Employee disciplined for alleged acts of misconduct that took place 20 years earlier

Employee disciplined for alleged acts of misconduct that took place 20 years earlier
DeMichele v Greenburgh CSD #7, 167 F.3d 784

Section 3020-a(1) of the New York State Education Law provides that “no charges ... shall be brought more than three years after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct, except when the charge is of misconduct constituting a crime when committed.”*

In the DeMichele case, a teacher in the Greenburgh Central School District #7 was found guilty of having inappropriate sexual contact with female students in incidents occurring more than 20 years earlier. The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sustained the school board’s decision to dismiss the teacher, even though the teacher had not been convicted of any “criminal act.”

Following the same logic as New York State courts that have addressed similar issues involving statutes of limitation under various disciplinary provisions, the federal court observed that the law does not require the individual to be found guilty of a felony in a criminal court for disciplinary charges to be filed after the three-year statute of limitations has expired.

Rather, the law merely characterizes the nature of the allegation. The law says that if a Section 3020-a hearing officer or disciplinary panel finds an individual guilty of an act that fits the definition of a felony under relevant criminal statutes, then a penalty may be imposed even if the disciplinary charges were brought after the three-year statute of limitations has expired (see Re Board of Education of City School District of the City of New York, Opinions of the Commissioner of Education No. 11353.**

The 20-year-old sexual misconduct charges arose after a newspaper reported that Greenburgh #7 teacher Robert DeMichele had been restored to the payroll in 1996 after serving one and one-half year disciplinary suspension. The article noted that the suspension without pay was imposed as a penalty after DeMichele was found guilty of having inappropriate conduct with female students during the 1991-92 and 1992-93 academic years.

After the article appeared, two women contacted district officials and alleged that DeMichele had sexually abused or molested them when they had been students in the district decades earlier -- during the 1972-73 and 1974-75 school years.

There was no dispute that the district was unaware of these allegations prior to its receiving the February 1996 reports. On March 11, 1996, the district initiated a second Section 3020-a disciplinary action against DeMichele. The hearing officer found DeMichele guilty of all but one of seven specifications set out in the charges. As a result, DeMichele was dismissed. The disciplinary determination was reported to the press.

The hearing officers ruled that (1) each instance of misconduct alleged in the second disciplinary proceeding constituted a crime when committed and (2) Section 3020-a does not require that the misconduct actually be the subject of a criminal prosecution. Rather than appeal the hearing officer’s determination, DeMichele sued in federal district court claiming that the second disciplinary action violated his rights under 42 USC. Section 1983. He contended that his rights were violated because:

1. The district forced him to defend charges concerning events that occurred more than 20 years ago, which left him unable to defend himself in violation of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; and

2. He was deprived of a liberty interest without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when the district’s prosecutor disclosed the results of the hearing to the media.

In an unpublished decision, a federal district court judge granted the district’s motion for summary judgment and thus dismissed DeMichele’s petition without a hearing on the merits of the complaint. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The Circuit Court said that to show a violation of due process as a result of delay in a hearing, New York State law requires the subject of an administrative disciplinary proceeding demonstrate that delay in initiating proceedings caused “actual prejudice” to his or her ability to defend against the charges. The court suggested that if the school district had known about the 1970s allegations before 1996 but delayed proceeding with discipline, DeMichele might have been able to show that his ability to defend himself had been compromised.

The court also addressed DeMichele’s claim that the dissemination to the media of the results of his second disciplinary hearing stigmatized him and wrongfully deprived him of his liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court noted that this argument rested on the assumption that the results of the disciplinary proceeding were not a matter of public record, but instead were part of his “employment history” which could not be released under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, [Public Officers Law, Article 6, (“FOIL”)].

However, the decision noted that New York courts have found that the disposition of misconduct charges does not constitute part of an employee’s “employment history” as that phrase is used in FOIL, citing LaRocca v. Board of Educ. of Jericho Union Free School District, 632 N.Y.S.2d 576. The Circuit Court ruled that under the circumstances, the dissemination of the background and result of the first disciplinary hearing to the press did not deprived DeMichele of any liberty interest and dismissed the appeal.

* Section 75 of the Civil Service Law, a statutory disciplinary procedure covering employees in the classified service, also provides that there is no statute of limitations with respect to bringing disciplinary action against an individual where the charges of incompetency or misconduct “constitute a crime.”

** Section 3020-a(1) of the Education Law also requires that disciplinary charges be filed “during the period between the actual opening and closing of the school year” during which the employee is normally required to serve.
NYPPL

Potential conflict of interest between official duties and private business should be eliminated by appointing authority

Potential conflict of interest between official duties and private business should be eliminated by appointing authority
Informal opinion of the Attorney General 98-39

A part-time village police officer also conducted a towing business. When asked if the officer’s towing business could be included on the village police force’s list of towing companies, the Attorney General said it could be listed, “provided the village takes appropriate steps to eliminate any potential conflicts of interests.”

The Attorney General said that an appearance of impropriety would be created if the police officer’s towing service were called when that officer is at the scene of an accident. Further, a conflict of interest would arise if village police officers recommended their colleagues’ business to individuals in need of towing services rather than resort to the list.
NYPPL

Adverse grievance decision not proof the union failed to provide adequate representation absent proof that the union acted arbitrarily or in bad faith

Adverse grievance decision not proof the union failed to provide adequate representation absent proof that the union acted arbitrarily or in bad faith
Rosioreanu v New York City Off. of Collective Bargaining, 2010 NY Slip Op 07797, Decided on November 4, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department

Upon conclusion of a grievance procedure that resulted in her termination, Cleopatra Rosioreanu filed an improper practices petition with the New York City Office of Collective Bargaining [OCB] contending that her union failed to provide adequate representation throughout the grievance process.

OCB denied the petition and Rosioreanu filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging OCB’s determination.

The Appellate Division said that Rosioreanu’s Article 78 petition advanced the theory that because the grievance process ended with her termination, her union representatives must have acted arbitrarily, capriciously or in bad faith.

The court characterize Rosioreanu’s claim as a “conclusory assertion,” commenting that there was nothing in the record that suggests malfeasance by the union representatives, much less fraud, deceitful action, dishonest conduct or discrimination on the part of union representatives, citing Mellon v Benker, 186 AD2d 1020.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_07797.htm
NYPPL

Retirement System has the burden of rebutting the statutory presumption set out in the so-called “Heart Bill,” RSSL §507-b(c)

Retirement System has the burden of rebutting the statutory presumption set out in the so-called “Heart Bill,” RSSL §507-b(c)
Matter of Rivera v DiNapoli, 2010 NY Slip Op 07852, Decided on November 4, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

Although typically an applicant for accidental disability retirement benefits or performance of duty disability benefits has the burden of proof with respect to showing that his or her disability resulted from the performance of his or duties, such is not always the case.

For example, the Retirement and Social Security Law §507-b(c) sets out a rebuttable presumption that where an individual has "successfully passed a physical examination on entry into service as a correction officer" that did not reveal evidence of heart disease and later becomes disabled as the result of a heart condition sustained during employment, it is presumed that the disability was "incurred in the performance and discharge of duty, unless the contrary be proved by competent evidence."

Juan C. Rivera’s had successfully passed his physical examination when he began his employment as a correction officer. He subsequently suffered a myocardial infarction after falling ill while at work.

When it was determined that he could not return to work because of his resulting medical condition, Rivera applied for performance of duty disability retirement benefits.

The New York State and Local Retirement System [ERS], however, denied his application, concluding that although Rivera was permanently incapacitated, his disability "was not sustained as a result of the performance or discharge of his . . . duties."

Ultimately the Comptroller sustained the ERS’s denial of his application for benefits and Rivera filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order annulling the Comptroller’s determination.

Under the circumstances, said the Appellate Division, ERS had the obligation to rebut the statutory presumption that Rivera's disability occurred as a result of his performance and discharge of his duties as a correction officer.

The Appellate Division concluded that ERS had rebutted the presumption that Rivera’s disability was related to his employment as a correction officer by presenting evidence of risk factors coupled with expert testimony that excludes an applicant's employment as a causative factor" and sustained the Comptroller’s decision.

The court said that considering the record as a whole, it found that ERS had “effectively rebutted” the presumption set out in RSSL §507-b(c) and thus Rivera’s application for benefits was properly denied.

The record indicated that ERS had relied on the opinion of a cardiologist who, after examining Rivera, concluded that while work-related stress "can aggravate the symptoms of coronary artery disease," Rivera's coronary artery disease "was not related to his employment as a correction officer." The cardiologist made reference to the fact that Rivera suffered from a variety of risk factors commonly associated with coronary heart disease, including obesity and hypertension.

The Appellate Division said that it had previously held "the [statutory] presumption is effectively rebutted when evidence of risk factors is coupled with expert testimony that excludes an applicant's employment as a causative factor," citing Bryant v Hevesi, 41 AD3d at 932.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_07852.htm
NYPPL

Independent contractors in the public service

Independent contractors in the public service
Roesch v BOCES, App Div, 259 AD2d 900

The Roesch case is another in a series of actions involving claims for retroactive membership in a public retirement system.

Dorothy E. Roesch claimed that her service as a school psychologist with the Wayne-Finger Lakes BOCES qualified her for retroactive membership in the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System [TRS]. BOCES had rejected Roesch’s application on the grounds that she was a consultant on a per diem basis serving as an independent contractor and therefore she was ineligible to join TRS during the time in question.

The decision indicated that there were neither payroll or personnel records nor any formal appointment action by BOCES to employ her.

In contrast, such types of records were produced concerning others serving in similar positions indicating that such personnel “were formally appointed” to positions as employees of BOCES. Was this sufficient to support the conclusion that Roesch served as an independent contractor rather than as a BOCES employee?

The Appellate Division ruled that it was, sustaining BOCES’ rejection of Roesch’s application. The court said that there was rational basis for this determination, noting that the BOCES’ minutes of board meetings during the relevant period established that BOCES had a pattern and practice of making formal appointments of full and part-time employees.

The court said that the minutes “were devoid of any reference to the appointment of Roesch during this period when other school psychologists were so appointed by BOCES.”

This, coupled with the lack of any [IRS payroll withholding] W-4 forms that were completed by Roesch while others were produced for school psychologists employed near the relevant time period, “provides a rational basis to support the denial of Roesch’s application for retroactive membership in TRS based on her status as an independent contractor.”

The decision is silent as to whether or not BOCES produced copies of “an employment contract” between it and Roesch or copies of IRS Forms 1099, Miscellaneous to support its position that Roesch was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Typically, an individual providing personnel services to a public entity is deemed to be a public employee unless a contract for “personnel services” is authorized under law and a contract providing for such services has actually been executed by the parties.

In another application for retroactive membership in TRS case, Storrar v Mahopac Central School District, 257 AD2d 628, [motion to appeal denied, 93 NY2d 808], that the statement of the school district’s former payroll clerk that she and Barbara Storrar, a former member of TRS, discussed “FICA [Social Security] deductions versus reenrollment” in TRS was sufficient to establish that the district had “procedure that a reasonable person would recognize as an explanation or request requiring a formal decision ... to join a public retirement system” in place.
NYPPL