Supervisor found guilty of disciplinary charges alleging he failed to properly supervise his subordinates

The New York City Department of Buildings [Petitioner] filed disciplinary charges against one of its supervising inspectors [Respondent] pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law in which it alleged, among other things, that Respondent was incompetent in that he failed to properly supervise his subordinates by not identifying their mistakes and omissions of evidence in a number of their inspection reports and by submitting "final inspection packages for enforcement action" that were insufficient or incomplete.

Petitioner also alleged that Respondent demonstrated incompetence by failing to follow multiple directives issued by individuals in his chain of command "to properly review inspection reports and counsel his subordinates to correct their behavior".

Respondent denied all the charges filed against him. 

Citing Dep’t of Environmental Protection v. Saint Louis, OATH Index No. 195/16 at page 13 and other OATH decisions, New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge Tiffany Hamilton opined that "To prove incompetence, petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the credible evidence that “respondent is unable to meet the minimally acceptable threshold requirements of the duties of his title". 

Considering the evidence in the record, ALJ Hamilton found that Petitioner had demonstrated Respondent's incompetence in that Respondent had failed to identify mistakes and omissions of evidence in his subordinates’ inspection reports and Respondent had submitted "final inspection packages for enforcement action" that were insufficient or incomplete.* The ALJ, however, found that Petitioner failed to prove the remaining disciplinary charges it had filed against Respondent.

Noting that the Petitioner had requested termination as a penalty for all charges and in the alternative, Respondent should “at the very least, [be] suspended for 30 days and demoted to the position of Inspector Level II with no supervisory duties and a lengthy probationary period that includes re-training”, Judge Hamilton said she found "neither proposed penalty appropriate under the circumstances" as Petitioner based its penalty request on the seven charges listed in the petition, but it proved only three of those charges.

The ALJ concluded that a lesser penalty was warranted as Petitioner failed to prove all seven charges served on Respondent and recommended Petitioner impose a penalty of 30 days’ suspension without pay on the Respondent. 

* Judge Hamilton noted that in adjudicating charges of incompetence, "isolated errors", which an employee may make on occasion, are to be distinguished from “constant and repetitive errors”.

Click HERE to access Judge Hamilton's decision posted on the Internet. 

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - an e-book focusing on imposing an appropriate disciplinary penalty on an employee of the State of New York or a New York municipality in instances where the employee has been found guilty of charges of misconduct or incompetence [$49]. Click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html for more information.