The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed, without costs, the Appointing Authority's finding the Plaintiff guilty of a disciplinary charge that he "engaged in misconduct against a female staff member that constituted sexual harassment" and the penalty imposed: a "six-month probationary term and suspension without pay for five days".
Concluding that the Appointing Authority's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that hearsay evidence is admissible in administrative proceedings and "if sufficiently relevant and probative may constitute substantial evidence", the Appellate Division sustained the Appointing Authority's findings and decision, citing People ex rel. Vega v Smith , 66 NY2d 130, and Matter of Gray v Adduci , 73 NY2d 741.
The court found that the hearsay testimony at the hearing was relevant and probative on the charge that Plaintive engaged in misconduct against a female staff member that constituted sexual harassment.
Although the decision does not report the relevant statutory authority for the disciplinary action taken against the Plaintiff, it should be noted that a collective bargaining agreement may authorize the imposition of multiple disciplinary penalties in a disciplinary action. With respect to disciplinary actions initiated pursuant to §75 of the New York State Civil Service Law, however, the courts have held that "the imposition of multiple penalties was improper", noting Civil Service Law §75.3 provides for a choice of penalties, thus prohibiting the imposition of more than one of the discrete penalties set out in the statute [see Matteson v City of Oswego, 186 AD2d 1017].
Imposing multiple penalties in a §75 disciplinary action, however, is possible where there are multiple offenses involved and the individual is found guilty of more than one of the charges alleged [see Wilson v Sartori, 70 AD2d 959].
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.