An adverse disciplinary hearing determination must be supported by substantial evidence
The appointing authority adopted in part and rejected in part the recommendation of a Civil Service Law §75 hearing officer that found the employee guilty of misconduct and/or incompetence. The penalty imposed: termination.
Supreme Court rejected the former employee’s Article 78 petition seeking to vacate the appointing authority’s decision.
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling, explaining that a judicial review of administrative determinations in employee disciplinary cases made after a hearing under Civil Service Law §75 is limited to a consideration of whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence.* Here, said the court, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that the individual was guilty of misconduct
As to the penalty imposed but the appointing authority, dismissal, the Appellate Division, citing Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, said that u under the circumstances presented the termination of the individual's employment “was not so disproportionate to the offense committed as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness.”
* In contrast, in Christopher v Phillips, 160 A.D.2d 1165, motion to appeal denied, 76 N.Y.2d 706, the court ruled that “if a hearing is not required by law, the substantial evidence standard of review does not apply [and] the appropriate standard for the purpose of judicial review [in such a situation] is whether the determination is arbitrary or capricious.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_02247.htm