Rather than relying on selective information supplied by the employer, the court itself should review the challenged investigative report relied on by the employer
2016 NY Slip Op 04422, Appellate Division, Second Department
The petitioner [Petitioner], a tenured teacher, filed a complaint with her employer, a school district, alleging that two teachers in her department were bullying and harassing her.
Following a preliminary investigation of the complaint by the School District’s Director of Human Resources, the School Board [Board] retained an attorney to conduct an investigation and prepare a written report for the Board's consideration.
Following a preliminary investigation of the complaint by the School District’s Director of Human Resources, the School Board [Board] retained an attorney to conduct an investigation and prepare a written report for the Board's consideration.
Ultimately the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the alleged misconduct rose to the level of "harassment, bullying, discriminatory behavior and/or hostile environment" toward Petitioner.*
Petitioner then commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to review the Board's determination and to compel the production of the investigation report submitted to the Board by the attorney.
Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s motion to annul the Board's determination, but, determining that the Board and the School District had waived any attorney-client privilege as to the investigation report, granted that branch of her petition seeking to compel the production of the report. Both parties appealed from the respective portions of the judgment adverse to them.
The Appellate Division ruled that “under the circumstances,” Supreme Court should have reviewed the investigation report in camera* before determining whether the Board's determination was arbitrary or capricious rather than relying on selective information submitted by the Board and the School District.
Further, said the court, Supreme Court also erred in determining that the Board and the School District had waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to the investigation report without first conducting an in camera review of the report.
Reversing the Supreme Court’s judgment “insofar as appealed and cross-appealed” the Appellate Division remitted the matter to the Supreme Court to conduct an in camera review of the investigation report and then to make a new determinations of the branches of the petition seeking to annul the Board's determination and to compel disclosure of the investigation report.
* The Appellate Division’s decision states that the Board noting that “… the relationship between [Petitioner] and the two other teachers had become an impediment to the effective operation of the … department … directed the school's administration to take appropriate remedial action, including conducting workplace sensitivity training.
** A review of documents by the court in his or her chambers.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: