Agreeing to a disciplinary suspension without pay in exchange for a postponement of the scheduled disciplinary hearing

Agreeing to a disciplinary suspension without pay in exchange for a postponement of the scheduled disciplinary hearing
Wachtmeiser v Andrus, App. Div., Third Dept., 279 A.D.2d 822

Clearly an employee against whom disciplinary charges have been filed pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law may be suspended without pay for up to thirty days pending resolutions of the disciplinary action. If the final determination is not made on or before the thirtieth day, the individual must be restored to the payroll.

In Margaret Wachtmeiser's case, the Clinton County Director of Public Health, John V. Andrus, followed the procedure set out in Section 75. Charges were filed against Wachtmeiser on January 27, 1998 and she was suspended without pay for 30 days in accordance with Section 75(3) of the Civil Service Law. She was restored to the payroll on February 26, 1998.

April 2, 1998, however, Wachtmeiser was again removed from the payroll, this time in accordance with the terms of her signed "release." The release provided that Wachtmeiser agreed to be removed from the Department's payroll pending a final determination of the disciplinary proceeding in exchange for an adjournment of her scheduled hearing.

As the Wachtmeiser decision demonstrates, the employer may remove an individual from the payroll pending a final determination of disciplinary charges in the event the employee elects to postpone the hearing.

If an employee seeks such a postponement, typically he or she will be required stipulate to being removed from the payroll for a period equal to the length of postponement of the hearing he or she requests. In contrast, if the appointing authority seeks to postpone the hearing, it could not condition the adjournment on the removal of the employee from the payroll.

Wachtmeiser, a public health nurse, was charged with, and found guilty of, numerous specifications of misconduct in connection with her performance of her duties. Andrus adopted the hearing officer's findings and imposed the penalty recommended: termination. After being dismissed from her position, Wachtmeiser sued for her back pay for the period she was suspended without pay in excess of thirty days.

The Appellate Division rejected Wachtmeiser's claim for back pay for this period as she had been removed from the payroll consistent with the terms of the "release." It had no difficulty with concept of suspending the employee without pay under such circumstances.

The court also rejected Wachtmeiser's appeal in which she claimed that she was coerced into executing the release, finding that the record fails to substantiate her conclusory allegation on this point.

Further, the court rejected Wachtmeiser's contention that the hearing officer's finding were not supported by substantial evidence, commenting that the record contained testimony provided “painstaking detail regarding each of the specifications of misconduct set forth in charges 1 through 5 [when] coupled with the voluminous documentary evidence [in the record] ... provides overwhelming evidence of [Wachtmeiser's] misconduct.”

Failure to maintain a residence within the employer’s geographic jurisdiction deemed disqualifying misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes

Failure to maintain a residence within the employer’s geographic jurisdiction deemed disqualifying misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes
Matter of Dwaine E. Williams v Commissioner of Labor, 47 AD3d 994

Dwaine E. Williams, a school safety agent with the New York City Police Department for some six years, lived in Westchester County. The City discharged Williams from his position for failing to comply with a provision of the New York City Administrative Code that mandated that he maintain a residence within New York City.

His application for unemployment insurance benefits was rejected on the grounds that his employment was terminated due to misconduct; i.e., failing to comply with his employer’s residency rules.

Finding that City’s residency requirement is a reasonable rule that Williams elected to ignore, the Appellate Division sustained the rejection of Williams’ application for unemployment insurance benefits, holding that "[i]t is well settled that the failure to comply with an employer's reasonable rules can constitute misconduct disqualifying one from receiving unemployment insurance benefits."

State Comptroller DiNapoli reports that school aid payments have been made

State Comptroller DiNapoli reports that school aid payments are being processed
Source: Office of the State Comptroller

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reported that school aid to school districts and BOCES totaling nearly $1.6 billion, is being processed. These payments are typically made by June 1, but because of the State’s “cash crunch in March” the Governor delayed these payments until the end of June.

The Governor also delayed the March school aid payments until June 1, which totaled about $2.1 billion.

A list of the State Aid distributed to each BOCES and to each school district is posted on the Internet at: http://www.osc.state.ny.us/press/releases/june10/schoolaidpd.pdf

Appointment of an eligible from an expired eligible list is impossible as a matter of law

Appointment of an eligible from an expired eligible list is impossible as a matter of law
Matter of Farrison, 2010 NY Slip Op 51113(U), Decided on June 24, 2010, Supreme Court, New York County, Judge Hunter [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

John D. Farrison filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking an appointment as a New York City Correction Officer. Farrison contended that the Department of Correction's [DOC] decision not to select him from the eligible list resulting from Correction Officer Examination 2004 for such an appointment to one of three available vacancies was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

Supreme Court dismissed Farrison’s petition, commenting that the redress he sought would require that he be appointed from the eligible list resulting from Correction Officer Examination No. 4002, a list that had expired prior to his initiation of his Article 78 action.

In view of this, Judge Hunter said Farrison claim that that DOC's decision not to appoint as a Correction Officer was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, is without merit. The court explained that once a civil service eligible list expires, it cannot be revived and an individual whose name appears on an expired eligibility list cannot be appointed to a civil service position on that basis.

As the Court of Appeals said in Cash v Bates, 301 NY 258, appointment to a civil service title from an expired civil service eligible list a "legal impossibility."*

In addition, Judge Hunter cited Hancock v. City of New York, 272 AD2d 80, in which the Appellate Division, held that a "plaintiff, whose name appears on a now-expired civil service list, is no longer entitled to be hired as a correction officer, notwithstanding that he was improperly declared to have been ineligible for the job."

* To provide for a remedy for the "impossiblitity" of appointing an individual from an expired eligible list, Section 243.7 of the Military Law authorizes the establishment of "special eligible lists" to accommodate situations involving an eligible list that expired while a candidate is on ordered military service. It provides that "Any person whose name is on any eligible list ... while in military duty ... is reached for certification during his [or her] military duty ... [his or her name] shall be placed on a special eligible list in the order of his [or her] original standing ... [and such special eligible] list shall be certified before certification shall be made from a subsequent open competitive or promotion eligible list for the same position .... Such names shall remain on such special eligible list for a period of two years after the termination of such military duty...."

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_51113.htm

Is a disciplinary hearing required after a public officer has been convicted of a crime in order to dismiss the individual from his or her position?

Is a disciplinary hearing required after a public officer has been convicted of a crime in order to dismiss the individual from his or her position?
Roberson v Ward, App. Div., First Dept., 278 A.D.2d 180; motion for leave to appeal denied, 96 N.Y.2d 717

When must a public officer,* arrested and convicted of a crime, be given a disciplinary hearing in contrast to being summarily terminated? As the Roberson decision demonstrates, it depends on the nature of the offense.

In Bratton v Foley, 92 NY2d 981, the Court of Appeals held that a police officer is removed from his or her position by operation of law if he or she is convicted of a particular crime falling in the "oath of office" or “the conviction of a felony “ category pursuant to Public Officers Law Section 30.1(e).**

In contrast, said the high court, for other convictions -- i.e., those not constituting a violation of the police officer's oath of office, or in cases where Section 30.1(e) is not cited as authority for the termination, "a public hearing is required...." If the police officer is not given such a hearing, he or she may demand one.

The lesson in the Roberson decision is that in the latter type of situation, the police officer must make a timely demand for the hearing.

In 1989 Cedric T. Roberson, was “automatically terminated” from his position as a New York City police officer upon his misdemeanor conviction of menacing in the third degree. Apparently the department relied on an administrative rule as authority for his "automatic termination" rather than Section 30.1(e) of the Public Officers Law.

Some ten years later he asked the court to annul his dismissal, claiming that he was entitled to a "hearing" before he could be terminated from his position.In response to Roberson's claim that he was entitled to a pretermination hearing as announced in Bratton, the court said that "the proceeding is barred by laches...."***

According to the ruling, "[i]t is no excuse for any subsequent delay in challenging his termination that he believed, as a result of advice from his attorney, who opined that any proceeding he might bring to challenge his termination would be futile unless his menacing conviction was overturned on appeal, which did not occur."

What is a "reasonable delay?" It appears that to be "reasonable," it must be a delay of less than two years. According to the decision, Robinson also attempted to obtain a copy of the "order of termination" pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law subsequent to his termination from the police force. However, said the court, this two-year delay "was also unreasonable."


* Although not all public employees are public officers, all public officers are public employees. A police officer is a public officer.

** However, the public officer is entitled to a so-called Bratton Hearing under certain circumstances. A Bratton Hearing flows from Public Officers Law §30.1(e), which provides that a public officer removed from office following his or her conviction of a felony, or a crime involving a violation of his or her oath of office, other than an elected officer, “may apply for reinstatement to the appointing authority upon reversal or the vacating of such conviction where the conviction is the sole basis for the vacancy. After receipt of such application, the appointing authority shall afford such applicant a hearing to determine whether reinstatement is warranted.”

*** A party is guilty of laches if he or she unreasonably delays taking action to enforce his or her legal right[s].