Settlement of disciplinary arbitration must be in writing to be enforced by a court

Settlement of disciplinary arbitration must be in writing to be enforced by a court
Marpe v Dometsch, 256 AD2d 914

Sometimes the parties to a grievance or disciplinary proceeding agree to “settle” the matter. The terms of the settlement may be read into the record at an administrative hearing or before an arbitrator or the parties may simply “sign an agreement of settlement.” The Marpe case shows that the settlement of a pending lawsuit must follow a more formal procedure.

Terri L. Marpe sued Paul Dometsch and Capital Area Community Health Plan Inc. [CHP], alleging that sexual harassment and negligence arising out of psychiatric treatment provided by her supervisor, Paul Dometsch. During a pretrial deposition with her attorney, Marpe and CHP entered into an on-the-record oral stipulation of settlement providing that Marpe would execute a written release and confidentiality agreement in exchange for CHP’s agreement to pay her a specified sum of money. CHP forwarded the proposed settlement papers to Marpe but she refused to sign them. When a State Supreme Court justice denied CHP’s motion to enforce the stipulation of settlement, it appealed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s determination, commenting that “a stipulation of settlement is not enforceable unless it is made in open court, reduced to a court order and entered, or contained in a writing subscribed by the parties or their attorneys.” Since the stenographic record created at the deposition was made outside the presence of a judge, the Appellate Division ruled that it was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 2104 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
NYPPL

Educator’s assignments must be consistent with tenure area of the position in which he or she is employed

Educator’s assignments must be consistent with tenure area of the position in which he or she is employed
Banschback v Middle Country CSD, CEd. 14078
Dowler v Middle Country CSD, CEd 14078

Eileen Banschback and Timothy Dowler, certified physical education teachers, were employed by the Middle Country Central School District as teaching assistants* and assigned to teach adaptive physical education under the general supervision of a certified physical education teacher.

The district conceded that they were to perform “primary instruction duties” related to adaptive physical education such as individualized education plans and preparing lesson plans, teaching students, determining student grades and giving supervision and direction to teacher aides.

Both teaching assistants appealed to the Commissioner of Education, contending that their assignments violated State Education Department guidelines and constituted an assignment outside their teaching assistant tenure area.

The Commissioner set out the following guidelines concerning their assignment:

1. Without a certified teacher present, Banschback and Dowler may teach adaptive physical education and supervise and direct teacher aides assigned to such classes, provided that they do so under the general supervision of such a teacher.

2. The certified teacher must review and approve the lesson plans and progress reports prepared by Banschback and Dowler as “deficient supervision may, as a practical matter, result in teachers being supplanted by teaching assistants, which is not permissible under law.”

* Section 80.33(b)(1) of the Commissioner’s Regulations defines a teaching assistant as a person “appointed by a board of education to provide, under the general supervision of a licensed or certified teacher, direct instructional services to students.”
NYPPL

New York Public Personnel Law readers

New York Public Personnel Law readers
Source: Google/Blogspot Statistical Report

Google/Blogspot reports that during the past six month the "top ten" of NYPPL readers were from the following nations:

Nation………………# of Readers

United States............34.721
Germany………………..1.207
Russia………………………643
France……………………..608
Netherlands……………..477
United Kingdom……….415
South Korea……...………395
Canada…………….……….312
Ukraine………...…………170
Philippines………………..140
NYPPL

Hearsay evidence may be the basis for an administrative disciplinary determination

Hearsay evidence may be the basis for an administrative disciplinary determination
Matter of Hughes v New York State Unified Ct. Sys., Off. of Ct. Admin., 2010 NY Slip Op 07932, Decided on November 3, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department

Thomas Hughes, an Office of Court Administration [OCA] court officer, was served with disciplinary charges alleging, among other offenses, failing to keep his uniform in proper condition, failing to keep his weapon properly loaded, and keeping an impermissible metal-jacketed round in his weapon.

The disciplinary hearing officer found that Hughes was guilty of “engaging in acts of misconduct and incompetency prejudicial to the good order and efficiency of the New York State Unified Court System and adversely reflecting on his fitness to continue as a court office.” OCA accepted the hearing officer’s recommendation that Hughes be dismissed from his position. Hughes filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order vacating OCA’s decision to terminate him.

The Appellate Division dismissed Hughes petition noting that “appellate review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence.”

In this instance, said the court, the hearing officer’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.*

Addressing another issue concerning the evidence presented in the course of the disciplinary hearing, the Appellate Division commented that “Hearsay evidence may be the basis for an administrative determination,” citing Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741.

As to the penalty imposed, dismissal, the court said that “termination of employment was not so disproportionate to the misconduct as to shock the conscience.”

* Substantial evidence has been defined as "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_07932.htm
NYPPL

Supervisor’s performing employee’s duties while employee suspended pending a criminal investigation leads to additional disciplinary charges

Supervisor’s performing employee’s duties while employee suspended pending a criminal investigation leads to additional disciplinary charges
Matter of Covert v Schuyler County, 2010 NY Slip Op 07861, Decided on November 4, 2010, Appellate Division, Third Department

Beth E. Covert was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law alleging that she had asked a neighbor to lie to law enforcement officials conducting a criminal investigation of Covert.

Covert was suspended from her duties as a probation officer as a result of the criminal investigation and her supervisor assumed responsibility for her pending probation case files. In the course of the supervisors handling Covert’s cases, the supervisor found a number of irregularities and deficiencies relating to Covert’s record keeping and supervision of probationers

These finding resulted in additional §75 charges being filed against Covert. As a result of these additional charges, Covet was also found guilty of incompetence.

Based on the findings of misconduct and incompetence, together with her prior unsatisfactory service and her failure to take responsibility for her acts and omissions, the Schuyler County Administrator terminated Covert’s employment.

When Covert sued seeking to vacate the Administrator’s determination the Appellate Division dismissed her petition stating that it would not disturb the Administrator's determination made following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 as long as it supported by substantial evidence.

As to the charges alleging Covert had asked a neighbor to lie on her behalf, Covert’s supervisor testified that Covert had admitted to him that she had asked the neighbor to lie for her and then declared that "it's not like asking someone to lie for you is against the law." Covert, in contrast, testified that she had neither made such an admission nor asked anyone to lie.

This conflict in testimony, said the Appellate Division, was resolved against Covert by the Administrator and it will not substitute the court’s own credibility determinations for those of the Administrator,

As for the determination of incompetence, the evidence established that despite Covert's position as the designee responsible for transfers, she was unaware of the travel restrictions and written policies governing interstate transfers. Further, her incompetence with respect to the handling of a convicted sex offender on probation was also documented by evidence reflecting her continued failure to require the probationer to complete sex offender therapy.

Further, said the Appellate Division, charges of incompetence relating to Covert’s failure to properly use the computerized systems and failures in record keeping are also supported by substantial evidence.

Finally, the court rejected Covert’s argument that the statute of limitations barred certain of the charges, holding that “given the continuous nature of the incompetence,” such an argument is “unavailing.”

In the light of the findings in the disciplinary action and the fact that a prior letter of reprimand had been placed in Covert’s personnel file,* the Appellate Division said that the penalty of termination “is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness.”

* In Bigelow v Village of Gouverneur, 63 NY2d 470, the Court of Appeals said that such records could be used to determine the penalty to be imposed if (a) the individual is advised that his or her prior disciplinary record would be considered in setting the penalty to be imposed, and (b) the employee is given an opportunity to submit a written response to any adverse material contained in the record or offer “mitigating circumstances.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_07861.htm
NYPPLPL