A petition seeking the removal a school official requires specific wording

A petition seeking the removal a school official requires specific wording

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education #14,608

Michelle Knapp filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Education seeking to have the Commissioner remove Freeport Union Free School District Board Member Sunday F. Coward. Her appeal was rejected because she failed to comply with the procedural requirements set out in the Commissioner's Regulations.

Knapp charged that Coward had “violated board policies” and had “threatened her and made racist remarks to her following a board meeting on March 28, 2001.” The Commissioner said that he was compelled to dismiss Knapp's appeal because she had failed to serve Coward with a copy of her petition. The decision notes that with respect to "an application to remove a school officer pursuant to Education Law Section 306, Commissioner's Regulation Section 277.1(b) requires that the notice of petition must specifically advise the [school official] that the application is being made for [his or her] removal from office."

It appears that Knapp used the notice prescribed by Section 275.11(a) for appeals brought pursuant to Education Law Section 310. The Commissioner said that “[a] notice of petition which fails to contain the language required by the Commissioner's Regulations is fatally defective and does not secure jurisdiction over the intended respondent,” citing Appeal of Khalid, Commissioner's decision 14,570).

The reason for this, explained the Commissioner, is that it is “the notice of petition that alerts a party to the fact that he or she is the subject of removal proceedings, and the failure to comply with Section 277.1(b) necessarily results in a jurisdictional failure and requires dismissal” of the appeal.

Employee terminated for failure to “call-in” and physical confrontations with co-workers

Employee terminated for failure to “call-in” and physical confrontations with co-workers

Kampel v Westchester County Health Care, Corp., 286 AD2d 390

Robert Kampel, was served with disciplinary charges alleging excessive absences, failure to comply with the established call-in procedure to report his absences, and two incidents in which he pushed co-workers. Found guilty, Kampel was terminated from his position.

Finding that the disciplinary determination was supported by substantial evidence, the Appellate Division, citing the Pell standard, Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222, sustained the penalty imposed. The court said that dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offenses for which Kampel had been found guilty as to be “shocking to one's sense of fairness.”

Independent contractors and Title VII

Independent contractors and Title VII

Holtzman v The World Book Company Inc., USDC, EDPa.- 2001 WL 936492

It is not uncommon for a public employer to engage the services of an “independent contractor” to perform certain tasks.

In deciding the Title VII complaint filed Arlene Holtzman, a former employee of the World Book Company, Senior U.S. District Court Judge Lowell A. Reed Jr. ruled that Title VII protects workers who are “employees,” but does not apply to independent contractors.

According to the decision, Holtzman's position was “outsourced” by World Book and she became an “independent contractor” although she performed essentially the same duties she had performed as a World Book employee. This change in status, said Judge Reed, meant that Title VII no longer was applicable as Title VII only covers applicants for employment and employees.*

The court noted that in 1995 World Book reorganize its sales operations. As a result, it negotiated contracts with individuals designated “regional directors.” When Holtzman was told of the new arrangement, she approached Rosemarie Lee, a former World Book branch manager. Lee had formed her own corporation, Leer Services. Leer's sales force included a number of former World Book sales representatives. Holtzman signed a contract with Leer Services.

Was Holtzman an employee, and if so, whose employee? Judge Reed said that the U.S. Supreme Court set out a number of factors to be considered in determining whether or not an individual is an employee or an independent contractor in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v Darden, 503 US 318.

The Supreme Court's “common law test” for determining who qualifies as an “employee” in Darden lists the following factors to be considered in making the determination:

1. The hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the work is accomplished.

2. The skill required;

3. The source of the supplies and tools used by the individual;

4. The location of the work;

5. The duration of the relationship between the parties;

6. Whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional duties or projects to the hired party;

7. The extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work;

8. The method of payment;

9. The hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants;

10. Whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party;

11. Whether the hired party is in business;

12. Whether the hiring party provides employee benefits; and

13. The tax treatment of the hired party.”

Applying the Darden factors to Arlene Holtzman's position selling World Book's educational products, Reed found that her status had clearly changed in 1995 from employee to independent contractor and thus she was not able to maintain her Title VII action.

* Title VII defines the term “employee” as “an individual employed by an employer ....”

Appointing authority threatening to do what it has a legal right to do is not “coercion”

Appointing authority threatening to do what it has a legal right to do is not “coercion”

Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643

Suppose an employee entitled to pre-termination “notice and hearing” is told that unless he or she immediately resigns from his or her position, he or she will be served with disciplinary charges. Does such a demand constitute unlawful coercion? This issue was considered by the New York State Court of Appeals in Rychlick.

Rychlick, a State corrections officer, was told that unless he immediately submitted his resignation, formal disciplinary charges would be filed against him. He submitted his resignation. A few days later he asked to withdraw the resignation on the grounds that it had been “forced” from him. When his request was denied, Rychlick sued, claiming the resignation had been obtained under duress and thus was void.

The Court of Appeals upheld the appointing authority's refusal to allow Rychlick to withdraw his resignation, ruling that threatening to do what one had the legal right to do -- file disciplinary charges against an employee -- does not constitute unlawful duress.

Anatomy of a hearing officer's disciplinary findings and recommendation

Anatomy of a hearing officer's disciplinary findings and recommendation

Averill Park CSD v Craig Landin, Decision of Hearing Officer Howard A. Rubenstein, Esq.

The analysis of the record by the hearing officer in considering Section 75 disciplinary charges filed by the Averill Park Central School District against school custodian Craig Landin provides examples of several important issues that a hearing officer may be required to consider and rule upon in the course of formulating his or her findings and recommendations.

In the course of formulating his findings and recommendations, Section 75 Hearing Officer Howard A. Rubenstein sets out his reasoning in (1) determining the credibility of witnesses and (2) holding that certain of the charges filed against Landin did not constituted “double jeopardy.”

Landin was served with a number of charges and specifications alleging misconduct and incompetence. One charge alleged that Landin falsified his time records by reported he had worked overtime when he “in fact ... did not work at least part of those hours” claimed. Other charges included allegations that Landin failed to perform, or assign a subordinate to perform, certain duties when he was directed to do so and neglected to open the building as scheduled on Election Day, November 7, 2000.

As to the charge alleging that Landin falsified his time records, on Tuesday, June 13, 2001, Landin completed and signed the time sheet indicating that he had worked overtime from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Saturday June 9, 2001.

There was a problem with this statement, however. The testimony of Landin's supervisor, Henry Altenweg, was that he had observed Landin working “in his yard” as he drove by Landin's home about 10 a.m. on June 9 on his way out of town. Further, Dr. Wayne Johnston, the school principal, testified that he entered the building at approximately 9:15 a.m. on June 9, 2001 and had to turn off the alarm system when he arrived. Dr. Johnston explained that if anyone had been present in the building when he arrived, the alarm either would have been set off by the earlier visitor or would have had to have been turned off by the earlier visitor.*

Landin then explained that he did not work on June 9, attributing his claim to have worked on that date to “forgetfulness,” and made the affirmative defense that he had “accepted the offered overtime and completed the assignment on Sunday, June 10, 2001 between the approximate hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.”

The problem with this defense was that Altenweg also testified that he drove by Landin's home about 1:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 10 while returning from out of town and again observed him working in his yard.

Essentially Landin testified that he worked either on the 9th or the 10th, or maybe on both days, but he just could not remember when he worked. However, when asked “[d]o you remember when you got to work?, he responded “[a]t 8:55 a.m.” because “ [w]hen I pulled up to the building -- my clock is right in my dashboard, smack dab in the middle. And just before I shut it off, I looked at the time to make sure I wasn't late, and it said 8:55.”

Sarah O'Hearn and Phyllis Kapelewski, witnesses called to testify by Landin, could not recall seeing him at work on either June 9 or June 10 or whether the tasks they asked to perform were actually done on that Saturday or that Sunday.

As to the reaction of the hearing officer to Landin's testimony concerning when he reported for work, Rubenstein commented that Landin just tells a different story every time he is asked when he actually worked. “Landin's explanation that his loss of memory as to which day he performed the overtime was due to illness apparently was the result of a case of date specific amnesia, but not time specific amnesia, since although he could clearly recall that he had reported for work at 8:55 a.m. and left work at 4:30 p.m, he could not recall on which day he had worked ... I reject Landin's testimony as to when and how many hours he may have worked overtime on the June 9th weekend as entirely unworthy of belief.”

In contrast, Rubenstein said that the testimony of Altenweg that he saw Landin at his home on June 9th at approximately 10:00 a.m. and on June 10th at approximately 1:00 p.m. was clear and convincing and stands essentially unchallenged in the record. He noted that Landin never specifically denied that he was at his home at 10 a.m. on Saturday June 9th and at 1 p.m. on Sunday June 10th.

In addition, said Rubenstein, Dr. Johnston's testimony that when he arrived at School on Saturday June 10th, the alarm system was still on and therefore Landin could not have been there at that time also stands unchallenged.

The bottom line: Rubenstein concluded that “Landin lied when he reported the date and time he worked overtime to Altenweg and is thus guilty of charge 1....”

Charge 2 consisted of five specific instances in which it was alleged that Landin failed to adequately clean, or to ensure that one of his subordinates adequately cleaned, various areas within the school building. The hearing officer found Landin guilty of all specifications.

In his post hearing brief, Landin argued that his failure to clean areas identified in the charge do not justify disciplining him given the fact that he had a significant amount of extra work to perform and, in any event, “is such a minor matter that it does not warrant the imposition of any penalty.” The hearing officer said that this argument goes to the nature of the penalty to be imposed rather than whether Landin was guilty as charged.

Landin also argued that he received a memorandum concerning his failure to remove certain materials from the building on January 3, 2001, and that such a memorandum constituted discipline and that he could not be charged with the same misconduct twice.

Rubenstein rejected this argument, noting that in this instance the counseling memo constituted proper supervisory conduct rather than an impermissible disciplinary action. In the words of the hearing officer:

As the Court of Appeals indicated in Holt v Webutick Central School District, 52 NY2d 625, a “counseling memorandum” that is given to an employee and placed in his or her personnel file constitutes a lawful means of instructing the employee concerning unacceptable performance and the actions that should be taken by the individual to improve his or her work.

In other words, comments critical of employee performance do not, without more, constitute disciplinary action. Typically the “more” is the imposition of some form of penalty. Coupling a “counseling memorandum” with some form of an adverse personnel action would be viewed as a subterfuge for initiating required disciplinary action.

In some instances it may be difficult to determine the location of that thin line that separates lawful “constructive criticism” of an individual's performance by a supervisor and supervisory actions addressing an individual's performance that are disciplinary in nature. Here, said Rubenstein, that thin line is easy to distinguish.

Why? Because “[t]he memo was clearly a lawful means of instructing Landin concerning unacceptable performance and the actions that he should take to improve his work. No disciplinary characteristics attach to the memo, nor does it contain any disciplinary action or threat or promise of detrimental action.”

Rubenstein also pointed out that in Patterson v Smith, 53 NY2d 98, the Court of Appeals ruled that including charges concerning an employee's performance that were previously addressed in a counseling memorandum does not constitute double jeopardy. The court commented that while a proper counseling memoranda may contain a warning and an admonition to comply with the expectations of the employer, it is not a form of punishment in and of itself.

As to Charge 3, Landin's alleged failure to open the building on Election Day, a task that he had done on earlier occasions, the hearing officer decided that Landin's failure to open the building or to ask if he should open the building “is inexcusable and constitutes misconduct or incompetence.”

In view of his findings that Landin was guilty of all charges and specifications, Rubenstein recommended that Landin be dismissed from his position. The school board adopted the hearing officer's findings and recommendation and dismissed Landin from his position.

Another procedural matter: Rubenstein placed the appointing authority's letter designating him to serve as the hearing officer in the record. Why did he elect to do this? To demonstrate his authority to conduct the hearing. The courts have ruled that the failure to designate the disciplinary hearing officer in writing is a fatal procedural defect requiring any resulting disciplinary action to be vacated.

* Dr. Johnston also testified that he reset the alarm when he left at approximately 10:00 a.m. The alarm “did not beep,” indicating that no one was present in the building when the alarm was reactivated.

Light duty assignments involving law enforcement personnel

Light duty assignments involving law enforcement personnel

Cripe v City of San Jose, CA9, 99-15253

The Cripe's case considers the mandates of the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] in terms of the obligations of a law enforcement agency to keep disabled police officers in the “main stream” for the purposes of making assignments consistent with the needs of the agency and the abilities of the disabled officer.

The San Jose [California] Police Department has more than 1,300 sworn officers. Officers were assigned to one of three types of positions: beat-patrol assignments; modified-duty assignments -- positions specifically set aside for disabled officers; and specialized assignments. Specialized assignments consist of all sworn officer assignments other than beat-patrol and modified-duty assignments.*About one half of the force work in “beat assignments.”

Six City of San Jose police officers with neck and back injuries that prevented them from serving as patrol officers sued the Department alleging that the Department placed them in “a small number of undesirable positions” and did not consider them for “special assignment” posts. This Department policy, they alleged, violated the ADA.

The Department's response: “public safety would be compromised if officers with physical limitations that prevented them from forcibly arresting suspects were permitted to perform more than the prescribed handful of modified duty jobs that had been made available to them.” According to the Department, the six officers did not qualify as “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA because:

1. They cannot perform the “essential functions” of the positions they seek because they could not effect a forcible arrest or subdue a fleeing suspect;

2. It would impose an “undue hardship” on the City to require it to accommodate the plaintiffs by waiving the disputed policies; and

3. The modified-duty assignment policy is a reasonable accommodation satisfying the ADA's mandate.

The Circuit Court disagreed, holding that the Department's policy violated the ADA. The court said that “relegating [the disabled officers] to unsatisfactory jobs in which they have little or no possibility for promotion simply cannot be reconciled with the ADA's 'clear and comprehensive national mandate' to eliminat[e] ... discrimination against individuals with disabilities.”

The Circuit Court decided that the ADA requires the employer to find ways to bring the disabled into its ranks, even when doing so imposes some costs and burdens. The San Jose Police Department, said the court, must participate in this process, as long as it can do so in a manner that will not compromise public safety.

The crux of the matter: was making a forcible arrests and subduing fleeing suspects an “essential function” of all specialized-assignment positions in the San Jose Police Department. According to the ruling, “an employer may not turn every condition of employment which it elects to adopt into a job function, let alone an essential job function.” The Circuit Court concluded that a requirement that officers be physically capable of making forcible arrests does not reflect an essential function for all specialized assignment police officers.

In other words, the court ruled that the disabled officers were qualified individuals with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position that such individuals hold or desire, including, presumably, certain “special assignment.”

As examples, the decision notes that the disabled officers presumably would make good background investigators, good internal affairs investigators, and good recruiters or training officers, assignments that do not typically involve making forcible arrests or subduing fleeing suspects.

The bottom line: the Circuit Court ruled that there is a factual dispute as to whether the ability to make a forcible arrest is an essential function of all the specialized-assignment positions that the disabled officer seek the opportunity to fill, notwithstanding the job descriptions that the Department has prepared. In the words of the court:

We conclude that the [disabled officers] are not categorically unable to perform the essential functions of the “specialized assignments” they seek, even though they may be unable to make forcible arrests and subdue suspects. They are, rather, for purposes of this appeal, “qualified individual[s] with ... disabilit[ies].”

In another light duty case, Champ v Baltimore County, Md., [95-2061], the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, ruled that a Baltimore County police officer who lost 100% of the use of his left arm was not entitled to a permanent light-duty assignment.

Significantly, the department defined the essential duties of a police officer as including the ability to make a forcible arrest, drive vehicles during an emergency and correctly aim a firearm while using two hands. Officer James Champ, who was severely injured in an off-duty motorcycle accident, could not show that he could perform any of these tasks.

In this unpublished decision, Judges Donald Russell, Sam Ervin III and William Wilkins Jr. said the ADA was not violated when the county placed Champ on disability retirement because he was not able to demonstrate he could perform the essential functions of the job of police officer, with or without reasonable accommodation.

In Stone v City of Mount Vernon, CA2, 96-7976, decided June 30. 1997, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals observed that the proper way to analyze the merits of a claim under the federal disability statutes is to focus on the fundamental job duties of the specific position an individual with a disability desires, rather than on the title .

* Specialized assignments are viewed as very desirable by department personnel. In consideration of this, the Department and San Jose Peace Officers Association negotiated an elaborate procedure for selecting personnel for these preferred jobs.

Employee terminated for forging superior’s signature on an official document

Employee terminated for forging superior’s signature on an official document

Dep’t of Education v. Bermel (in PDF) -  OATH Index No. 1332/11

A custodian was charged with forging a principal’s signature on an annual operation plan for cleaning a City school. 

OATH Administrative Law Judge John Spooner found that testimony from the principal and from a Department official proved the forgery and that the custodian filed the plan without permitting the principal to review it. 

The NYC Chancellor of Education adopted Judge Spooner’s recommended that the individual be dismissed.

Proposed Respect for Marriage Act of 2011 introduced in Congress

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.

On Tuesday, July 19, 2011, the White House announced President Obama's support for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  The DOMA defines marriage for purposes of federal benefits, including FMLA leave, as a union between one man and one woman.  DOMA limited the availability of FMLA leave to care for a spouse to heterosexual marriages, thereby excluding same sex marriages and civil unions.  In February of this year the Obama administration announced that it would not longer defend the constitutionality of the DOMA. The recent announcement would repeal the DOMA altogether.

The repeal of the DOMA is contained in the Respect for Marriage Act of 2011, S. 598 and H.R. 1116.  The House and Senate bills are identical. Both would repeal the section of the DOMA defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.  In its place, the legislation propose the following language:

For purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individuals marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State. 

The proposed legislation defines a "State" to include the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.

Mr. Bosland Comments: If enacted, the Respect for Marriage Act would require covered employers to permit FMLA leave to care for a same sex spouse, provided that the marriage was legally recognized in the State where the marriage was entered.  The Respect for Marriage Act does not set a national standard stating that same sex marriages are valid for purposes of the FMLA.  Rather, the Respect for Marriage Act requires employers to look to State law to determine if a marriage is valid.  Currently, a few states recognize same sex marriage.  Many states outlaw same sex marriage.  Some states recognize same sex civil unions or domestic partners, but not same sex marriages.  Because they do not have the same status as marriage, the Respect for Marriage Act as currently written would not require employers to grant FMLA leave to an employee to care for a domestic partner or spouse in a civil union.   

Combined with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, the Respect for Marriage Act requires covered employers with operations in states that do not recognize same sex marriage to nevertheless recognize those marriages as valid for FMLA leave purposes if the marriage was valid in the state where the marriage was entered.  

For example, a same sex couple were legitimately married in New York, a State that recognizes same sex marriage.  The couple thereafter moves to Mississippi for a job opportunity.  Lets assume that Mississippi does not authorize same sex marriages.  All things being equal (e.g., company is covered by the FMLA, employee is eligible for leave, condition meets one or more serious health condition definitions, proper notice and certifications provided, etc.), if the employee of this same sex marriage requests FMLA leave to care for their spouse with a serious health condition, the employer could not deny the leave simply because Mississippi does not recognize same sex marriages.  Because the marriage arose in New York, where it was valid when entered, the couple are married for purposes of FMLA leave.  The Company would process the leave request as it would any other FMLA leave request by an employee to care for a spouse.

Passage of the legislation in the Democrat controlled Senate is likely, even with their thin majority.   During the run-up to the Presidential election, it will be interesting to see how the legislation fares in the Republican-controlled House.  The framing of the bill as something of a States-rights issue may peel some Republicans off their otherwise expected rejection of the proposed legislation.  The Obama Administration's support of the repeal of the DOMA will also require the Republican Presidential hopefuls to state their position, which may also result in a few surprises.

Stay tuned!     

Senate bill is posted on the Internet at:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c112:./temp/~c1120x92ET

Concerning the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Concerning the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Donato v Plainview-Old Bethpage CSD, 286 AD2d 388

The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction was the underpinning of a decision by a State Supreme Court justice in the Donato case -- a case involving an educator's claim that she was eligible for reinstatement from a preferred list.

As the Appellate Division noted, the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction “applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body.”*

In other words, although the court has original jurisdiction, questions involving the exercise of an administrative body's special competence or expertise is to be referred to that body for an initial determination.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the court explained, is intended to coordinate the relationship between courts and administrative agencies so that, among other things, the agency's views on factual and technical issues can be made available to the courts where the matter before the court concerns issues that are within the agency's specialized field.

According to the ruling, in 1991 Linda Donato's position at the District's Mattlin Middle School -- Social Studies Chairperson, Grades 5-8 -- was abolished for budgetary reasons. The district placed Donato's name on a preferred eligible list “for reappointment to a similar position” in accordance with Section 3013(3)(a) of the Education Law.

In 1997 the District created a new position -- District-wide Social Studies Chairperson, Grades K-12. Donato asked to be appointed to this new position from the Social Studies Chairperson, Grades 5-8, preferred list. The District, contending that the preferred list was not appropriate because the duties of the position, which it had abolished, were not similar to those of the new position, refused to use the preferred list to appoint Donato to the vacancy.

Donato, claiming that the two positions were, indeed, similar for the purposes of the certification of the preferred list, initiated an Article 78 action to compel the District to use the preferred list. If the preferred list were appropriate for filling the new position, the District would have to either appoint Donato to the new position or elect to keep it vacant.**

The Supreme Court dismissed the Donato's petition after concluding that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction was applicable. The court said that in this instance the Commissioner of Education should resolve the issue of whether or not the positions are similar for the purposes of certifying the preferred list.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applied in this case. Citing Hessney v Public Schools of Tarrytowns, 228 AD2d 954, the court pointed out that “the Commissioner of Education has the specialized knowledge and expertise to resolve the factual issue of whether [Donato's] former position and the new position are similar within the meaning of Education Law Section 3013(3)(a).”

Another procedural wrinkle to consider: A statute sometimes allows an individual to file his or her complaint or appeal either (a) with a court or (b) with an administrative body. Examples of such “election” of jurisdiction opportunities:

1. Section 76 of the Civil Service Law provides that an individual may file his or her appeal from a Section 75 disciplinary determination by an appointing authority initially with the civil service commission having jurisdiction within thirty days of the decision or with the court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

2. Section 297.9 of the Executive Law, New York's Human Rights Law, allows a human rights complaint to be initially filed with a court or with the State Division of Human Rights.

* Another doctrine frequently cited in cases challenging an administrative decision is the doctrine of the exhaustion of administrative remedies. In contrast to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the “exhaustion doctrine” involves satisfying a condition precedent to initiating litigation where there is an administrative appeal procedure in place. Typically courts will decline to assume jurisdiction if the complaining party has failed to exhaust his or her available administrative remedy.

** As a general rule, reinstatement from a preferred list does not require that the individual serve a probationary period in contrast to all other types of permanent appointment, which typically require that the individual satisfactorily complete a probationary period in order to attain tenure in the title.

Constitutionally protected speech of public officers and employees

Constitutionally protected speech of public officers and employees

McKinley v Kaplan, CA11, 262 F. 3d 1146

The general rule is that a public employee cannot be disciplined simply for exercising his or her constitutional right to free speech concerning matters of public interest. Where the employee speaks out on matters of public concern, the government bears the burden of justifying any adverse employment action it might take against the individual.

A public employee's speech concerning a private or personal interest, however, is a different matter. The public employer is not required to justify disciplinary action taken in response to an employee's speech regarding personal matters, such as a change in the employee's duties or work location.

Further, in Pickering v Board of Education, 391 US 563, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a public employee's right to freedom of speech is not absolute because “the State has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.”

The McKinley case raises another element to consider concerning the right of a public employer to regulate the speech of its employee -- the employer's expectations with respect to a policy-maker's speech concerning matters of public interest related to the individual's work.

Margaret McKinley, a volunteer and unpaid member of the Miami-Dade County Film, Print, and Broadcast Advisory Board,* was removed from her position because, said the County, she had expressed and supported a position that was “inappropriate and insulting to the community” represented by the sponsor of her appointment as well as being inconsistent with County policy.

According to the decision, the County had adopted a policy “prohibiting contracts between the County and any firms doing business either directly or indirectly with Cuba.” After determining that an organization planning an Entertainment Conference “was doing business with Cuba by inviting Cuban artists to perform,” the County voted against providing any public monies to support the event.

McKinley disagreed with this decision and made a statement at a public meeting held by the Miami Beach Fashion, Film, Television and Recording Committee to the effect that losing the Conference would hurt Miami's entertainment industry and that the County's action improperly reflected only the views of the Cuban-American community. She was quoted in the Miami Herald as follows: "While we respect and appreciate the concerns of Cuban-Americans in the exile community, allowing a few people's political standpoint to dictate the potential economic growth of the area is not for the benefit of the community as a whole."

McKinley sued the County after she was dismissed from her position, contending that the county violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights because she was fired as a result of the public statement she made concerning a County policy with which she disagreed.

A federal district court judge dismissed McKinley's complaint, holding that the First Amendment did not provide her with any right to continued government employment. The court's rationale: McKinley's role on the Film Board involved public contact and providing input into County policy decisions and she failed to properly represent the views and policies of the County to the public. The Circuit Court affirmed the ruling, pointing out that the Pickering decision sets out a four prong test for determining if an employee's protected speech rights have been violated by a public employer's action:

1. Did the speech involve a matter of public concern?

2. If so, does the government's interest in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees out weight the employee's interest in protected speech?

3. If so, did the employee's speech play a substantial part in the government's decision to discharge the employee? and, finally,

4. If the speech was a substantial motivating factor in the employer's decision, has the government shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have discharged the employee regardless of the protected conduct?

The parties agreed that the only issue to be addressed in this instance was “the balancing prong of the Pickering test” -- weighing the respective interests of the County and McKinley. According to the court:

1. On McKinley's side of the scale is her interest in voicing her opinion on a controversial county resolution.

2. On the County side is its need to maintain loyalty, discipline, and good working relationships with those employees and board members they appoint and supervise.

The Circuit Court's conclusion: the balance tipped in favor of the County based on the proposition that “governments have a strong interest in staffing their offices with employees that they fully trust, particularly when the employees occupy advisory or policy-making roles.” Finding that McKinley was a “policy-maker,” based on the fact that her duties required her to serve in an advisory capacity with input on policy issues, the court concluded that this factor “gives the County a greater interest in removing her based on her speech.”

The Circuit Court then said that “[p]erhaps more important to our decision than [McKinley's] policy influence or public contact, however, is the fact that [McKinley] served as an appointed representative of the County ... and she failed to support [its] interests.” According to the ruling:

It was not [McKinley's] right to free speech that was affected by the County Commission's decision to remove her. Rather, it was her right to maintain an appointed position ... in light of her choice to publicly dissent from [the County's] clearly stated views and policies.

Whistle blowing involves another element that must be considered when determining if the employer's interest in limiting its employees' speech outweighs an employee's interest in free speech. For example, Section 75-b of the Civil Service Law, provides that a public employer “shall not dismiss or take other disciplinary or other adverse personnel action against a public employee regarding the employee's employment because the employee discloses to a governmental body information regarding a violation of law ... which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety....” It also includes a provision, Section 75-b.4, that states that nothing in the Section “shall be deemed to ... prohibit any personnel action which otherwise would have been taken regardless of any disclosure of information.” [See, also, Labor Law 740].

Sometimes it may be difficult to distinguish the line between “free speech” and “whistle blowing.” For example, did the McDonald case [McDonald v City of Freeport [TX], 834 FSupp 921] concern the issue of “free speech,” or “whistle blowing” or, perhaps, both.

In McDonald the court considered allegations made by police officers that the City fired one police officer and forced another to retire after they spoke to the media about alleged police misconduct. Some might classify this type of activity “whistle blowing.” The federal district court, however, made its ruling based on “free speech” concerns, holding that such action violated the police officers' First Amendment rights.

In this instance, said the court, the employee's interest in revealing such matters of public concern outweighed the police department's interest in maintaining “an efficient police department.” According to the decision, only a concern for “national security” or similar situations would serve to limit an employee from revealing improper governmental practices to the public.

* The pay status of the individual has no bearing with respect to an individual's alleged terminated for an improper or unconstitutional reason. As the court indicated in Hyland v Wonder, 972 F.2d 1129, serving as a volunteer constitutes a government benefit or privilege and that “[r]etaliatory actions with less momentous consequences [than loss of employment], such as loss of a volunteer position, are equally egregious in the eyes of the Constitution because a person is being punished for engaging in protected speech.”