New York State Public Personnel Law e-books

The Discipline Book - Click HERE for information

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty - Click HERE for information

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - Click HERE for information

Disability Leave for fire, police and other public sector personnel - Click HERE for information

Appeal to the Commissioner of Education challenging a Board of Education suspending school district employee held untimely

Claiming that she witnessed a district staff member abuse a minor child, Petitioner reported the alleged incident to her supervisor and several other district employees.  Noting that the parties’ versions of events vary, the Commissioner of Education said "it appears that an altercation ensued between [Petitioner] and the principal ... resulted in [Petitioner] being placed on paid leave."* 

Ultimately, the Board of Education [Board] suspended Petitioner's employment by the school district.

Petitioner challenged the Board's action and in her appeal asked the Commissioner to direct the Board "impose a fine, request a written apology, and/or impose discipline upon all district employees to whom the alleged abuse was reported." Additionally Plaintiff asks that the Board be directed to notify the family of the minor child of the alleged abuse.

The Board contended that Petitioner's appeal should be dismissed as [1] untimely and [2] for lack of jurisdiction over the district respondents named by Petitioner. 

On the merits, the Board contends, among other things, that Petitioner has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

The Commissioner first addressed a preliminary matter: Petitioner’s reply to the Board's answer to contains new information and claims that were not raised in the petition.  The Commissioner said the purpose of a reply is to respond to new material or affirmative defenses set forth in an answer and is not meant to buttress allegations in the petition or belatedly add assertions that should have been raised in the petition.

Turning to procedural issues, the Commissioner said the Petitioner's appeal must be dismissed as untimely.  An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the decision or act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown. Further, the Commissioner noted that "[except] in unusual circumstances, ignorance of the appeal process does not afford a sufficient basis to excuse a delay in commencing an appeal."

In addition, Petitioner raised general assertions of alleged neglect on the part of her attorney in processing her appeal to the Commissioner. The Commissioner opined that this claim concerns an issue of professional responsibility that is outside the scope of an appeal to the Commissioner of Education.

* The district contended that Petitioner had put her hands on the principal and submitted photographic evidence in support of this allegation.

Click HERE to access the text of the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.

The New York State Department of Civil Service invites attorneys to consider a career in public service with the State of New York

For information describing current employment opportunities click HERE.

A presumption of public access to judicial documents may be outweighed by the importance of maintaining confidentiality under the Federal Arbitration Act

A former employee [Plaintiff] of International Business Machines Corporation ([IBM] had signed a separation agreement requiring confidential arbitration of any claims arising from her termination.* Plaintiff arbitrated an age-discrimination claim against IBM and won. Plaintiff then filed a petition in federal district court under the Federal Arbitration Act [FAA] to confirm the award, attaching it to the petition under seal but simultaneously moving to unseal it.

Shortly after Plaintiff filed the petition, IBM paid the arbitration award in full. The federal district court granted Plaintiff’s petition to confirm the award and her motion to unseal the arbitration award.

IBM appealed the district court's unsealing of the award, contending that (1) the petition to confirm became moot once IBM paid the award, and (2) the district court erred in unsealing the confidential award.

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, agreeing  with IBM, explaining that Plaintiff's petition to confirm her purely monetary award became moot when IBM paid the award in full because there remained no “concrete” interest in enforcement of the award to maintain a case or controversy.

The Circuit Court also ruled that any presumption of public access to judicial documents was outweighed by the importance of confidentiality under the FAA and the impropriety of Plaintiff’s effort to evade the confidentiality provision in her arbitration agreement. In the words of the court, "In short, the presumption of access to judicial documents is outweighed here by the interest in confidentiality and because [Plaintiff's] apparent purpose in filing the materials publicly is to launder their confidentiality through litigation."

Concluding that the district court should not have granted Plaintiff’s motion to unseal the award," the Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the matter to the federal district court "with instructions to dismiss the petition as moot" and reversed the district court's ruling unsealing the award.

* Plaintiff had signed the separation agreement in exchange for "severance payments and other benefits. The Agreement included a class- and collective-action waiver requiring claims arising from her termination—including claims under the ADEA—to be resolved “by private, confidential, final and binding arbitration.”

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision posted on the Internet.