Employee suspended without pay after refusing to comply with superiors order

Employee suspended without pay after refusing to comply with superiors order

Office of the Comptroller of the City of New York v Martin, OATH Index #1680/12

A employee of the New York Office of the Comptroller was alleged to have refused to  remove her Bluetooth earpiece when ordered to do so and to have responded disrespectfully to her supervisor.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Alessandra F. Zorgniotti sustained the charges and after considering that the employee had already been disciplined twice for refusing to remove her Bluetooth earpiece, recommended a 15 work-day suspension without pay. 

The ALJ’ recommendation was adopted by the Office of the NYC Comptroller.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/12_Cases/12-1680.pdf

A village that has a police department must have a chief of police

A village that has a police department must have a chief of police

Citing Village Law §§8-800, 8-800(1); Chapters 810 and 840 of the Laws of 1985; Town Law §150; and Civil Service Law §§58, 58(1-c), the Attorney General advised the Village Attorney, Village of Skaneateles, that “A village that has a police department must have a chief of police, unless the grandfather clause applies.” [Informal Opinions of the Attorney General 2012-08. This Informal Opinion is posted on the Internet at http://www.ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinion/2012-8%20pw.pdf]

Using hearsay evidence in a disciplinary hearing

Using hearsay evidence in a disciplinary hearing
Saunders v City of New York, App. Div., First Dept., 273 A.D.2d 103, motion for leave to appeal denied, 95 N.Y.2d 766

A New York City police officer was terminated from his position after being found guilty of having "assaulted and caused physical injuries” to two individuals.

The officer appealed, contending that the Commissioner's determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it was based on hearsay. The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that "[t]he hearsay statements of the complainants were sufficiently probative to constitute substantial evidence."

According to the decision "[h]earsay may constitute substantial evidence where, as here, it is sufficiently reliable and probative on the issues to be determined."

This, in turn, depends on the credibility of the witnesses. The issue of the credibility of the witnesses at the officer's departmental disciplinary hearing, said the court, "was a matter to be assessed by the Deputy Commissioner who presided at the trial.”

Accordingly, said the court, determinations concerning the credibility of witnesses "is largely beyond our power of review."

Barring a former employee from property

Barring a former employee from property
Toussaint v Local 100, TWU, CA2, U.S. App. LEXIS 16257

May an employer prohibit an individual it has dismissed from entering its property? The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the employer may prohibit such an individual from entering its non-public areas.

A Transportation Workers Union representative had been dismissed from his position with the New York City Transit Authority [NYCTA]. NYCTA then banned the representative from the non-public areas of its property. The representative sued, contending that this action by NYCTA violated his First Amendment rights.

The Circuit Court affirmed a federal district court's dismissal of the Union representative’s petition. The lower court had determined that he "failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits" because:

1. He did not demonstrate that he was excluded from non-public areas because the Transit Authority's motivation was to impair the exercise of his First Amendment freedoms or;

2. The Transit Authority's rule barring discharged employees from non-public areas lacked a reasonable basis.

The representative also attempted to obtain a stay of arbitration, claiming that NYCTA and Local 100 went forward with his arbitration "without allowing him to participate in selecting a neutral arbitrator to chair the arbitration panel." The Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this representation as moot "because the arbitration [had] proceeded to conclusion."