Employee terminated following his falsely reporting he was unable to work and engaging in unauthorized outside employment

Employee terminated following his falsely reporting he was unable to work and engaging in unauthorized outside employment  

The Appellate Division sustained the termination of a deputy sheriff’s employment as a deputy sheriff, holding that substantial evidence supports the findings that the deputy sheriff:

[1] Falsely reported that he was unable to work from October through the following June;

[2] Engaged in unauthorized outside employment: and

[3] Lied under oath when he denied engaging in such outside employment at his workers' compensation hearing.

The court ruled that there was no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Administrative Law Judge and that the penalty of termination “does not shock our sense of fairness,” citing Cherry v Horn, 66 AD2d 556

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_00427.htm

Challenging the denial of an appeal of an unsatisfactory performance rating

Challenging the denial of an appeal of an unsatisfactory performance rating 
102 AD3d 586

Supreme Court denied a petition seeking to annul the determination by the New York City Board of Education denying an educator’s appeal of an unsatisfactory rating (U-rating) for school year.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling, explaining that the educator “failed to show that the U-rating was arbitrary and capricious, or made in bad faith.”

The court noted that detailed observations in reports prepared by the principal and two assistant principals describing the educator's poor performance in class management, engagement of students, and lesson planning provided a rational basis for the U-rating.

Further, said the Appellate Division, the record showed that after the educator received a U-rating at the end of the prior school year and was then provided with a professional development plan at the start of the succeeding school year and, throughout that year, received professional support and had a series of classroom observations by the principal and two assistant principals. Each observation, said the court, was documented by a detailed letter to the educator noting areas of improvement and making specific recommendations for addressing continuing deficiencies.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_00418.htm

Certain issues that the Commissioner of Education will decline to consider "for lack of jurisdiction"

Certain issues that the Commissioner of Education will decline to consider "for lack of jurisdiction"

Appeal of C.Z. from actions of the Board of Education of the Jordan-Elbridge Central School District, et. al.

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 16,450

In this appeal to the Commissioner of Education C.Z. contended that certain alleged actions by school board members were “inappropriate and/or in violation of the Education Law and the Educational Rights and Privacy Act [FERPA].”  C.Z asked the Commissioner to issue an order admonishing the board members.

The Commissioner, stating that he lacked jurisdiction to consider FERPA claims, dismissed this branch of C.Z.’s appeal. The Commissioner explained that “The United States Secretary of Education, not the Commissioner, has jurisdiction over alleged FERPA violations (20 U.S.C. §1232[g]).

The Commissioner also dismissed that portion of C.Z. appeal that, in the words of the Commissioner, “attempts to allege violations of the Open Meetings Law through her claims that [the school board] declined to allow her to attend and to discuss certain issues at an executive session." The Commissioner noted that the §107 of the Public Officer Law “vests exclusive jurisdiction over complaints alleging violations of the Open Meetings Law in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and alleged violations thereof may not be adjudicated in an appeal to the Commissioner.”

As to the redress sought, admonition of certain members of the school board, The Commissioner noted that it is “well established” that the Commissioner of Education does not have  members any authority to censure or reprimand a board member.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume52/d16450.html

Decisions by OATH Administrative Law Judges

Decisions by OATH Administrative Law Judges

New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings

Correction officer found guilty of improper use of force

Recommended penalty: 15-day suspension without pay

A correction officer was charged with improper use of force against two inmates. That officer and his partner were also charged with making false reports and failing to obtain medical attention for an injured inmate.

Administrative Law Judge John B. Spooner found petitioner proved that the first officer used improper force against one of the inmates but he recommended dismissal of the rest of the charges. The recommended penalty was a 15-day suspension, given the inconclusive proof as to the precise extent of the force used.

This was the first OATH case involving videoconference testimony by an inmate from a City jail.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Dep't of Correction v. Wingate (in PDF), OATH Index Nos. 1490/12 & 1491/12

Employee found guilty of being intoxicated while on duty

Recommended penalty: termination

An office worker was charged with being intoxicated at work on four occasions during a one-month period.

Administrative Law Judge Kevin F. Casey sustained two of the charges. He rejected as implausible respondent’s claim that his medications and illnesses cause a variety of symptoms, including dizziness and vomiting, which give people the mistaken impression that he was intoxicated, in view of proof that respondent was diagnosed with acute alcohol intoxication at a hospital on one of the charged dates.

Given respondent’s prior disciplinary record -- which included a 40-day suspension for similar, recent misconduct -- and in the absence of evidence of rehabilitation, ALJ Casey recommended termination of respondent’s employment.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

Human Resources Admin. v. Anonymous (in PDF), OATH Index No. 212/13