Employee denied additional probationary period

Employee denied additional probationary period

In Re Holbrook, 78 A.D.2d 840

The agency terminated the employee for failing to satisfactorily complete his probationary period because “his conduct towards his peers and subordinates engendered hostility, he failed to follow...policy respecting the routing and handling of legal department mail causing unnecessary delays...and he took upon himself the task of reviewing the operations of the legal department...diverting...from the work priorities his superiors had established for him”.

The employee sued and a State Supreme Court judge granting Holbrook petition and directed that the employer extend the individual’s probationary period for 12 weeks.

The Appellate Division overturned the lower court’s ruling, holding that there was a clearly ample rational justification for the termination since “(the employee) in his reply affidavit virtually confirms [the employer’s] observations” concerning his performance of his duties.

The court also rejected the employee’s representation that his dismissal was motivated by his uncovering and reporting his immediate supervisor’s poor management practices. 

Tenured teacher’s objection to submitting a challenge to termination to arbitration rejected

Tenured teacher’s objection to submitting a challenge to termination to arbitration rejected

Atwater v. Commissioner of Education, Massachusetts Supreme Court, November 21, 2011, Docket: SJC-10817

A tenured teacher was terminated for conduct unbecoming a teacher.

The teacher appealed contending that Massachusetts law compelling arbitration of a wrongful dismissal claim made by a tenured public school teacher violated Article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights because it impermissibly delegated to a private individual (an arbitrator) a judicial function and denied meaningful judicial review.

Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that submitted a challenge to a principal's or superintendent's dismissal decision to arbitration did not interfere with “core judicial functions” and the statute provided sufficient judicial review.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/2011/sjc-10817.html

Dismissed employee entitled to back pay

Dismissed employee entitled to back pay

Matter of Rider, 78 A.D.2d 856

The employee was found guilty to the charges brought against him and dismissed under Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. He had been suspended without pay upon the service of the charges and continued in that status until after the hearing and his dismissal. This involved a period of more than the 30 days suspension without pay permitted by Section 75.

The Appellate Division ruled that the employee, notwithstanding the fact that he was terminated from his position, was entitled to back pay for the period beginning 30 days after his suspension until the date of dismissal.

The court noted that this was the correct result “even though there was substantial evidence to support the finding of guilt and the fact that the penalty imposed was not excessive.”