Determining when to apply the substantial evidence standard of review and when to apply the arbitrary and capricious standard in a disciplinary action

Determining when to apply the substantial evidence standard of review and when to apply the arbitrary and capricious standard in a disciplinary action
Pierino v Brown, 281 A.D.2d 960

The significant issue in the Pierino case concerns the proper standard to be applied in making the determination in an administrative disciplinary proceeding.

John Pierino filed an Article 78 action challenging a disciplinary determination based on a hearing officer's finding that Pierino was guilty of violating Section 35-6 of the Buffalo City Code.

The disciplinary charges filed against Pierino were resolved in accordance with the provisions set out in Article 22 -- the contract disciplinary procedure -- of the relevant collective bargaining agreement. Article 22 required the appointment of a hearing officer, who was to hear the charges and make a determination.

Pierino challenged the disciplinary determination by bring an Article 78 action alleging the decision by the hearing officer was not based on substantial evidence. As is typical in such cases, the State Supreme Court transferred the action to the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division, however, rejected the transfer of Pierino's Article 78 petition to it for review.

What was the basis for the court's action?

The Appellate Division ruled that the issue of "substantial evidence" that formed the basis of Pierino's appeal is raised only if an administrative hearing is "required by law." In the words of the Appellate Division, citing Marin v Bensonsi, 131 AD2 100:

“Since the hearing was mandated by the collective bargaining agreement and not by Civil Service Law Section 75, the substantial evidence standard of review does not apply and the arbitrary and capricious standard is appropriate."

Consequently, said the Appellate Division, "the proceeding was erroneously transferred to this Court.”

Absence during a probationary period

Absence during a probationary period
Matter of Garnes v Kelly, 2007 NY Slip Op 30262(U), Judge: Herman Cahn, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports], Affirmed 51 A.D.3d 538

Garnes was appointed as a New York City police officer on July 1, 2003. His appointment was subject to a twenty-four month probationary period. Under normal circumstances Garnes would have completed his twenty-four month probationary period on June 30, 2005.

During his probationary period, however, Garnes was suspended for 30 days as a result of an off-duty incident and had other absences during this period. In addition, Judge Cahn noted that at the end of Garnes’ 30-day period of suspension, the NYPD placed him on modified duty.

Ultimately NYPD’s psychologist, Marisa Barra, M.A., determined that Garnes was “psychologically unsuitable to be a Police Officer and recommended that he be separated from the Department.’’ NYPD dismissed Garnes on May 4, 2006.

Garnes filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order annulling his termination from the NYPD, an order directing his reinstatement to his former position and an order compelling the Department to provide him with a name-clearing hearing.

The question to be resolved by the court: was Garnes’ probationary period extended as a result of his being suspended for suspended for 30 days on July 9, 2005 as a result of an off-duty incident and his other absences?

Rule 5.2.8(b) of the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City of New York (“Personnel Rules”) provide that an employee’s probationary period is automatically extended by the number of days the employee does not perform the duties of the position. Under these Rules, a probationer is deemed not to be performing his duties when he is on annual leave, sick leave, assigned to limited duty or is suspended.

The NYPD contended that Garnes was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing because he was still on probation when he was terminated.

Judge Cahn ruled that: Because the Personnel Rules specify that an employee’s probationary period is extended by any amount of time that he is not performing his duties and are clear that a probationary employee may be terminated at any point during the extended period, at the time of his suspension, Garnes was still a probationary employee.

“Additionally,” said the court, “the extended probationary period continued beyond Garnes’ suspension, when the NYPD placed him on modified and restricted duty, pending the investigation of the off-duty incident.” Although modified duty is not listed in the Personnel Rules, Judge Chan said that the Court of Appeals has determined that it acts to extend the probationary period and the probationer does not have to be given notice of such an extension, citing Garcia v Bratton, 90 NY2d 991.*

As to Garnes’ demand for a name-clearing hearing, such a hearing is required when an employee can demonstrate that there is likelihood that false, “stigmatizing” material found in his personnel file will be disseminated by the employer, foreclosing future employment opportunities. Further, the sole purpose of such a hearing is to afford the employee an opportunity to prove that the material is false and should be expunged from his or her record -- it is not grounds for reinstatement should the individual prevail.

Judge Cahn ruled that Garnes was not entitled to a name-clearing hearing because even assuming all the facts in his Petition are true, he did not meet the standard for a name-clearing hearing set by the Court of Appeals in Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758. Swinton requires that the material objected to must be “stigmatizing in the constitutional sense,” and not merely charges of “individual or isolated instances of bad judgment or incompetent performance of duties.” The Appellate Division agreed.

Further, said the court, dismissing Garnes’ petition in its entirety, it must be noted that Garnes has not put forth any allegations or evidence that there is a likelihood any of this alleged stigmatizing material would be disseminated. In contrast, in Swinton, Swinton contended that the police department would disclose his personnel record to agencies with which he was seeking employment. Garnes, however, did not advance allegations that the NYPD will give his personnel file to potential employers.

* In the event an employee injured on the job is given a “light-duty assignment,” the courts have ruled that the appointing authority was not required to count the employee's “light-duty service” for probationary purposes [see Boyle v Koch, 114 AD2 78, leave to appeal denied, 68 NY2d 601]. In such situations, the employee may not claim to have performed the duties of the position to which he or she has been appointed as a probationer on the basis of his or her satisfactory performance of “light-duty.”

Judge Cahn's decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2007/2007_30262.pdf

Reporting threats of violence by a disgruntled employee to the police

Reporting threats of violence by a disgruntled employee to the police
Aviles v Cornell Forge Co., CA7, 241 F.3d 589

Violence at the work site is a growing concern to both employers and employees.

The Aviles case involves an employer's fear of such violence after it learned that a disgruntled employee, Alfredo Aviles, had threatened a supervisor and was seen standing outside the building. The police were called and arrested Aviles. Aviles then sued the employer, Cornell Forge Co., for alleged unlawful discrimination based on his national origin and claimed that the Cornell had called the police in retaliation for his filing a hostile work environment claim.

These were the essential elements alleged in the Aviles case.

Aviles contended that he was the victim of unlawful discrimination because "calling the police to report that a disgruntled employee is waiting outside the workplace and may be armed is an adverse action as a matter of law."

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with Aviles' theory, ruling that a truthful, nondiscriminatory report to the police should not subject an employer to Title VII liability.

According to the decision, such theory is "ill-advised." If, said the court, an employer had to face potential Title VII liability for truthfully reporting to the police that a disgruntled employee had threatened a supervisor and could be armed, it probably would discourage employers from taking the most prudent action to protect themselves and others in the workplace.

In contrast, the court said that a false report to the police could be construed as a retaliatory action meant to dissuade Aviles from pursuing his EEOC charge against the company.

The court affirmed the district court's granting a directed verdict in favor of Cornell Forge.