the settlement agreement, describing the terms of a settlement between plaintiff and the College, was duly executed by plaintiff, her representative, and her employer's representative. In the words of the court, “[s]tipulations of settlement are favored by the courts and not lightly cast aside,” citing Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.