Proceeding with disciplinary action in situations where disability may be a consideration

Proceeding with disciplinary action in situations where disability may be a consideration

Matter of Schlitz v Cavanagh, 14 Misc.3d 1213(A

The significant issue in the Schlitz case concerned the interplay of two different provisions of the Civil Service Law: (1) serving disciplinary charges against an individual pursuant to Section 75 and (2) Section 72, which is triggered in cases of an employee’s inability to perform the duties of the position because of non-work related disease or disability.

Essentially Section 72 provides for the placement of an employee on a leave because of a disability, other than a disability resulting from an occupational injury or disease, in the event it is determined that he or she is unable to perform the duties of the position satisfactorily because of that disability.

In Penebre v Dzaluk, 51 AD2d 574, the Appellate Division ruled that §75 charges for misconduct should not have been served on a police officer but that the employer should have proceeded under §72, Ordinary Disability Leave instead. Penebre, said the court, “had performed successfully as a police officer for 13 years before his behavior markedly changed.” He became depressed and inattentive. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Division said that serving Penebre with §75 charges for misconduct was misplaced.

Schlitz also was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Section 75. Before the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing, however, Schlitz was placed on Section 72 -- non-occupational disability leave -- from his position.

A physician was employed by the Town and asked to determine whether or not Schlitz was suffering from a “mental health issue” that affected his ability to perform his duties satisfactorily. The physician’s opinion, “given within a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” was that "any past misbehavior on the part of Mr. Schlitz would not have been because of a psychiatric condition."

Ultimately, Schlitz was found guilty of various instances of misconduct and the penalty imposed was demotion.

Schlitz appealed but withdrew his claim regarding the Section 75 determination and penalty by conceding that there was substantial evidence to justify the findings of misconduct and the penalty imposed. Instead, Schlitz contended that the Town knew that he was suffering from depression and that the filing of disciplinary charges against him under these circumstances amounted to unlawful workplace discrimination against a person with a disability.

In addition, Schlitz argued that the Town was required to present the evidence of his depression in the §75 hearing as a defense or in mitigation of the misconduct charges.

Justice Mayer found that Town was within its rights to conduct the §72 proceeding and suspend the §75 hearing pending the results of Schlitz’s medical evaluation. Further, said the court, once the Town had evidence that the misconduct alleged in the §75 charges and specifications were not due to mental disability, it had the right to move forward under §75.

As to Schlitz’s claim that he was the victim of “unlawful workplace discrimination against a person with a disability,” the court said that the medical evidence in this case was that Schlitz’s acts of misbehavior were not caused by a psychiatric condition. Justice Mayer held that “there is no admissible proof that the petitioner is, or ever was, mentally disabled, and the claim of workplace discrimination perpetrated by the Town by bringing the charges of misconduct against an allegedly disabled person is, therefore, without merit.”

In contrast to discipline/termination procedures, the basic concept underlying the use of Section 72 in disability related situations is the separation/rehabilitation/reinstatement of the employee.

Section 72.1 sets out the procedures to be followed by the appointing authority before an employee may be placed on leave for ordinary disability involuntarily.

Section 72.3 describes the appeal procedures, including recourse to the courts pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, available to an individual involuntarily placed on disability leave following a Section 72.1 hearing.

Section 72.5 provides an exception to the basic requirement that a Section 72.1 hearing must be concluded before the employee may be placed on Section 72 disability leave involuntarily based on the appointing officer determination that there is a "potential danger" if the employee is permitted to continue on the job.

Section 73 of the Civil Service Law addresses the termination of an individual who has been continuously absent from his or her position on Section 72 leave for more than one year.

Third Circuit sustains employee's removal for lying about reason for absences

Third Circuit sustains employee's removal for lying about reason for absences

Source: The FMLA Blog - http://federalfmla.typepad.com/fmla_blog/

Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved by Carl C. Bosland, Esq. Reproduced with permission. Mr. Bosland is the author of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation.

John Prigge told Sears, his employer, that he was absent for two days to receive radiation treatment for prostate cancer.  In reality, Prigge suffered from bipolar disorder, which had been diagnosed several years earlier.  Prigge was subsequently absent for seven days during which he was admitted to a medical clinic suffering from depression.  On this occasion, Prigge advised Sears that his absence was due to incapacity and treatment for bipolar disorder.  He also confessed that his prior absence was not due to prostate cancer, but to bipolar disorder. 

Sears demanded that Prigge provide medical documentation substantiating his need for leave due to prostate cancer and bipolar disorder.  Prigge provided medical documentation substantiating his need for leave due to bipolar disorder.  He provided medical certification verifying that he did not suffer from prostate cancer.  Sears fired for failure to substantiate his need for leave with medical documentation due to prostate cancer, and for lying about his need for prostate cancer. 

The Third Circuit agreed with Sears.  It found, essentially, that Sears had the right to terminate Prigge for lying about his need for leave, and because he failed to substantiate that need with supporting medical documentation. 

Mr. Bosland Comments:  However awkward or embarrassing, employees need to tell their employers the real reason for their need for FMLA leave.  Courts have not allowed employees to tell their employer a false reason for the need for leave.  In addition to being truthful, had Prigge told Sears the real reason for the prior leave it would have likely been covered by the FMLA.  Courts have not excused employees from telling their employer the real reason for their need leave out of embarrassment or fear that the reason will be fodder for office gossip.  Nor have they looked past the false reason to find FMLA coverage based on the real reason for the leave.  Courts have consistently found that employers are entitled to the real reason animating the need for leave. 

Prigge v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 10-3397 (3d Cir. June 23, 2011).

Insurance to defend and indemnify offices and employees of a political subdivision of the State

Insurance to defend and indemnify offices and employees of a political subdivision of the State

Watkins Glen Central School District v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 286 A.D.2d 48

Sections 17 and 18 of the Public Officers Law provide for the defense and indemnification of public employees in connection with their official acts or their failure to perform an official act. Sometimes a public employer decides to purchase an insurance policy to protect itself in the event it is sued for its employees' alleged acts or omissions, official or otherwise.

The Watkins Glen Central School District purchased an “errors and omission” insurance policy from National Union Fire. When the District asked to Company to defend and indemnify it in connection with another law suit, Dean v Watkins Glen Central School District, [Western District of New York, Civil Action No. 98-CV-0362C], National Union said it was not obligated to defend and indemnify the District under the terms of the policy.* The District sued National, seeking a court order declaring that the insurance company was obligated to defend and indemnify it in connection with the Dean action.

In Dean, the plaintiff alleged that the District was negligent in its hiring and supervision of a teacher with a history of sexual misconduct with students. Did this mean that National Union could disclaim coverage under the exclusion for intentional acts set out in the policy it issued to the District?

The Appellate Division said that National Union could not disclaim coverage, finding that “to permit the insurer to do so would wholly vitiate coverage and frustrate the reasonable expectations of the insured, contrary to the parties' unambiguous intentions.”

Accordingly, ruled the court, under the circumstances of this case, Watkins Glen is entitled to be defended and, if need be, indemnified by National Union Fire as a matter of law.

Significantly, National Union claimed that coverage for damages arising from the teacher’s alleged sexual misconduct was expressly foreclosed pursuant to the unambiguous language of the assault and battery and bodily injury/emotional distress exclusions set out in the District's policy. The District, on the other hand, offered parole evidence that the parties had purposely negotiated for the elimination of a provision within the policy that would have expressly excluded coverage for sexual molestation.

The Appellate Division said that an understanding of the type of insurance policy involved was critical to correctly deciding the appeal. An errors and omissions policy is not a standard general liability policy but rather “is intended to insure a member of a designated calling against liability arising out of the mistakes inherent in the practice of that particular profession or business” other than those engaged in the legal and medical fields.

The Appellate Division ruled that National Union's errors and omissions policy was intended to cover the District's negligence in its rendering of professional services. Such coverage, said the court, undeniably includes negligence in the hiring and supervision of employees. Finding “no direct controlling authority to the contrary from any New York court precluding such errors and omissions coverage in a case such as this,” the Appellate Division said that it was persuaded that “National Union is indeed obligated to provide the School District with defense and indemnification for its potential liability for its alleged professional malpractice.”

* In the Dean case it was alleged that the District was negligent in connection with its hiring, supervision, and retention of a teacher. The teacher was reportedly convicted in Pennsylvania in 1974 of sex crimes he committed in the course of his employment as an elementary school teacher and Dean alleged that the teacher committed criminal acts of sexual abuse as against the Dean infant plaintiffs while in the employ of the District.

Limiting the use of personal leave accruals

Limiting the use of personal leave accruals

Johnston v ITT Aerospace/Communications, CA7, 272 F.3d 498

Sometimes an employee will challenge his or her employer's placing restrictions on the use of an employee's personal leave accruals. In the Johnston case, the Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether an employer's leave policy that distinguished between granting paid leave in connection with an individual's responding to a court order and the employee's filing a lawsuit on his or her own behalf, was lawful.

Kevin M. Johnston, an employee of ITT Aerospace/Communications Division of ITT Industries, Inc., challenged the company's attendance policy, which contains an exception for absences that are due to the employee's being ordered by a court “to appear as a witness (not a party).” The issue was raised as part of Johnston's Title VII law suit against ITT after he was assessed two unexcused absences for days on which he attended a preliminary pretrial conference, and gave his deposition, in the Title VII action that he filed against ITT.

The Circuit Court concluded that “[t]here is nothing unlawful about a leave policy that distinguishes between leave that is due to a court order and leave to enable an employee to engage in private business, including the filing of lawsuits.”

Mental stress and workers' compensation

Mental stress and workers' compensation

Vaupell v Buffalo City School District, 288 A.D.2d 510

The provisions set out in Section 2(7) of the Workers' Compensation Law [WCL] was a critical factor in resolving the appeal filed by Naomi Vaupell challenging the Workers' Compensation Board's denying her additional benefits following her termination by the Buffalo City School District.

WCL Section 2(7) specifically excludes from compensation “an injury which is solely mental and is based on work related stress if such mental injury is a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action, work evaluation, job transfer, demotion, or termination taken in good faith by the employer.”

Naomi Vaupell had suffered a head laceration and concussion in September 1993 while working as a special education teacher for the Buffalo City School District. She filed for and received workers' compensation benefits for a consequential psychiatric condition. In September 1994, Vaupell returned to work with no restrictions imposed by her treating psychiatrist and her Workers' Compensation case was closed.

In September 1995, Vaupell was denied tenure and terminated from her position based upon her poor job performance. She then filed for additional workers' compensation benefits alleging that her ineffectiveness as a teacher and termination were causally related to her previously compensable psychiatric condition.

A Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge denied Vaupell's claim upon finding that any recurrence of her stress-related symptoms was due to her poor performance evaluations. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision and Vaupell appealed its ruling.

The Appellate Division dismissed Vaupell's appeal, noting that “[s]ince the Board decided only the question of whether claimant's inability to perform her job and her resulting termination were causally related to her 1993 injury, this Court's review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that claimant's loss of employment was solely related to the employer's denial of tenure and her poor work performance,” thus triggering the provisions of WCL Section 2(7).

The decision notes that Vaupell testified that she was emotionally devastated when she received negative evaluations and the letter of dismissal. Accordingly, said the court, “the Board's conclusion that Vaupell's symptoms of stress were related to poor work evaluations rather than her original compensable injury is supported by the record.”

As the evidence presented at the Workers' Compensation hearing established that Vaupell had been evaluated as unsatisfactory in the performance of her teaching duties prior to, as well as after, her injury and the lack of any evidence in the record suggesting that the employer acted in bad faith in making the negative evaluations or denying Vaupell tenure, the Appellate Division declined to disturb the Board's decision.

PERB rules employer’s conducting a survey of unit members to determine if a recognized or certified collective bargaining agent should continue to represent the unit an improper employer practice

PERB rules employer’s conducting a survey of unit members to determine if a recognized or certified collective bargaining agent should continue to represent the unit an improper employer practice
Matter of Monroe County v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 2011 NY Slip Op 05170

The Public Employment Relations Board found ruled that Monroe County had committed an improper employer practice in violation of the Taylor Law when it conducted a survey “to assess whether to hold a secret ballot election” to determine if CSEA should continue as the union representing certain of the County’s part-time employees.

CSEA had told Monroe that the CSEA unit for part-time employees was in administratorship, i.e., the CSEA local had taken over control of the part-time unit, because the unit no longer had any officers “to run it.”  Although Monroe had agreed to negotiate with CSEA concerning the part-time workers in the unit, it mailed all of its part-time employees represented by CSEA a letter and survey form underlying CSEA’s improper practice charge.

PERB affirmed its hearing officer’s determination that Monroe had "interfered with, restrained and coerced employees in the exercise of protected rights." Monroe appealed, seeking to annul PERB's determination while PERB counterclaimed seeking enforcement of its remedial order.

The Appellate Division concluded that substantial evidence supported PERB's determination that Monroe had violated Civil Service Law §209-a (1) (a) by conducting the survey. The court rejected Monroe’s claim that it was acting appropriately and was justified in sending out the survey based on a provision in the prior collective bargaining agreement.

The provision relied on by Monroe stated that CSEA's "representative status shall continue as long as it represents a majority of the bargaining unit employees, provided that if [Monroe County] receives evidence that thirty percent or more of the unit employees are questioning this status, the parties will conduct a secret ballot election conducted by PERB to determine representative status."

The Appellate Division ruled that PERB’s finding that this language did not provide Monroe with the authority to actively solicit employees' opinions regarding their potential dissatisfaction with CSEA's union representation nor did Monroe have authority under the regulations to seek decertification of CSEA was “rational.” It commented that courts give deference to PERB's interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, which is within PERB's area of expertise, as long as that interpretation is reasonable, rational and supported by the language of the agreement.

Notwithstanding Monroe’s concerns regarding CSEA's ability to effectively represent its employees in the part-time unit, the Appellate Division decided that PERB “reasonably determined that this concern did not permit [Monroe County] to conduct a survey. Accordingly, said the court, PERB was entitled to a judgment of enforcement of its remedial order.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_05170.htm

Pension benefits and marital property

Pension benefits and marital property

DeLuca v DeLuca, 97 N.Y.2d 139

Retirement benefits frequently are an important factor in a divorce. In the DeLuca case the Court of Appeals ruled that retirement benefits from the New York City Police Superior Officers Variable Supplements Fund [VSF] are marital property subject to equitable distribution in a divorce proceeding.

New York City Detective Crescenzo DeLuca divorced his wife, Maria, after 30 years of marriage. Before the divorce became final, DeLuca retired and began receiving VSF benefits in addition to his regular pension benefits.

A New York Supreme Court justice subsequently granted Crescenzo the divorce. As part of the equitable distribution of Crescenzo's assets, the court awarded Marie half of his past and future VSF payments. The Appellate Division, however, modified the award (276 AD2 143), holding that VSF benefits were not marital property on the theory that VSF benefits were not pension benefits under the City's Administrative Code Section 13-279[b].

The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the VSF was subject to equitable distribution in a divorce proceeding. The court said the VSF, along with its counterpart for police officers below the rank of sergeant ... were the result of contract negotiations between the City of New York and the unions representing police officers. In 1968, both sides jointly proposed legislation allowing the Police Pension Fund, whose pension investments were limited to fixed-income obligations, to invest some of its assets in equities, such as common stock, with the hope of creating higher earnings. The additional earnings could then be used as extra post-retirement compensation to attract qualified individuals and induce long-term service.

The Court of Appeals decided that whether VSF benefits constitute marital property cannot be determined by the Administrative Code provisions relied on by the Appellate Division but rather are to be determined pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Domestic Relations Law.

The general rule in such cases is that if the benefit is something of value and was earned in whole or in part during the marriage, it may be considered marital property subject to equitable distribution. Referring to Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481, the court pointed out that “rights in a vested but non-matured pension were marital property.”

Thus, said the court, formalized concepts such as “vesting” and “maturity” are not determinative in such situations, noting that in Olivo v Olivo, 82 NY2d 202, it ruled that compensation received after dissolution of the marriage for services rendered during the marriage is marital property.

In the words of the court, “VSF benefits are a supplement to pension fund payments and, as such, a form of compensation for past services related to the first 20 years of police employment, notwithstanding the date they mature.”

Also noted was the fact that although issues such as “vesting” and “maturity” do not raise serious obstacles to the determination that VSF benefits are marital property, they do affect valuation and distribution. 

In processing a grievance all procedural steps must be satisfied

In processing a grievance all procedural steps must be satisfied

Brown v Nassau County, 288 AD2d 216

The lesson in the Brown case: failure to follow the steps set out in a collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedure in a timely fashion may prove fatal to seeking further relief.

Larry Brown filed an out-of-title work grievance. When he and his union attempted to appeal the Step 3 determination of the Nassau County Office of Labor Relations [OLR], OLR rejected his grievance, saying that it was untimely. The Appellate Division agreed.

Brown's grievance was filed in accordance with a “five-step grievance procedure” set out in the collective bargaining agreement. OLR denied Brown's grievance at Step three and it appears that neither Brown nor the union proceeded to a Step four “advisory appeal” as set out Section 23-1.4 of the agreement.

According to the decision, the union made an untimely request that the County “schedule ... an arbitration date” following the County's unwillingness to stipulate to settle the dispute in accordance with the recommendation of a mediator.

The court noted that there was no proof that the County, in contrast to Brown and the union, the parties aggrieved by the Step 3 determination, was responsible for initiating the procedure at Step Four, or for the scheduling of the arbitration procedures.

Brown and the union sought a court order to compel arbitration of the grievance. The Appellate Division said that since there is no evidence that either Brown or the union ever timely “proceed[ed] to an advisory appeal” to either of the two alternative arbitral forums described in Section 23-1.4 of the parties' agreement, it agreed with the Supreme Court that, in light of this failure to complete the five-step grievance procedure, neither Brown nor the union could sue the County directly.

The simple answer: Had either Brown or the union followed the time requirement for perfecting the appeal to the next step, Step 4, the matter would have been subject to arbitration as permitted under the agreement.

Brown and the union also contended that they should not have been required to complete all five steps of the grievance procedure, because proceeding through all such steps would have been futile. The Appellate Division rejected this argument as being “without merit.”

Rebutting employer's defense to charges of unlawful discrimination

Rebutting employer's defense to charges of unlawful discrimination

Wallace v Methodist Hospital System, CA5, 271 F.3d 212

In the Wallace case, the Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, points out that an individual charging his or her employer with unlawful discrimination “must present facts to rebut each and every legitimate non-discriminatory reason advanced by [her employer] in order to survive [a motion for] summary judgment”.

Implicit in this ruling: if but one of the explanations offered by an employer in defending itself against allegations of unlawful discrimination survives, the employer will prevail.

Frequently an individual is able to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in challenging an adverse employment decision by introducing circumstantial evidence sufficient to raise a presumption of discrimination.

Once this is done, the employer is charged with the burden of producing a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment decision. If the employer provides a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action, the presumption of discrimination is defeated.

It then becomes the individual's burden to persuade the trier of fact that he or she was, in fact, the victim of unlawful discrimination by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer intentionally discriminated against him or her because of his or her protected status.

In the Wallace case, the Hospital did not dispute that a former nurse, Veronica A. Wallace, had established a prima facie case of discrimination. However, in response to that prima facie case, the Hospital offered two nondiscriminatory reasons for discharging Wallace.

According to the decision, the Hospital contended that Wallace had violated two of its written rules and the violation of either constituted grounds for her immediate termination under its written policies without regard to her past performance:

(1) the employee performed a procedure without receiving a physician's order even though Hospital's written policies required an order; and

(2) the employee falsified medical records.

Although Wallace admitted that she had violated both policies, she argued that she was subject to disparate disciplinary treatment, and, therefore, Methodist's stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination.

According to the ruling, at the heart of whether the district court properly found that Wallace failed to demonstrate by substantial evidence that the Hospital's explanation of its actions constituted pretext.

While Wallace contended that she had provided evidence of disparate treatment, the district court held that the examples of disparate treatment she offered did not involve “similarly situated nurses.”

The Circuit Court sustained the lower court's findings, noting that it has held that in order for a plaintiff to show disparate treatment, Wallace had to demonstrate “that the misconduct for which she was discharged was nearly identical to that engaged in by a[n] employee [not within her protected class] whom [the company] retained,” citing Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores (No. 471), 891 F.2d 1177.

Put another way, the conduct at issue is not nearly identical when the difference between the plaintiff's conduct and that of those alleged to be similarly situated accounts for the difference in treatment received from the employer.

Here, said the court, the Hospital had shown that “with but one exception,” the nurses to whom Wallace points are not similarly situated as “they had either acted under a doctor's orders, did not need a doctor's order for their actions, or no one in a supervisory capacity was aware of the nurse's actions.”

In addition, said the court, Wallace failed to rebut the second reason advanced by the Hospital in discharging her -- falsification of medical records.

Concluding that there was no legally sufficient basis that would allow a jury to decide that Wallace had been discharged because of discrimination, the Circuit Court sustained the lower court's dismissal of Wallace's complaint.

Actively participating in the arbitration process without objection precludes the party later claiming that the matter presented to the arbitrator was not subject to arbitration

Actively participating in the arbitration process without objection precludes the party later claiming that the matter presented to the arbitrator was not subject to arbitration
Matter of Jandrew v County of Cortland, 2011 NY Slip Op 04143, Appellate Division, Third Department

Cortland County terminated Bryon Jandrew from his position with the County.

Jandrew filed a grievance under the relevant collective bargaining agreement [CBA]. The grievance was ultimately submitted to binding arbitration in accordance with the CBA, and an arbitrator was jointly elected by the parties.

Although Cortland contended that the subject matter of the grievance was not subject to arbitration, it did not seek a stay of arbitration and agreed to have the issue of arbitrability of Jandrew’s grievance determined by the arbitrator, as well as the issues of whether Jandrew was “properly terminated” and, if not “properly terminated,” the appropriate remedy.

The arbitrator ruled that Jandrew’s grievance was arbitrable. The arbitrator then determined that Jandrew’s termination was without cause and, as the remedy ruled that the County must reinstate him to his former position with back pay and benefits.

Although Courtland then notified Jandrew's attorney that it would appeal the award and that Jandrew “should not show up to work pending the appeal,” the County neither appealed the award nor did it move to vacate or modify it. Further, the County did not restore Jandrew to the payroll or provide back pay or benefits as directed by the arbitrator.

Jandrew then filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking to confirm the arbitrator's award, whereupon Courtland filed an answer to his petition and moved to vacate the award.

Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s action.

The Appellate Division rejected Cortland’s argument that the award should be vacated because the arbitrator lacked the authority to decide the controversy. The court pointed out that “A party who actively participates in arbitration without seeking a stay pursuant to CPLR §7503(b) waives the right to a judicial determination of the arbitrability of the dispute,” citing Matter of United Federation of Teachers, Local 2, AFT, AFL-CIO v Board of Education of City School District of City of New York, 1 NY3d 72.

In this instance, said the court, although the County initially took the position that the grievance was not arbitrable, it thereafter joined in the selection of the arbitrator, fully participated in the arbitration proceeding and, most significantly, itself submitted to arbitration the issue of whether the grievance was arbitrable rather than "availing itself of all its reasonable judicial remedies."

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that the County had waived its right to contest the arbitrator's power to decide the controversy.

Further, said the court, “By submitting [the grievance] to arbitration, [Cortland] ran the risk that the arbitrator would find the dispute covered under the CBA, as she did, and while a contrary determination certainly would have been reasonable on the present record, it is not for us to substitute our judgment for that of the arbitrator in this regard.”

Finally, the Appellate Division rejected Cortland’s contention that the arbitrator's award violated public policy. Although an arbitration award may be vacated on this “extremely narrow ground” it may be vacated only where a court can conclude, "'without engaging in any extended fact-finding or legal analysis' that a law 'prohibit[s], in an absolute sense, [the] particular matters [to be] decided'" or that "the award itself violate[s] a well-defined constitutional, statutory or common law of this State"

Simply stated, said the court, “we fail to find any strong public policy precluding parties to a collective bargaining agreement from agreeing that the disciplining of employees for failure to maintain minimum job qualifications is to be submitted to and decided by an arbitrator.”

Similarly, with respect to the County’s argument that the award usurped the County Personnel Officer's power to set minimum job qualifications, the Appellate Division said “again the Cortland failed to point to any public policy that ‘prohibit[s], in an absolute sense,’ an employer from delegating to an arbitrator the authority to determine if an employee continues to meet the minimum qualifications of his or her position.”

Considering the adage that arbitrators "may do justice as they see it, applying their own sense of law and equity to the facts as they find them to be," the Appellate Division concluded that Cortland had not established that the arbitration award should be vacated for public policy reasons.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_04143.htm