New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] Charlotte E. Davidson recommended the termination of employment of an Eligibility Specialist [Respondent] with the City's Human Resources Administration [HRA] who, in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, engaged in a scheme to defraud the federal Small Business Administration’s [SBA] Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program and then failed to report her arrest for such conduct to HRA.
Judge Davidson found that HRA established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was arrested for and charged with federal crimes for defrauding the SBA and that she admitted to the charged conduct under oath in federal district court as part of a deferred prosecution agreement. Such off-duty misconduct is a violation of HRA disciplinary rules.
Although Respondent testified that she felt unwell while giving her sworn admission and that the deferred prosecution agreement was not explained to her, her allocution* in federal court was reported to be thorough and robust.
Respondent was asked about her health, the adequacy of her legal representation, whether she had read and understood her written agreement, and the substance of the conduct to which she was admitting. Further, the ALJ credited an HRA Director’s testimony that Respondent did not report her arrest to the agency over Respondent’s claim that she told an unnamed supervisor because Respondent’s testimony was vague and self-serving.
Ultimately, Judge Davidson found that HRA proved that Respondent engaged in conduct that reflects unfavorably on her job fitness and may bring discredit to the agency because there is a clear nexus between defrauding the federal government and her job responsibilities, which include handling HRA’s clients’ sensitive personal and financial information.
The ALJ recommended that the appointing authority terminate Respondent's employment, finding Respondent’s lack of disciplinary history did not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct and her demonstrated dishonesty.
* Allocution is the direct address between the judge and the convicted defendant prior to sentencing. During the address, the judge speaks directly to the defendant and asks if the defendant has anything to add prior to hearing the sentence. The defendant then answers the judge and may say anything in an effort to lessen the severity of the sentence, such as an apology, an offering of remorse, or an explanation of the motivations for the defendant's actions. [Source: Cornell University Law School's Legal Information Institute.]
Click HERE to access Judge Davidson's decision posted on the Internet.