A County Department of Probation probation officer [Petitioner] was served three disciplinary charges alleging behavior that was "unbecoming an employee and/or constituted violations of the employer's workplace violence policy and anti-harassment policy".
Following a disciplinary hearing conducted pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, the Hearing Officer issued a report in which he found Petitioner guilty of the disciplinary charges and recommended Petitioner's dismissal from service. The Director of the County Department of Probation [Director] adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation and terminated Petitioner's employment.
Petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court challenging the Director's determination, which action was then transferred to the Appellate Division pursuant to CPLR 7804[g]. The Appellate Division affirmed the Director's decision, observing that it was supported by substantial evidence".
The disciplinary charges against Petitioner essentially relate to three incidents, and extensive testimony and documentary evidence was presented at the hearing addressing each of them.
The first incident involved a heated interview between Petitioner and one of the probationers he was supervising. Numerous witnesses testified that Petitioner commenced "yelling" at the probationer, accusing him of lying, barring him from leaving despite having no basis for doing so and eventually demanding to know whether he wanted "to take [it] outside". The proof submitted reflected that the interview became so contentious that others intervened to de-escalate the situation and separate the two individuals. The probationer was subsequently transferred to the caseload of another probation officer.
The second incident involved another probation officer who alleged Petitioner's behavior to be threatening and she filed a formal complaint against Petitioner with the agency's human resources office.
The testimony following a third incident, which involved Petitioner and a different probation officer, reported that the probation officer was "uncomfortable around [Petitioner] due to his prior behavior and decided to wait in her vehicle until he went inside'. The probation officer testified that when she finally got out of her car, "Petitioner also got out of his vehicle and waited for her by the stairs to the employee entrance" and another probation officer "was worried enough about what might happen next that she began recording audio on her phone, and that recording was entered into evidence at the hearing".
The probation officer testified that she found the "incident so disturbing that she immediately reported it to her supervisor" and, like the probation officer who had been involved in the earlier incident, filed a formal complaint about it.
The Appellate Division opined that "Without belaboring the point further, this proof of [Petitioner's] unprofessional and threatening conduct" during these several incidents reflected that Petitioner "had engaged in conduct unbecoming a County employee in numerous respects".
Although Petitioner presented testimony that challenged aspects of the other witnesses' accounts and generally attempted to put his behavior in a more favorable light, the Hearing Officer indicated that he found Petitioner to be "wholly incredible in his testimony" and "credited the proof that [Petitioner] had engaged in extensive misconduct.
The Appellate Division's decision concluded by noting Petitioner's "demonstrated pattern of unprofessional and aggressive behavior, for which he failed to accept any responsibility or indicate a willingness to modify in the future", and, citing Matter of McLean v City of Albany, 13 AD3d 851, and other Appellate Division decisions, held that the penalty of termination "was not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock our sense of fairness.".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision in the instant matter posted on the Internet.