Discretionary acts by a public official

Discretionary acts by a public official

Discretionary acts by a public official involve the exercise of reasoned judgment which could typically produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence to a governing rule or standard with a compulsory result, Tango v Tulevech, 61 NY2d 34.

Pre-hearing suspension without pay

Pre-hearing suspension without pay

Gilbert v Homar, 520 US 924

Is a public employee entitled to a hearing before he or she may be suspended without pay? In Gilbert v Homer the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, ruled that a public employee is always entitled to a hearing before being suspended without pay. According to ruling, while a public employer may be justified in suspending an employee immediately, and before it is possible to conduct a hearing, "the added suspension of pay" requires that a hearing be conducted before removing the individual from the payroll.

Ultimately the United States Supreme Court held that a pre-deprivation hearing is not required where, as here, an employee is suspended without pay after having been convicted of a felony, because that conviction (1) “demonstrate[s] that the [deprivation] is not arbitrary” and (2) “serve[s] to assure that the . . . employer’s decision . . . is not ‘baseless or unwarranted.”

§75 of New York's Civil Service Law authorizes the suspension of an employee without pay for up to 30 days once he or she has been served with disciplinary charges. This raises the question of the possible impact of the Gilbert ruling in §75 suspension without pay situations. It may be possible to distinguish the Gilbert case from a §75 situation because of the limited duration of the suspension under §75 - 30 days - and the fact that the employee would be awarded back pay for any such suspension if acquitted of the charges.

What about a provision in a Taylor Law agreement providing for the immediate suspension of an employee without pay upon the occurrence of certain events? Probably the courts would take a more narrow view in applying Gilbert in such cases on the theory that the parties had agreed to the suspension without pay in the course of collective bargaining.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-651.ZO.html

Local police officers in New York State require a warrant to arrest an immigrant solely to transfer custody to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities

Local police officers in New York State require a warrant to arrest an immigrant solely to transfer custody to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities

People ex rel. Wells v DeMarco, 2018 NY Slip Op 07740, Appellate Division, Second Department

Susai Francis, an Indian national living on Long Island, had overstayed his visa. Arrested for driving under the influence [DUI] in Nassau County, he was transferred to Suffolk County to complete a criminal proceeding. Francis plead guilty to disorderly conduct to dispose of the criminal charge and was sentenced to "time served." Suffolk County police rearrested Francis at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] and incarcerated in a jail cell in Riverhead rented by ICE.

The Appellate Division ruled that Suffolk police went beyond their authority in violation of State Law when it honored  ICE's request to hold someone as "local law enforcement officers are not authorized to effectuate arrests for civil law immigration violations."

In contrast, said the Appellate Division, local police could do so if ICE produced a warrant "signed by a judge."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_07694.htm

State and subdivisions of state are subject to ADEA regardless of its number of employees in contrast to a private sector employer where the law applies only to "an industry affecting commerce" having twenty or more employees

State and subdivisions of state are subject to ADEA regardless of its number of employees in contrast to a private sector employer where the law applies only to "an industry affecting commerce" having twenty or more employees

Mount Lemmon Fire District Petitioner v John Guido, Et Al., Cite as: 586 U. S.____ (2018)

The Mount Lemmon Fire District laid off its two oldest full-time firefighters, John Guido (then 46) and Dennis Rankin (then 54). Guido and Rankin sued the Fire District, alleging that their termination violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §621 et seq.

The Fire District sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the District was too small to qualify as an “employer” within the ADEA’s as the controlling definition in 29 U. S. C. §630(b), provides that the term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees and the Fire District had fewer that 20 employee.  

The Supreme Court ruled that  in accord with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that §630(b)’s two-sentence delineation, and the expression “also means” at the start of the second sentence, combine to establish separate categories: persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce with 20 or more employees but with respect to a states or a political subdivision of a state, there is not "numerosity limitation" it matters not whether the Fire District had five employees or five hundered employees insofar as the reach of ADEA was concerned.

The Supreme Court agreed and ruled in favor of Guido and Rankin.

Challenging a disqualification for appointment or continued employment

Challenging a disqualification for appointment or continued employment

Civil Service Law §50.4

§50.4 of the Civil Service Law, Disqualification of applicants or eligibles, provides that the "state civil service department or a municipal commissions [emphasis supplied] may refuse to examine an applicant, or after examination to certify an eligible" for one or more of the following reasons:

"(a) lack of a requirements for admission to the examination or for appointment to the position; or

"(b) has a disability which renders him or her unfit to perform in a reasonable manner the duties of the position or which may reasonably be expected to render him or her unfit to continue to perform the duties of the position in a reasonable manner; or

"(c) Repealed.*

"(d) was found guilty of a crime; or

"(e) was dismissed from a permanent position in the public service upon stated written charges of incompetency or misconduct, after notice and hearing or who has resigned from, or whose service was otherwise terminated from a position in the public service for incompetency or misconduct, provided, however, in cases of dismissal, resignation or termination after written charges of incompetency, the individual is seeking employment in a position that requires the performance of a duty or duties which are the same as, or similar to, the duty or duties of the position from which the individual was dismissed, resigned or terminated on account of incompetency; or

"(f) intentionally made a false statement of any material fact in his or her  application for examination or employment; or

"(g) practiced, or attempted to practice, any deception or  fraud in his or her application, examination, or in securing eligibility or appointment; or

"(h) was dismissed from private employments because of habitually poor performance.

"However, no person shall be disqualified pursuant to §50.4 unless he or she has been given a written statement of the reasons for such disqualification and given an opportunity to make an explanation and to submit facts in opposition  to such disqualification."

 Further, the state civil service department or appropriate municipal commission  may investigate the qualifications and background of an eligible after  he has been appointed from the list, and upon finding facts which if  known prior to appointment, would have warranted his or her disqualification,  or upon a finding of illegality, irregularity or fraud of a substantial  nature in his application, examination or appointment, may revoke such  eligible's certification and appointment and direct that his employment  be terminated, provided, however, that no such certification shall be  revoked or appointment terminated more than three years after it is  made, except in the case of fraud.

See, also, 4 NYCRR 3.2. Typically local civil service commissions/personnel officers have adopted a similar rule or regulation.

§12-107 of New York City Administrative Code, addressing the publication of notice of appointments, removals, and changes of salaries, provides that "Notice of all appointments and removals from office, and all changes of salaries except those resulting from collective bargaining or original jurisdiction adjustments, shall be transmitted within one week after they are made, by the appointing agency or department head, to and published within thirty days in the City Record, indicating the name, title and salary of each individual appointed, promoted, demoted, removed from office or whose services have otherwise terminated, and whether an appointment is a "provisional appointment." 

Conspicuous by its absence, however, is any reference to "disqualification" of an applicant for employment or an employee. Accordingly, the question of "disqualification" being within the ambit of §12-107 or remaining under the authority of the Department of Citywide Administrative Services consistent with the provisions of §815 of Chapter 35 of the City Charter is worthy of further exploration. 

Further, case law holds that being disqualified pursuant to 50.4 does not trigger a right to a hearing, only the right to submit a written objection to the decision making entity.

For example, the Wayne County Civil Service Commission disqualified an employee and removed him from his position as a police officer with the Village of Palmyrapursuant to Section 50.4 of the Civil Service Law. The Commission had determined that the police officer had "intentionally made false statements of material facts in his application or (had) attempted to practice (a) deception or fraud in his application". The employee sued, claiming he could not be removed from the position without a hearing (Mingo vs Pirnie, 55 NY2d 1019).

The Court of Appeals rejected Mingo's argument, stating that Section 50.4 "requires no more than that the person be given a written statement of the reasons therefore and afforded an opportunity to make explanation and to submit facts in opposition to such disqualification". No hearing is required.

The Commission had found that Mingo had falsified his application with respect to his experience as a police officer and concealed facts related to his separation from previous employment.

In Matter of Ferrine, 75 AD2d 669, the Appellate Division explained that §50.4 of the Civil Service Law requires notice of the reasons for the disqualification of a person by the Civil Service Department, a municipal commission or a personnel officer, be given to the individual, together with an opportunity for the individual to submit a written explanation to the disqualifying entity. In the event the individual is an employee and is not given an opportunity to submit facts in opposition to the disqualification, the dismissal is unlawful. In this instance the entity filed to provide the employee with such an opportunity and the court directed that the individual be reinstated with back salary.

* Repealed, Laws of 1958, Chapter 790. §50.4(c) provided as follows: (c) "who is addicted to the use of narcotics, or who is addicted to the use of intoxicating beverages to excess; or"

An employee alleged not to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is entitled to notice of the allegation and the opportunity to contest it

An employee alleged not to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is entitled to notice of the allegation and the opportunity to contest it

Jakubowicz v Village of Fredonia, 2018 NY Slip Op 02059, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Supreme Court, Chautauqua County directed that Jakubowicz, an employee of the Village of Fredonia,  be "fully reinstated to his former employment with full back pay and benefits retroactive to the date of his termination." The Village appealed.*

The Appellate Division first addressed "Appeal No. 2" in which the Village contended that a commercial driver's license is a minimum qualification for Jakubowicz's position as a Mechanic II in the Village and that "his failure to maintain such minimum qualification required the termination of his employment."

The court rejected the Village's claim, noting that the Mechanic II position in the Village required  possession, "at time of appointment and during service in this classification, of a valid NYS Motor Vehicle Operator's license appropriate for the type of vehicles which the employee may from time to time operate."

Explaining that due process and fundamental fairness require that a qualification or requirement for employment must be expressly stated in order for an employer to bypass the protections afforded by the Civil Service Law or a collective bargaining agreement and summarily terminate an employee, the Appellate Division said that in this instance the  requirement of a commercial driver's license is not "expressly stated."

In addition, said the court, quoting Matter of Carr v New York State Dept. of Transp., 70 AD3d 1110, while "an employee charged with failing to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is only entitled to notice of the charge and the opportunity to contest it", the Village in this instance offered Jakubowicz a hearing "to afford [him] the opportunity to present information to the Village why [he] should not be administratively terminated from employment." However, there is no dispute that a hearing was never held.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court was correct in determining that Jakubowicz's termination was arbitrary and capricious.

* The Village submitted two appeals, denominated Appeal 1 and Appeal 2, but dismissed Appeal 1 as academic in view of its ruling with respect to Appeal 2.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02059.htm

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after an adversarial hearing is limited

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after an adversarial hearing is limited

Buccieri v County of Westchester, 2018 NY Slip Op 07305, Appellate Division, Second Department

A Westchester County employee [Petitioner] was served with disciplinary charges and specifications pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service. The appointing authority, the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation [Commissioner], suspended Petitioner without pay for 30 days while the §75 disciplinary action was pending.*

The §75 hearing officer found Petitioner guilty of a number of the specifications set out in the charges and recommended a penalty: a 30-day suspension without pay. The Commissioner adopted the findings of the hearing officer and imposed the penalty recommended, suspension with out pay for 30 days.**

Petitioner filed a CPLR Article 78 petition seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's determination, contending that the Commissioner was not a qualified decision maker.

Supreme Court agreed, finding that the Commissioner had actively participated in the underlying events leading up to the disciplinary proceeding. Thus, said the court, the Commissioner should have recused herself from reviewing the hearing officer's findings and recommendation and rendering a final determination.

Accordingly, Supreme Court remanded the matter the Commissioner to appoint a duly qualified, impartial decision maker to review the hearing officer's findings and recommendation and to render a new determination.

The Commissioner appointed a Westchester County Department of Human Resources Deputy Commissioner to review the hearing officer's findings and recommendation and to render a new final determination, and if Petitioner was found guilty of any of the charges and specification filed against Petitioner, the to be imposed.

The Deputy Commissioner adopted the findings and the penalty recommended by the §75 hearing officer, suspension of Petitioner's for 30 days without pay. Petitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a judicial review the Deputy Commissioner's determination.

The Appellate Division set out the following guidelines followed by courts in reviewing a challenge to an administrative determination such as one made after a §75 disciplinary hearing:

1. Judicial] review of an administrative determination in an employee disciplinary case made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 is limited to considering whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

2. It is the duty of the administrative tribunal, not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses and determine which testimony to accept and which to reject.

3. A court may set aside the penalty imposed by an appointing authority only if it found to be so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.

* An employee so suspended without pay pursuant to §75 must be respored to the payroll after 30 days pending a final disciplinary determination by the appointing authority.

** The time during which an officer or employee is suspended without pay may be considered as part of the penalty at the discretion of the appointing authority. If he or she is found not guilty of all charges and specifications, he or she shall be restored to his or her position with back pay for the period of his or her suspension without pay less the amount of any unemployment insurance benefits he or she may have received during such period.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_07305.htm

An employee alleged not to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is entitled to notice of the allegation and the opportunity to contest it

An employee alleged not to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is entitled to notice of the allegation and the opportunity to contest it

Jakubowicz v Village of Fredonia, 2018 NY Slip Op 02059, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Supreme Court, Chautauqua County directed that Jakubowicz, an employee of the Village of Fredonia,  be "fully reinstated to his former employment with full back pay and benefits retroactive to the date of his termination." The Village appealed.*

The Appellate Division first addressed "Appeal No. 2" in which the Village contended that a commercial driver's license is a minimum qualification for Jakubowicz's position as a Mechanic II in the Village and that "his failure to maintain such minimum qualification required the termination of his employment."

The court rejected the Village's claim, noting that the Mechanic II position in the Village required  possession, "at time of appointment and during service in this classification, of a valid NYS Motor Vehicle Operator's license appropriate for the type of vehicles which the employee may from time to time operate."

Explaining that due process and fundamental fairness require that a qualification or requirement for employment must be expressly stated in order for an employer to bypass the protections afforded by the Civil Service Law or a collective bargaining agreement and summarily terminate an employee, the Appellate Division said that in this instance the  requirement of a commercial driver's license is not "expressly stated."

In addition, said the court, quoting Matter of Carr v New York State Dept. of Transp., 70 AD3d 1110, while "an employee charged with failing to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is only entitled to notice of the charge and the opportunity to contest it", the Village in this instance offered Jakubowicz a hearing "to afford [him] the opportunity to present information to the Village why [he] should not be administratively terminated from employment." However, there is no dispute that a hearing was never held.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court was correct in determining that Jakubowicz's termination was arbitrary and capricious.

* The Village submitted two appeals, denominated Appeal 1 and Appeal 2, but dismissed Appeal 1 as academic in view of its ruling with respect to Appeal 2.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02059.htm

Unauthorized recording of a court proceeding

Unauthorized recording of a court proceeding

Matter of Attorney Grievance Committee M-3080, 2018 NY Slip Op 07278, Appellate Division, First Department

Attorney Grievance Committee M-3080 for the First Judicial Department instituted disciplinary against an attorney alleging the attorney had made an unauthorized recording of a court proceeding in violation of New York Rules of Professional Conduct, 22 NYCRR 1200.0 rule 8.4(d), Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice.

The Committee found the attorney guilty of professional misconduct and a Referee was appointed to conduct a sanction hearing. Ultimately the parties stipulated that the attorney had engaged in a pattern of misconduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Noting  that [1] the attorney had no disciplinary history nor had ever been sanctioned by any court for misconduct; [2] the misconduct arose in the course of a contentious domestic relations action in which the attorney appeared pro se; [3] the attorney at the time of the incident had limited experience in the practice of law; and [4] the attorney had acknowledged  the wrongfulness of making an unauthorized recording in light of Rule 8.4(d), the Appellate Division found that " public censure" was an appropriate penalty and granted the parties' motion for "discipline by consent."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_07278.htm

Pension plan managers vested with exclusive authority to determine a member's retirement benefits precludes judicial review of its calculation of Plan benefits

Pension plan managers vested with exclusive authority to determine a member's retirement benefits precludes judicial review of its calculation of Plan benefits

Hughey v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 02129, Appellate Division, First Department

Plaintiff in this action retired from his position with the Long Island Rail Road, an MTA subsidiary, at age 63.49. Plaintiff, as a commuter rail employee, was also eligible to  receive Tier II pension benefits after the requisite years of service under the Railroad Retirement Act. In addition, MTA employees receive pension benefits from the MTA Pension Plan.

Article 3.07(a)(ii) of the MTA Pension Plan, provide for an "offset" that reduced the amount of benefits payable under the Plan by the benefits "which would be payable to the Member involved at age 62 under Tier II. "Plaintiff, however, was still in service at age 62 and did not retired from MTA at age 63.49. Accordingly, the amount of the offset was determined by the MTA's Board of Managers on the basis of Plaintiff's actual age at the effective date of his retirement, 63.49 years of age.

Plaintiff sought a review of the Board's determination basing his pension benefits on his actual age at retirement, 63.49 years rather than determining his pension benefits to be that which would have been payable had he actually retired at age 62, a difference of $160.83 per month.

The Board denied Plaintiff's appeal, which determination was affirmed by the Appellate Division. 

The court explained that "Article 6.02 of the Plan conferred on its Board of Managers" sole and absolute discretionary authority to interpret the Plan and decide any dispute and all matters arising in connection with the operation or administration of the Plan, as well as to decide questions, including legal and factual questions, relating to the calculation and payment of benefits under the Plan.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02129.htm

Rejection of employee's application for reinstatement after admitting to conduct reflecting discredit on the department not arbitrary or capricious

Rejection of employee's application for reinstatement after admitting to conduct reflecting discredit on the department not arbitrary or capricious

Hayes v Nigro, 2018 NY Slip Op 07124, Appellate Division, Second Department

New York City Firefighter Sean Hayes charged with violating New York City Fire Department [FDNY] rules and regulations barring the use of prohibited substances.

In lieu of going forward with a disciplinary proceeding, Hayes settled the matter by entering into a stipulation with the FDNY that [1] allowed him to vest his pension in lieu of facing the penalty of termination and [2] set out his admission to conduct reflecting discredit upon the FDNY arising out of his testing positive for methadone during a random drug test while he was working and violations of the oath of office.

Some three years later Hayes applied for reinstatement to his former position with FDNY. His application was rejected by the Commissioner in consideration of his disciplinary record and the untimeliness of the request. Hayes then initiated an Article 78 proceeding seeking a court order annulling the Commissioner's determination and directing his reinstatement to his former position of firefighter.*

The Supreme Court denied the Article 78 petition and Hayes appealed the court's decision.

Sustaining the Supreme Court's decision, the Appellate Division explained that:

1. A request to the Commissioner for the reinstatement of a firefighter must be made within one year from the date of his or her separation from the FDNY and Hayes' request some three years after his resignation was untimely;

2. Reinstatement is not a right and the decision to reinstate a former employee is within the sole discretion of the Commissioner, and who is not required to state a reason for denying the reinstatement; and

3. The Commissioner's determination rejecting the request will be sustained  unless it is shown to be arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion.

In this instance, said the court, Hayes did not seek to be reinstated as a FDNY firefighter until almost three years after he had left the FDNY after admittedly illegal and potentially dangerous conduct. Thus, said the Appellate Division,  agreeing with Supreme Court, "the determination of the Commissioner was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion."

Addressing Hayes' efforts with respect to "discovery," the Appellate Division said that such discovery was "not relevant to the Commissioner's individualized and discretionary assessment of [Hayes'] application" for reinstatement.

* Hayes also sought discovery of the FDNY's records of all applicants for reinstatement for the period from January 2014 to the date of the commencement of his Article 78 proceeding. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_07124.htm

Recently posted on the Internet

AELE Monthly Law Journal

Public Safety Employee Right to "Name-Clearing" Hearings

View at http://www.aele.org/law/2018all11/2018-11MLJ201.pdf

Fire, Police & Corrections Personnel Reporter

This issue has cases on age discrimination, arbitration procedures, collective bargaining, Fair Labor Standards Act: overtime in general, handicap/abilities discrimination: in general, handicap/abilities discrimination: “regarded as” disabled, retaliatory personnel actions, and union activity. View at: http://www.aele.org/law/2018all11/FP2018NOV.html

Disciplinary probation

Disciplinary probation

Reillo v New York State Thruway Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 02170, Appellate Division, Second Department

New York State Thruway Authority employee Anthony Reillo was served with  disciplinary charges alleging certain misconduct.

Reillo and the Thruway Authority then entered into a stipulation settling the disciplinary action whereby Reillo agreed to a one-year period of "disciplinary probation" which provided that the Thruway Authority could summarily terminate Reillo from his employment for any similar act or acts of misconduct. 

In addition, settlement stipulation provided that the determination that Reillo had engaged in such misconduct was to be at the sole discretion of the Thruway Authority.

In February 2016, the Thruway Authority terminated Reillo's employment based on incidents that occurred while he was still serving as a  disciplinary probationer. Reillo file an Article 78 petition seeking a court order directing the Thruway Authority to reinstate him to his former position with back salary.

Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on procedural grounds, finding that Reillo failed to serve the notice of petition on the Attorney General as required by CPLR §7804(c). Reillo appealed but the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination.

CPLR §7804(c) provides that when a CPLR Article 78 proceeding is commenced against a "state body or officers" by a notice of petition, the notice of petition must be served upon the Attorney General. Following a "particularized inquiry" into the nature of the Thruway Authority and the statute claimed to be applicable to it, the Appellate Division concluded  that the Thruway Authority is a "state body" for the purposes of CPLR §7804(c). Thus, said the court, as the Attorney General had not been timely served, Supreme Court properly dismissed Reillo's petition.

Although the merits of Reillo termination was not considered in this action, it should be noted that frequently a settlement of a disciplinary action provides for the employee to serve a disciplinary probationary period and, as in Reillo, the individual is subject to being summarily terminated "without notice and hearing" if he or she violates the terms or conditions of his or her "disciplinary probation" settlement.

If, however, an employee is to be dismissed for violating the conditions of the disciplinary probation, the appointing authority must to make certain that the actions, or omissions, cited for triggering the termination of the employee serving the disciplinary probationary period do indeed violate the specific terms or conditions enumerated in the disciplinary settlement agreement as the decision in Taylor v Cass, 122 AD2d 885, demonstrates.

Taylor, a Suffolk County employee, won reinstatement with full retroactive salary and contract benefits after he was summarily, and as was ultimately determined, improperly, dismissed from his position while serving a disciplinary probation period.

In Taylor's case the terms of the disciplinary probation provided that Taylor could be terminated without any hearing if, in the opinion of his superior, his job performance was “adversely affected” by his “intoxication on the job during the next six months." Taylor was subsequently terminated without a hearing for “failing to give a fair day’s work” and “sleeping during scheduled working hours.”

The Appellate Division said the dismissal was improper because Taylor was not terminated for the sole reason specified in the settlement of the disciplinary action agreement: intoxication on the job.

As the court noted in  Matter of Sepulveda, 123 AD2d 703, even employees who would otherwise be entitled to the benefits of Section 75 of the Civil Service Law or a similar statute, an employee's agreement to be placed on probation pursuant to terms set out in a settlement of a disciplinary action agreement sacrifices the notice and hearing requirements that would otherwise be available to the employee by such statute for the duration of his or her disciplinary probationary period.

Additionally, it is good practice make certain that the employee’s acceptance of disciplinary probation is set out in settlement of the disciplinary action agreement is made openly, knowingly and voluntarily and be memorialized to that effect in the written agreement signed by the parties.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02170.htm

Challenging a hearing officer's determination following a §3020-a disciplinary hearing

Challenging a hearing officer's determination following a §3020-a disciplinary hearing

Appeal of Douglas S. White, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,521

Douglas S. White submitted an Education Law §3020-a hearing officer's decision finding him guilty of 6 of 7 specifications set out in two Charges filed against him by the Roosevelt Union Free School District Board of Education [Roosevelt] and the penalty imposed by the Arbitrator, suspension without pay for 42 school days, to the Appellate Division for judicial review.

The Appellate Division vacated portions of the hearing officer’s findings and remanded the matter to the hearing officer for a review and determination of the penalty to be imposed on White in consideration to the court's decision in the matter.*

The hearing officer, in consideration of the Appellate Division's decision, reduced the penalty to be imposed on White. White thereupon appealed the reduced penalty to the Commissioner of Education, contending, among other things, that the hearing officer erred by imposing a penalty upon on remand. 

Roosevelt challenged White's appeal, contending that it must be dismissed because [1] White failed to make proper service of his appeal; [2] the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to consider White's appeal; and [3] White's appeal had been untimely filed.

Citing 8 NYCRR 275.8(a), the Commissioner said that the appeal must be dismissed for improper service, explaining that the Commissioner’s regulations requires that [1] the petition be personally served upon each named respondent and [2] if a school district is named as a respondent, service upon the school district is to be made personally by "delivering a copy of the petition to the district clerk, to any trustee or any member of the board of education, to the superintendent of schools, or to a person in the office of the superintendent who has been designated by the board of education to accept service."

Turning to Roosevelt's claim that the Commissioner "lacked jurisdiction to review the decision of a hearing officer in a §3020-a proceeding," the Commissioner noted that Education Law §3020-a was amended by Chapter 691 of the Laws of 1994 to divest the Commissioner of jurisdiction to review determinations of hearing officers, both final and non-final.

Addressing Roosevelt's argument claiming "untimeliness," the Commissioner said that "[w]eighing the parties’ submissions," she found that Roosevelt had met its burden of proving its affirmative defense that service was improper and that White failed to rebut the evidence provided by Roosevelt with respect to its claim of the lack of proper service.

Finally, the Commissioner noted that the only relief sought by White in this appeal is that "the charges be overturned and expunged from his record and that he be awarded reimbursement for his expenses resulting from the charges, including attorneys’ fees and lost wages." However, explained the Commissioner, "...  even if [White's] appeal had been properly served, it would be dismissed as [the Commissioner of Education has] no jurisdiction over [White's] claims and lack the authority to grant the relief sought."

* See White v Roosevelt Union Free Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 147 AD3d 1071, posted on the Internet at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_01371.htm

The Commission's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume58/d17521

Reinstatement to a position in the classified service following appointment to a position in the unclassified service with the State University of New York

Reinstatement of an individual to a position in the classified service following his or her appointment to a position in the unclassified service with the State University of New York

Question: May an individual with permanent status who resigned from a position in the competitive class of the Classified Service to accept a position with the State University of New York in the Unclassified Service* be reinstated to a position in the competitive class following his or her separation from his or her State University of New York position in the Unclassified Service?

Response: In NYPPL's editor's opinion, the rules applicable in such a situation** are as follows:

1. An employee who resigns from his or her permanent appointment then serving in a position in the competitive class to accept a position with the State University of New York in the Unclassified Service is eligible for reinstatement:

a. With his or her former agency in the same position, or in a similar or lower grade position, except that such a reinstatement cannot be made in the face of [i] a special military list established pursuant to §243.11 of the Military Law;*** or [ii] a preferred list.

b. A different department or agency in the same title and grade, or in a similar or lower grade position, except that such a reinstatement cannot be made in the face of [i] a special military list; [ii] a preferred list; [iii] a "department or agency" promotion list; or [iv] an existing promotion field in that department or agency.

2. For the purposes of reinstatement and similar personnel rights and considerations, service in the classified service is not deemed to be a "break in service" by reason of an intervening unclassified service employment.

* See also, §355-a.10 of the Education Law, "Salary, status, and accumulated leave credits of employees whose employment changes as between the classified and the unclassified service," for additional provisions of law applicable to incumbents of positions in the State University upon the jurisdictional reclassification of his or her position. 

**N.B.  Note 4 NYCRR 5.4, RULES FOR THE CLASSIFIED SERVICE, provides as follows:

A permanent employee who has resigned from his position may be reinstated, without examination, within one year from the date of such resignation in the position from which he resigned, if then vacant, or in any vacant position to which he was eligible for transfer or reassignment. In computing the one-year period within which a person may be reinstated after resignation, the day the resignation takes effect, any time spent in active service in the military or naval forces of the United States or of the State of New York, and any time served in another position in the civil service of the same governmental jurisdiction shall not be counted. In an exceptional case, the commission may, for good cause shown and where the interests of the government would be served, waive the provisions of this section to permit the reinstatement of a person to his former position more than one year after resignation. For the purpose of this section, where an employee on leave of absence resigns, such resignation shall be deemed effective as of the date of the commencement of such leave.

*** Persons not covered by the provisions of §243.11 may be entitled to have their names placed on a "military reemployment list" pursuant to §243.12 of the Military Law.