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

January 25, 2024

Recent Decisions by New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings' Administrative Law Judges

On January 24, 2024, the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH] posted the selected summaries of decisions involving disciplinary actions initiated by the appointing authority issued by OATH Administrative Law Judges set out below.

 

Conduct unbecoming of a member in the service of the New York City Department of Correction

Administrative Law Judge Charlotte E. Davidson recommended termination of employment for a correction officer [Respondent] charged with conduct unbecoming of a member of service and of a nature to bring discredit upon the Department, and undue familiarity with a person in custody.

The ALJ found that Respondent, while escorting a person in custody, permitted him to visit another cell where he obtained contraband. Respondent also permitted the person in custody to violate numerous rules while under her supervision, including touching her on several occasions, repeatedly ignoring her commands, and wearing prohibited clothing.

The ALJ credited the correction officer’s explanation that her behavior was driven by a desire to avoid physical harm to herself but found that Respondent violated the rules against undue familiarity by permitting the person in custody to engage in the misconduct. However, the evidence did not support a finding of repeated interactions in a sexual manner, and the ALJ dismissed a charge related to sexual contact.

The ALJ also found that Respondent inefficiently performed her duties by failing to note infractions in the facility logbook.

Despite respondent’s minimal disciplinary history, the ALJ found that by indulging the inappropriate behavior of a person under her custody, respondent committed misconduct warranting a penalty of termination.

Click HERE to access Judge Davidson's findings and recommendation posted on the Internet.

 

New York City correction officer charged with excessive absences

Administrative Law Judge Julia Davis recommended dismissal of charges served on a correction officer [Respondent] alleging "excessive absences".

Respondent reported sick on approximately 92 days from January 2021 to December 2021, and approximately 114 days from January 2022 to September 2022. Respondent’s August 25, 2021 through June 13, 2022 sick leave was the first time Respondent reported sick for injuries he sustained in a September 11, 2020 use of force incident. Under the Department’s rules, when calculating sick days, an officer’s first absence for a line of duty injury sustained as a direct result of a use of force incident is excluded.

The ALJ rejected the Department’s argument that the first absence must be taken immediately following the use of force incident, finding the Department’s rule does not contain the word “immediately” nor impose any time period. After excluding the sick days from August 25, 2021 to June 13, 2022, the ALJ found the Department  failed to prove Respondent was excessively absent.

Click HERE to access Judge Davis' findings and recommendation posted on the Internet.

 

Discourteous and insubordinate conduct alleged

Administrative Law Judge Michael D. Turilli recommended dismissal of disciplinary charges for served on an administrative procurement analyst [Respondent] employed by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development [Petitioner] charged with discourteous and insubordinate conduct towards his supervisor and failure to satisfactorily perform his work.

The ALJ held that Respondent did not willfully refuse an order to attend a meeting with his supervisors, finding that although Respondent was a few minutes late, he went to the meeting and his supervisors granted his request for a postponement so his union representative could be present.

Although Respondent was argumentative and defensive during the meeting, his conduct did not exceed the bounds of decorum and discretion.

The ALJ also found that Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent was incompetent in the performance of his duties because there was insufficient evidence Respondent persistently fell below the minimally acceptable threshold of time to complete his assignments.

Click HERE to access Judge Turilli's findings and recommendation posted on the Internet.

 ________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - an e-book focusing on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service of the State of New York and its political subdivisions in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information and access to a free excerpt of the material presented in this e-book, click here: http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

 

 

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.