Consideration of mitigating circumstanses tempers the typical penalty - termination - imposed on an employee who submits a fraudulent medical notes after being absent from work

Although termination is frequently the penalty imposed on a wrongdoer for submitting a fraudulent medical notes to excuse an absence, New York City Office of Tribunals and Hearings Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis found that in this case it would be excessive. Instead Judge Lewis recommended that the employee be give a penalty of a 60-day suspension without pay.

The employee submitted fraudulent medical notes regarding a seven-day absence from work acknowledged that he altered medical notes to show doctor’s appointments on some of the dates that he was absent from work.

ALJ Lewis credited the employee’s testimony that he fabricated the notes using Write-Out in a panicked, emotional state after his supervisor denied his request for emergency personal leave, which respondent sought because his wife was suicidal and he needed to be home to care for his young daughter.

Although termination is often the penalty imposed for the submission of fraudulent medical notes, the ALJ found that in this case it would be excessive, noting that although the employee’s conduct was a serious error in judgment, his otherwise flawless 16-year record and the extraordinary mitigating circumstances made her recommendation of a penalty of 60 days suspension more appropriate.

Click HEREto access Judge Lewis' findings and recommendation.

 

Appointing an employee to a different position and title following a disabiling injury or disease that was not job related

In a proceeding brought pursuant to §72 of the Civil Service Law, OATH of Administrative Law Judge Ingrid M. Addison recommended that the New York City Police Department [NYPD] place a Traffic Enforcement Agent [TEA] on an involuntary leave of absence, finding the TEA was unfit to perform her job duties due to a medical disability not incurred in the performance of the duties of her position.

The TEA did not dispute the fact that she could not stand or walk for long periods, conceding that effects of an earlier surgery prevented her from performing the duties required of a TEA.

Although the TEA had been temporarily assigned to a clerical job as a reasonable accommodation, the NYPD determined that she was unfit to perform the duties of a TEA. Judge Addison agreed, finding that the NYPD proved the employee was currently unfit to perform the essential duties a TEA due to her disability and recommended the TEA be placed on involuntary leave consistent with the provisions of Civil Service Law §72.5.

The appointing authority of the NYPD adopted the ALJ’s recommendation subject to the approval of NYPD’s pending application for a change in title of the TEA's position to Clerical Associate, presumably as the result of the reclassification of the TEA position then encumbered by the employee to "Clerical Associate."

On a similar note, General Municipal Law §207-c, providing for the payment of salary, wages, medical and hospital expenses of police officers disabled as the result of injuries or illness incurred in the performance of duty, authorizes appropriate municipal officials to transfer a police officer on disability leave pursuant §207-c to another position, including a position with another agency or department where he is able to perform the duties of such position consistent with [1] the applicable civil service law requirements, [2] provided the police officer consents to the change and [3] the agency to which the employee will transfer approves the transfer.

General Municipal Law §207.5, applicable to firefighters on disability leave as the result of suffering an injury or illness incurred in performance of official duties,  similarly authorizes the appointment of the disabled firefighter to another position or title in the same or another agency with the consent of the injured firefighter and the approval of the department or agency involved.

Click HERE to access Judge Addison's decision and recommendation.

Finding of unlawful discrimination supported by substantial evidence results in imposition of a civil fine and the payment of compensatory damages to the employee

The New York State Division of Human Rights [DHR], adopting the findings and recommendation of an Administrative Law Judge determined following a hearing, held that the New York State Unified Court System, Office of Court Administration [OCA] had unlawfully discriminated against one of a staff member [Employee] based on a disability and directed OCA to: 

1. Cease and desist from subjecting the Employee to blanket exclusions from the court officer-trainee job title based on hearing loss or the use of hearing aids;

2. Pay a civil fine and penalty of $30,000; and

3. Pay Employee $5,000 in compensatory damages.

OCA appealed DHR's decision.

The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed DHR's decision and dismissed OCA's appeal finding that DHR's finding of unlawful discrimination was supported by substantial evidence.

Noting that the Employee had established a prima facie case that OCA discriminated against him because of his hearing and "sufficiently demonstrated that upon the provision of reasonable accommodation, the use of a hearing aid, he can perform in a reasonable manner the essential functions of a court officer-trainee."

The record indicated that Employee had passed the written test for the court officer-trainee position and was conditionally hired. However, OCA bans the use of hearing aids on the job or for the audiometric test to medically qualify for the position of court officer-trainee. Further, opined the Appellate Division, Employee was not obligated to be evaluated for and purchase a hearing aid, and to retake the audiometric test, at his expense, to further make his prima facie case as OCA had made clear it still would deem him unqualified and reject such test results.

Citing Pimentel v Citibank, N.A., 29 AD3d 141, the Appellate Division observed that permitting court officers to wear a hearing aid is a reasonable accommodation and would not, as OCA argued, impose undue hardship on OCA by posing any "direct threat," i.e. "a significant risk of substantial harm to the . . . safety of the employee or others."

Addressing OCA's argument that the physical demands of the job and the risk that a hearing aid could become dislodged in a scuffle or fail to operate in an emergency, the court held that OCA's argument is undermined by its own policy permitting court officer-trainee candidates to meet its vision standard with or without corrective lenses or glasses, which could be lost or become dislodged in a scuffle.

Noting "OCA's preference for those with a minimal amount of hearing acuity" might be a bona fide occupational qualification the Appellate Division held that OCA's "preference for hearing acuity without the use of a hearing aid is not."
As to the $30,000 civil penalty imposed on OCA, the Appellate Division, observing that Executive Law §297[4][c] provides that a civil penalty below $50,000 may be assessed if an entity is found to have committed an "unlawful discriminatory act", concluded that considering OCA blanket policy barring hearing-impaired persons from employment as court officers and its failure to accommodate Employee who had an asymmetric hearing loss, the civil penalty of $30,000 was correctly assessed.

Similarly, the court found that the record contains substantial evidence to support DHR's finding that Employee was entitled to a compensatory damages award of $5,000.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

Important changes involving the Workers’ Compensation Board's operations

In light of the expiration of the State of Emergency necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Workers’ Compensation Board [Board] returned to more regular operations on June 29, 2021.  All of the guidance and modifications provided on the Board’s webpage relating to the State of Emergency are lifted, with the following exceptions:

• The suspension of the Labor Market Attachment requirement will expire on August 16, 2021. Visit the Board's website to view the guidance. 
• Relief from the original signature requirements on 27 Board prescribed forms will continue until August 16, 2021.
• Board offices remain closed for the time being and contact with Board employees will be by phone and email only.
• Remote-only attendance at hearings will continue, with parties and witnesses appearing by video through the Virtual Hearing Center or, as an option for claimants only, by telephone.
• Consideration of requests for the extension of the 30-day filing requirement will continue for appeals and rebuttals post-marked through July 6, 2021.
• Personal service on the Board still will not be permitted. Service will continue to be by mail only.
• Telehealth will remain in effect by Emergency Regulation. A permanent telehealth regulation is expected to be released for public comment shortly.

This information is also available on the Board’s website.

Questions? Email OfficeofGeneralCounsel@wcb.ny.gov.

Retired former police officer denied a "retiree service letter" which would assist in obtaining a special pistol carrying permit

Retired police officers often request a "retiree service letter" [RSL]to assist the retiree in obtaining a special pistol-carrying permit. 

In this CPLR Article 78 action, a retiree [Plaintiff] sought a court order annulling his former employer's [Agency] determination which denied Plaintiff's request for a RSL and asked the court to issue an order compelling that such a letter be issued. Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff's petition and he appealed the court's ruling.

Citing Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d 424, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's ruling, without costs, holding that the Agency's denial of Plaintiff's request was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

The Appellate Division explained that Plaintiff conceded that he was not authorized to carry a firearm at the time of his separation from employment, as he had earlier surrendered his firearm due to an injury, and he had not sought reinstatement of such authorization. Accordingly, said the court, Plaintiff "had no right to issuance of" the RSL "since his authority to carry firearms had been revoked ... and had not been restored at the time he retired"

Further, opined the court, the Agency's decision not to issue the RSL did not violate Plaintiff's Second Amendment rights, since it did not preclude him from applying for a permit under normal legal procedures set out in §400.00 on New York State's Penal Law.

In addition, the Appellate Division observed that:

1. Assuming there is a private right of action under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, Plaintiff "cannot demonstrate that he met the qualification standards within one year of retirement";

2. Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act based on his former agency's refusal to issue the RSL as he concedes that his injury rendered him unable to perform his duties as a law enforcement officer; and

3. There is no factual basis to conclude that the Agency's decision refusing to provide Plaintiff with a RSL was made in bad faith rather than as part of an across the board policy.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Live Webinar addressing continuity of goverment in a crisis

Government Technology has scheduled a Webinar addressing Continuity of Government: Maintaining Constituent Services and Employee Collaboration in a Crisis to be held on Tuesday, June 29 | 2:00pm Eastern.

Noting that today’s headlines are filled with reports of increasingly sophisticated and disruptive cybercrimes, Government Technology observes that "government agencies have become primary targets for ransomware attacks that lock up vital systems and data", and that:

"A new wave of supply chain exploits presents serious threats to public sector organizations that rely on growing numbers of partners and service providers to perform their missions. 

"And, of course, many state and local jurisdictions face greater cyber risk due to expanded adoption of remote work and digital service delivery, coupled with a greater dependence on their IT infrastructure."

Click here to Register to attend.

 

 

The disability finding of the Social Security Administration is not dispositive of the Retirement System's Medical Board's disability determination

The determination to deny petitioner's application for accident disability retirement was not arbitrary and capricious, and was supported by some credible evidence (see Matter of Merlino v Teachers' Retirement Sys. of the City of N.Y., 177 AD3d 430, 430 [1st Dept 2019], citing Matter of Borenstein v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 88 NY2d 756, 760 [1996]). The finding of respondent's Medical Board that petitioner was not disabled was supported by its physical examination and interview of petitioner (see Matter of Fusco v Teachers' Retirement Sys. of the City of N.Y., 136 AD3d 450, 451 [1st Dept 2016]). Upon examination, petitioner was able to move around unassisted, had normal strength and range of motion in his shoulders, elbows, wrists, and hips, and had little or no tenderness in his neck and back. 

In addition, the Medical Board noted that petitioner had not had standard of care epidural injections, trigger point injections, or any other procedures to improve his current complaints. Petitioner claims that the Medical Board ignored his medical history, but resolution of conflicting evidence was for the Medical Board to resolve (see Matter of Athanassiou v Kelly, 101 AD3d 517 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Bell v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 273 AD2d 119, 120 [1st Dept 2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 701 [2001]).

The disability finding of the Social Security Administration was not dispositive of the Medical Board's disability determination (see Fusco, 136 AD3d at 451, citing Matter of Barden v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 291 AD2d 215, 216 [1st Dept 2002]). Nor did the [*2]finding of the medical arbitrator, who examined petitioner after the Medical Board made its determination, warrant article 78 relief (see id.).

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_01256.htm

 

Audits and reports issued during the week ending June 26, 2021 by the New York State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following audits and reports were issued during the week ending June 26, 2021.

Click on the text highlighted in color to access the complete audit report.

 MUNICIPAL AUDITS

Brasher-Winthrop Consolidated Fire District – Board Oversight (St. Lawrence County) The board did not provide adequate oversight of district financial activities. The board did not establish compensating controls over the work of the treasurer, who was responsible for receiving and disbursing cash, signing district checks and maintaining the accounting records. The board also did not audit district claims prior to payment and conduct an annual audit of the treasurer’s records. In addition, the board did not ensure the treasurer filed required annual financial reports for 2017 through 2019 and they did not complete mandatory fiscal oversight training. Auditors reviewed all $44,227 disbursements made during the audit period and found that they were for proper district purposes.

City of Dunkirk – Billing Enforcement (Chautauqua County) The city treasurer did not properly enforce and the common council did not properly monitor delinquent water, sewer and tipping fee balances. The treasurer did not follow the enforcement procedures prescribed by the city code.

Town of Morris – Justice Court Operations (Otsego County) The justice collected, deposited, disbursed, recorded and reported the fines and fees we reviewed in an accurate and timely manner. During the audit period, the justice deposited cash receipts totaling $25,398 and made disbursements totaling $30,398. Auditors reviewed a sample of 42 cash receipts totaling $7,307 and all disbursements totaling $30,398.

Town of Pawling – Procurement (Dutchess County) Town officials did not always use a competitive process to procure goods and services. Officials did not develop detailed procedures for procuring professional services in their procurement policy. Auditors also found officials did not seek competition for professional services obtained from eight service providers. In addition, officials did not competitively bid for sanitation services totaling $186,821.

Theresa Fire District – Board Oversight and Financial Management (Jefferson County) The board did not provide adequate oversight to ensure that financial activities were properly recorded and reported. They did not properly manage fund balance. The treasurer did not maintain adequate accounting records or provide regular financial reports to the board. She also did not file required annual financial reports with the Office of the State Comptroller in a timely manner. The 2017 through 2019 annual reports were filed between 331 and 1,018 days late. The board did not audit all claims prior to payment and did not annually audit the treasurer’s records. In addition, the board did not adopt realistic budgets based on historic trends. The district ended 2019 with $345,000 in surplus fund balance – enough to fund nearly two years’ of expenditures. Auditors project the district will end 2020 with a surplus of about $308,800 (177% of 2021’s budget).

Town of Wolcott – Financial Management (Wayne County) The board did not effectively manage the town’s financial condition. They did not have a clear understanding of the laws governing the finances of the general fund tax bases and did not have an understanding of the finances for the closed landfill. In addition, the board did not treat taxpayers equitably when budgeting for and allocating certain revenues and expenditures in the “town-wide” and “town-outside-village” general funds. Town-wide funds are used for the benefit of residents of the entire town, including the village. Town-outside-village funds are used only for the benefit of residents in the portion of the town that lies outside of the village. The board also adopted unrealistic budgets and did not maintain reasonable levels of fund balance. They also did not adopt a multiyear financial and capital plan or detailed reserve plan. The board’s ability to effectively manage the town’s financial condition is further hampered by not requiring regular financial reporting.

Town of Wolcott – Information Technology (Wayne County) The board did not ensure that information technology (IT) assets were adequately safeguarded. The board also did not adopt any IT policies or a disaster recovery plan. They did not provide users with cybersecurity awareness training. In addition, the board did not ensure the financial software, town clerk’s software and justice court software had the necessary controls to maintain data integrity. Sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials.

SCHOOL DISTRICT AUDITS

Argyle Central School District – Medicaid Reimbursements (Washington County) The district did not maximize Medicaid reimbursements by submitting claims for all eligible Medicaid services provided. The district lacked adequate procedures to ensure Medicaid claims were submitted and reimbursed. Claims were not submitted for 1,251 eligible services totaling $26,637. Had these services been claimed, the district would have realized revenues totaling $13,319 – 50% of the reimbursement.

Greenwich Central School District – Extra-Classroom Activities (Washington County) District officials did not ensure that extra classroom activity (ECA) funds were adequately safeguarded or that the collections were always properly supported. ECA disbursements were properly accounted for. The faculty auditor did not adhere to the district’s ECA policy, which resulted in insufficient oversight of and inadequate reviews of their collections and records. The student treasurers did not maintain adequate supporting documentation for 69% of the collections reviewed – 32 of the 70 collections totaling $30,970 – which prevented district officials from determining whether the collections were remitted intact and in a timely manner. Student treasurers also did not maintain adequate supporting documentation for three of the seven fundraising events reviewed. This prevented district officials from ensuring all the ECA clubs’ fundraising activities collections were properly supported.

Jefferson Central School District – Procuring Services (Delaware County and Schoharie County) District officials did not always seek competition for services. Officials paid $135,000 to 10 of the 14 service providers reviewed without seeking competition. Officials also paid $6,410 to an employee’s private business for lawn care services without public written disclosure of his interest in the contract with the district.

New Lebanon Central School District – Network User Accounts (Columbia County) Officials did not establish adequate controls over the district’s network user accounts to protect against unauthorized use, access and loss. Officials also did not disable 26 unneeded generic accounts of the 48 generic network accounts examined. They did not ensure acceptable use policy compliance. In addition, officials did not monitor the use of the information technology (IT) resources. They did not provide IT security awareness training to all employees using IT resources. Sensitive information technology (IT) control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials.

Smithtown Central School District – Claims Processing and Travel-Related Expenses (Suffolk County) The board ensured the claims auditors reviewed were adequately documented, for appropriate purposes and properly audited and approved prior to payment. However, the board could have saved the district $1,855 by adopting federal per diem rates for travel expenses.

Valley Central School District – Information Technology (Orange County and Ulster County) The board and district officials did not ensure information technology (IT) systems were adequately secured and protected. District officials did not monitor compliance with the district’s computer acceptable use policy. The district also did not have a contingency plan to recover in the event of a significant service interruption. In addition, the Board did not physically control access to or establish environmental controls over the server room. Sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials.

West Canada Valley Central School District – Non-Payroll Disbursements (Herkimer County and Oneida County) District officials did not implement adequate internal controls to ensure that non-payroll disbursements were authorized and proper. The business manager/treasurer did not control when her electronic signature was used by another employee to sign checks. The claims auditor did not approve medical, vision, and dental insurance claims totaling $3.9 million. The board also did not develop an online banking policy or procedures to verify that transactions are proper.

Whitesville Central School District – Information Technology (Allegany County and Steuben County) District officials did not adequately secure access to the network and information systems. District officials also did not disable six unnecessary user accounts. They did not establish written policies or procedures to monitor shared accounts or for adding, modifying or disabling user permissions to the network and information systems. District officials also did not establish a written agreement with the Erie 1 Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) to define information technology services to be provided. In addition, sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials.

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Esq. challenged the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department's seeking a court order pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(2) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) §1240.9(a)(5), immediately suspending him from the practice of law based upon his alleged violations of rules 3.3(a); 4.1; 8.4(c) and 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) (Rules of Conduct or RPC).

Concluding that there was uncontroverted evidence that Mr. Giuliani communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020, the Appellate Division opined that "These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent's narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client."

Conceding that interim suspension is a serious remedy, available only in situations where it is immediately necessary to protect the public from the respondent's violation of the Rules, the Appellate Division held that Mr. Giuliani's conduct "immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law." 

Accordingly, the court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee's motion and suspended Mr. Giuliani from the practice of law in the State of New York "until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Committee have been concluded, and until further order of this Court."

Click Here to access the court's decision.

Employee's workers' compensation claim for alleged work-related stress and post-traumatic stress disorder rejected

A police officer [Claimant] responded to a call that resulted in the arrest of three individuals. Several weeks later Claimant was interviewed concerning that incident as part of an Internal Affairs investigation. The following day Claimant was suspended from his position and informed that he would receive a written notification of charges.

Claimant thereafter sought mental health treatment stemming from the incident and his resulting suspension. Ultimately Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim alleging his stress, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder was caused by an allegedly unlawful disciplinary action.

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that the claim was not compensable as Claimant's psychological injury was "a direct consequence of a lawful personnel decision involving a disciplinary action."*

Claimant then submitted an administrative appeal in which he contended "the disciplinary action was unlawful." The Workers' Compensation Board [Board] affirmed the decision of the Workers' Compensation Law Judge.

Claimant next initiated a judicial appeal in which he contended that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because his suspension did not constitute a disciplinary action, or another personnel action, within the meaning of §2(7) of the Workers' Compensation Law.

The Appellate Division sustained the Board's determination, noting that the record indicated that the Claimant argued, both at the administrative hearing and at the subsequent administrative review that followed, that his suspension was a disciplinary action.

The court explained that to the extent that Claimant "now advances a contrary argument for the first time on appeal," that claim "is unpreserved for [its] review."

* See https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2011/09/depression-resulting-from-being-served.html

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's ruling.

 

Judicial review of a denial of an application for accidental disability retirement benefits

In this appeal challenging the denial of the Plaintiff's application for accidental disability retirement benefits, the Appellate Division noted that:

1. In order to be entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits, "the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that his or her incapacitation was the natural and proximate result of an accident sustained while in service";

2. The law is settled that the Comptroller "is vested with exclusive authority to determine all applications for retirement benefits, including the question of whether an accidental injury was sustained while in service, and if supported by substantial evidence, the determination must be upheld"; and

3. The determination with respect to whether an applicant was in service at the time he or she suffered the injury turns on whether "he or she was performing job duties at the time of the injury."

The situation before the Appellate Division in this action involved a police officer [Plaintiff] on limited duty as the result an incident that occurred in 2000 that led to her being assigned to desk duty at her precinct.

In 2011, and still on "limited duty," the Plaintiff accompanied a fellow officer to pick up breakfast for the precinct. Returning to the precinct after picking up the breakfast meals, Plaintiff was injured when she slipped on ice in the precinct parking lot.

Plaintiff applied for accidental disability retirement benefits as the result of the injuries sustained in 2011 and the 2000 incident that triggered her "limited duty" assignment. Her application for accidental disability retirement benefits was initially denied as the Retirement System's determined that neither the 2000 incident* nor the 2011 incident constituted an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363.

Ultimately a Hearing Officer sustained the Retirement System's denial of Plaintiff's application for accidental disability retirement benefits, finding that the Retirement System had already determined that the 2000 incident did not constitute an accident and that Plaintiff was not in service at the time of the 2011 incident.

The State Comptroller adopted the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law whereupon Plaintiff initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding  challenging the Comptroller's determination.

Addressing the merits of Plaintiff's claim, the Appellate Division said:

The record indicated that a fellow officer in the precinct at the time volunteered to go to get the breakfast and asked Plaintiff to accompany him to help carry the large order. With the permission of her supervisor Plaintiff and the other officer went for the breakfast order and Plaintiff testified that she slipped on ice in the precinct parking lot while returning with the food for the precinct staff.

The Appellate Division said that, in its view, in going out to pick up a breakfast order for the precinct "at the behest of her supervisor, Plaintiff was performing a work duty rather than engaged in a personal activity at the time she suffered her 2011 injury." 

However, as the Comptroller did not reach the issue as to whether the 2011 incident constituted an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363, the court remitted the matter for the Comptroller's consideration of that element of Plaintiff's claim.

* As Plaintiff's brief did not address Comptroller's finding with respect to the 2000 incident, the Appellate Division deemed that claim abandoned by the Plaintiff. 

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Administrative Law Judge recommended the employee's termination as the appropriate disciplinary penalty under the circumstances

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Administrative Law Judge Kevin Casey recommended that a laboratory supervisor [Supervisor] at a New York City Hospital [Employer] be terminated from employment following a hearing on disciplinary charges filed against the Supervisor by the Employer.

Evidence in the disciplinary hearing record described more than 50 acts of misconduct spanning a 16-month period that the Employer alleged justified Supervisor being terminated from his employment at the facility.

The disciplinary charges and specification included allegations that the employee:

1. Repeatedly refusing to perform assigned tasks;

2. Falsified time-sheets;

3. Sent discourteous emails to[other] supervisors;

4. Was guilty of "excessive absence and lateness;"

5. Ignored orders;

6. Failed to attend scheduled meetings;

7. Changed shifts without approval; and

8. Had been absent without leave.

In recommending termination of Supervisor's employment, ALJ Casey noted that Supervisor had earlier been disciplined by the Employer and found guilty of charges alleging "similar misconduct."

Click HERE to access Judge Casey's decision. 

_____________ 

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - A 442-page e-book focusing on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. 

Click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html for more information.

_____________