Finding of guilt based on allegations not included in the disciplinary charges vacated

Finding of guilt based on allegations not included in the disciplinary charges vacated
Eckstrom v City of Ithaca, NYS Supreme Ct., [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

In 1997, the City of Binghamton amended the City Code to require “notice and hearing” and proof of incompetence or misconduct before a city official appointed by the Mayor could be removed from his or her office. Prior to the amendment, such officials were “employees-at-will” and not entitled to any form of a pretermination hearing.

In the Eckstrom case, State Supreme Court Judge Walter J. Relihan, Jr. concluded that having enacted such a provision, the City was required to substantially comply with the principles followed in prosecuting disciplinary charges filed pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law.

Six disciplinary charges were filed against Richard L. Eckstrom, the city's Building Commissioner, by the Mayor. One was withdrawn by the Mayor prior to the hearing and three were dismissed by the hearing officer. Eckstrom, however, was found guilty of the two remaining charges based on building code decisions he had made. Accepting the findings and recommendations of the hearing officer, the Mayor dismissed Eckstrom. Eckstrom appealed.

In reviewing the record, Judge Relihan noted that the hearing officer had concluded that as to the first charge Eckstrom's actions were “arguably correct” and that his conduct with respect to the second charge “was neither incorrect nor unreasonable.”

How then could the hearing officer have found Eckstrom guilty? In both instances, said Judge Relihan, the hearing officer relied on “an uncharged offense in support of a finding of guilt regarding an offense which does appear in the charges.”

In the words of the court:

Obtuse to his own prior findings, the hearing officer concluded that Eckstrom should be fired for incompetence and misconduct ... These jarring inconsistencies and departures from well-settled principles compel the conclusion that the “Final Determination” is arbitrary, capricious, affected by an error of law and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

As the Court of Appeals held in Murray v Murphy, 24 NY2d 150, in order to satisfy due process, a notice of the charges must be given to the employee so that he or she may mount an adequate defense, if one is available.

Further, the disciplinary determination must be based on the charges filed against the employee and “no person may lose substantial rights because of wrongdoing shown by the evidence but not charged.”

Observing that the city “disabled” itself from dismissing its high-ranking officials on policy grounds “unless, in addition, misconduct or incompetence could be proven at a hearing,” Judge Relihan ruled that Eckstrom was to be reinstated to his former position.

Judge Relihan said that this may “complicate the business of the Building Department and cause discomfort elsewhere in City Hall” but “[p]erhaps, with good will, a rational and practical denouement can...be achieved...[which] of course, rests entirely in the hands of the parties.”

Among the lessons of the Eckstrom case: In the event a public employer unilaterally decides to provide a pretermination disciplinary hearing to individuals not otherwise entitled such administrative due process by law or contract, the procedures normally appropriate to conducting such a disciplinary hearing must be followed.

Whistle blowing – complaint of retaliation

Whistle blowing – complaint of retaliation
Dobson v Loos, 277 A.D.2d 1013

In Dobson the significant issue before the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, concerned whether or not certain personnel actions alleged taken against an employee could constitute retaliation for whistle blowing in violation of Civil Service Law Section 75-b and Labor Law Section 740.

Richard Dobson, an Erie County Sheriff's Department Sergeant, complained that the Department had retaliated against him because of his “whistle blowing activities” by taking “active and extraordinary measures to preclude his appointment as Lieutenant during the life of the preferred eligibility list until its expiration by operation of law.”

The Appellate Division ruled that such alleged conduct falls within the definition of a “retaliatory personnel action”.

The court noted that retaliatory personnel action is defined in the statutes as the “discharge, suspension or demotion of an employee, or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.”

In addition, the court found that the following departmental actions Dobson alleged were taken against him could constitute unlawful retaliation as well:

1. Creating and filling new positions of senior and supervisory detectives, quasi-lieutenant positions “that rightfully should have been offered to [Dobson] but were not.”

2. Assigning Dobson to “virtually nonexistent duties.”

Challenging arbitration awards

Challenging arbitration awards
Coppa v State of New York, NYS Supreme Court, Justice A. Lebowitz, [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Clearly, Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules imposes significant limitations on challenging an arbitration award. Two such limitations are:

1. The arbitrator exceed his or her authority in rendering a decision and

2. Alleged bias on the part of the arbitrator. These were among the issues considered in the Coppa case.

Coppa, a Psychiatrist II employed by the Brooklyn Development Center of the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities [OMRDD], was suspended without pay. He was served with a Notice of Discipline, dated March 2, 1999, charging him with “endangering the welfare of a consumer, verbally abusing a consumer and verbally abusing and threatening subordinate staff members.” OMRDD's proposed penalty: termination.

Coppa filed a disciplinary grievance challenging the charges filed against him in accordance with the disciplinary procedure set out in the Taylor Law agreement between the State and his employee organization. The grievance was ultimately submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator conducted a disciplinary hearing, sustained two of the three charges, which had been preferred against Coppa by OMRDD and imposed the penalty of dismissal.

Coppa filed a petition pursuant to Article 75 petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award.

Key to resolving Coppa's appeal, said the court, were the terms of the disciplinary arbitration procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement.

In the words of the court, the contract expressly authorizes the disciplinary arbitrator to “render determinations of guilt or innocence and the appropriateness of proposed penalties” and provides that the “arbitrator's decision with respect to guilt or innocence, penalty, probable cause for suspension, or temporary reassignment, if any ... shall be final and binding [up]on the parties.”

These explicit provisions supported OMRDD's position that the arbitrator did not exceed his jurisdiction in ruling upon the preferred charges of misconduct and imposing the penalty of dismissal.

Judge Lebowitz pointed out that:

Where a dispute has been arbitrated pursuant to a broad arbitration agreement between the parties, the resulting award may not be vacated “unless it is violative of a strong public policy, is totally irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power,” citing the Court of Appeals' ruling in Town of Callicoon v CSEA, 70 NY2d 907.

Another issue raised by Coppa: the possibility of bias on the part of the disciplinary arbitrator in view of his “prior employment by the State of New York.”

However, said the court, the arbitrator's previous employment by the State was disclosed to Coppa in the arbitrator's resume sent to the parties in advance of his selection to serve as the hearing officer. Coppa proceeded to arbitration without objecting or inquiring further into the arbitrator's possible bias.

This omission, said Judge Lebowitz, meant that Coppa waived any possible objection to the arbitrator's award based on a theory of bias resulting from the arbitrator's prior relationship with the State of New York.

Judge Lebowitz confirmed the arbitration award finding Coppa guilty of two of the charges and the penalty imposed: dismissal from his position.