Courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations in its area of expertise

Courts must defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations in its area of expertise

Abramoski v New York State Educ. Dept., 2015 NY Slip Op 08880, Appellate Division, Third Department

Reacting to declining enrollment at West Park Union Free School District Number Two [West Park #2], a special act school district created by special legislation in 1973 for the purpose of educating residents of a facility for adolescent girls with emotional disabilities, the West Park School Board [Board] resolved to begin the process of dissolving West Park #2.

The Board notified the State Education Department [SED] of its decision to cease operation of West Park #2 and SED informed the Board of its various responsibilities during the close-down period, including calculating the District's close-down costs.

These costs included the cost of [1] educating students during the final year of operation and [2] any outstanding financial obligations. In response to a question concerning whether the costs of certain contractual obligations that the Board had to pay employees for their post-retirement health and dental insurance coverage for their respective lifetimes would be included in the tuition rate for the close-down period, SED informed the Board that the cost of such lifetime insurance coverage for the District's retirees would not be included in the close-down tuition rate.

Maureen Abramoski and a number of other employees [Abramoski] challenged SED’s determination with respect to excluding the cost of Abramoski's post-retirement medical and dental insurance in the close-down tuition rate of a special act school district. Abramoski ultimately initiated a “combined CPLR Article 78 proceeding and plenary action against SED and other named defendants seeking, among other things, [1] a review of SED's determination excluding the costs related to Abramoski’s lifetime post-retirement health and dental insurance coverage in the close-down tuition rate, [2] an order directing the reinstatement of such post-retirement health insurance and dental insurance coverage and [3] damages for breach of contract. Supreme Court dismissed Abramoski’s various motions and petitions concerning such benefits and she appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court rejection of Abramoski’s claims, explaining that a court's review of an administrative determination such as the one at issue in this action is limited to whether the determination was arbitrary and capricious, lacked a rational basis or was affected by an error of law. Here, said the court, SEC's determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious, was rational and was not affected by an error of law.

Further, said the Appellate Division, “courts must apply deference to an agency's ‘interpretation of its own regulations in its area of expertise,’" noting that 8 NYCRR 200.9(f)(1)(i) provides that the tuition rate at issue "shall include administration and direct care costs and the costs of operation and maintenance of instructional facilities." 

The court’s conclusion: Abramoski’s lifetime post-retirement health and dental insurance coverage should not be considered in the close-down tuition rate, sustaining SED’s interpreting of 8 NYCRR 200.9(f)(1)(i) to exclude long-term outstanding debt obligations "that were largely — if not entirely — unrelated to the costs of providing an education to the students attending the District during the relevant tuition period." SED’s interpretation, said the court, “is reasonable and is consistent with a statutory and regulatory scheme that evinces an intent to tailor tuition rates to those costs reasonably related to the special act school district's provision of services to students during the relevant tuition period.”

The Appellate Division also rejected Abramoski’s contention that SED violated her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection as being without merit, explaining that SED was not a party to the contracts that provided Abramoski’s rights to lifetime post-retirement health and dental insurance coverage. The fact that SED's determination may have incidentally affected Abramoski’s ability to collect such benefits, said the Appellate Division, does not support her allegations of constitutional violations.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_08880.htm

NYC school principal’s appeal of a disciplinary action brought by the NYC Department of Education pursuant to Education Law §3020 sustained in part

NYC school principal’s appeal of a disciplinary action brought by the NYC Department of Education pursuant to Education Law §3020 sustained in part

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision #16,848

A NYC school principal [Principal] was found guilty of certain disciplinary charges by an arbitrator pursuant to Education Law §3020(3), appealed the arbitrator’s determination.

The Commissioner ruled that the Principal’s appeal must be sustained in part, noting that Education Law §3020, as amended by adding a new subdivision 3, the City School District of the City of New York and any employee organization representing employees or titles that are or were covered by any memorandum of agreement executed by the District and the Council of Supervisors and Administrators of the City of New York to negotiate agreements that modify or replace the procedures set forth in Education Law §§3020-a and 2590-j(7).  §3020(3). The Commissioner also noted that “the Commissioner shall review any appeals brought in accordance with such agreements.”

Pursuant to Education Law §3020(3), the Council and the District entered into an agreement [Agreement] establishing a modified disciplinary procedures that, to the extent relevant in this appeal, provided that “at the principal’s option, allegations of misconduct may be presented to an impartial arbitrator who will decide whether just cause exists for the proposed action.”

The agreement further provides that, at the request of the principal, the Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education [Chancellor] may review the arbitrator’s decision, “which review must be complete within 15 days of such decision.”  The Agreement provides that “[t]he employee shall be provided with written notice of the outcome of the Chancellor’s review.”  If the Chancellor implements the arbitrator’s decision against the principal, the principal may then apply to the Commissioner of Education for review of the arbitrator’s decision.

The arbitrator issued a final decision on June 20, 2015, finding Principal guilty of certain charges and specifications and imposed a penalty of suspension, such suspension to terminated effective July 1, 2014. 

Although the Principal wrote asking the Chancellor seeking a review the arbitrator’s decision within 15 days and providing her with a written notice of the outcome of the Chancellor’s review in timely fashion, the record indicates that Principal did not receive any response.  On August 19, 2015, the Principal commenced this appeal from the hearing officer’s determination, contending that the arbitrator’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, irrational, and unsupported by the evidence. 

The Commissioner said that she would not render an advisory opinion on an issue before it becomes justiciable, explaining that Article VII(J)(4)(a)(6) of the Agreement clearly provides that either the superintendent or the principal [1] may request a review of the arbitrator’s decision by the Chancellor and if such a request is timely made, [2] requires the Chancellor to complete such review within 15 days and which further requires the Chancellor to provide the employee with written notice of the outcome of the review.  

Thus, said the Commissioner, the Agreement contemplates that the Chancellor “will review the arbitrator's decision, and render a decision of her own.” 

Noting that Commissioner’s regulations implementing Education Law §3020(3) are set out in 8 NYCRR Part 281 and are consistent with provisions in the Agreement, the Commissioner said that record before her contained no such decision by the Chancellor. 

Although the Principal interpreted the Chancellor’s silence as a default, entitling her to appeal the hearing officer’s decision directly to the Commissioner, the Commissioner said that there was no authority for such an action. 

Accordingly, the Commissioner ordered “the Chancellor to review the [arbitrator’s] decision and provide [the Principal] with written notice of the outcome of such review within 15 days of the date of [the Commissioner’s] decision in accordance with Article VII(J)(4)(a)(6) of the Agreement.”

The Commissioner also noted that the Principal “retains the right to commence a new appeal to the Commissioner in the event that the Chancellor implements the hearing officer’s decision” within 15 days from the Principal’s receipt of written notice of the Chancellor’s decision in the event the Principal is unhappy with the Chancellor’s decision.

 

The Commissioner’s decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume55/d16848

_____________________________

The Discipline Book - A 458 page guide focusing on New York State laws, rules, regulations, disciplinary grievances procedures set out in collective bargaining agreements and selected court and administrative decisions concerning disciplinary actions involving state and municipal public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/5215.html

_____________________________

 

Recent decisions by NYC Office of Administrative Tribunals and Hearing Administrative Law Judges

Recent decisions by NYC Office of Administrative Tribunals and Hearing Administrative Law Judges

Click on link in highlighted in color to access the text of the decision

Unnecessary use of force on inmates

OATH Index No. 156/16

ALJ Alessandra F. Zorgniotti found that a New York City correction officer violated the Department's use of force directive on two occasions by using unnecessary force on inmates who were restrained and also filing a false report. 

ALJ Zorgniotti recommended termination of the correction office's employment.  

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/16_cases/16-156.pdf

Employee served with disciplinary charges after complaining about being denied a "day off" on a holiday

OATH Index No. 2686/15

OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin F. Casey recommended dismissal of charges alleging an New York City Environmental Police Officer was guilty of “conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline by using inappropriate language” to a superior after finding that the Department failed to show that the officer engaged in misconduct when he complained to a supervisor about being denied the day off on a holiday, in this instance Christmas Day.

The ALJ found that the employee’s supervisor had consented to his repeating his complaint to his co-workers and held that “[a] verbal disagreement or expression of dissatisfaction with a supervisor is not always misconduct, even in a paramilitary setting.”

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/15_cases/15-2686.pdf