October 03, 2019

Disciplinary penalty imposed on an individual found guilty of disciplinary charges challenged as being too lenient


Courts frequently are asked to review a penalty imposed by an appointing authority following a disciplinary action. Typically such actions are brought by the employee on the theory that the penalty imposed was too harsh.

In such cases the courts usually apply the so-called Pell Doctrine: was the penalty imposed 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].

This case is the mirror image of most Pell Doctrine cases: a complaint that the penalty imposed was too lenient!

The case arose when the School District [District] filed disciplinary charges against a teacher prior to the amendment of §3020-a of the Education Law in 1994 [Chapter 691, Laws of 1994].

An (old) §3020-a hearing panel found a teacher guilty of a number of specifications set out in charges alleging "inappropriate remarks and inappropriate physical contact" with female students by the teacher. The penalty imposed: suspension without pay for one and one-half years. The District  challenged the §3020-a hearing panel's decision by asking the New  York State Commissioner of Education to intervene. The District contended that the penalty should have been "more stringent." The Commissioner sustained the penalty imposed by the panel. The District then asked the courts to impose a harsher penalty -- dismissal.

What standard would the courts apply in determining if the penalty imposed is too lenient? The Appellate Division said it would apply same Pell standard that courts use to determine if a penalty is too harsh.*

Finding it neither arbitrary nor capricious, the Appellate Division sustained the Commissioner's ruling. The Court said that the underlying facts, coupled the absence of charges ever having previously been filed against the teacher during his 21-year career, supported the Commissioner's determination that the penalty imposed was proportionate to the offenses for which the teacher was found guilty.

In contrast, in Hickman v Poughkeepsie City School District, 237 A.D.2d 289, the Appellate Division sustained the dismissal of a school custodian found guilty of excessive absence, habitual lateness, falsification of his time sheets and excessive use of the telephone during his working hours as consistent with the Pell Doctrine.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1997958237ad2d7211189


Click here to Read a FREE excerpt from NYPER's

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances


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 DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
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 in this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor members of the staff are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is advised to seek such advice from a competent professional.