Employee terminated for falsifying attendance records and other misconduct

Employee terminated for falsifying attendance records and other misconduct
Dinnocenzo v Lackawanna, 270 AD2d 840

In Dinnocenzo the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, sustained the termination of an employee found guilty of falsifying his time records and other offenses.

James Dinnocenzo was charged, and found guilty, of disciplinary charges alleging misconduct and insubordination. Among the specifications:

1. Unauthorized absence from work;

2. Failure to obey his superior’s orders to report his absences; and

3. Submitting time sheets falsely indicating the hours that he was present at work.

Finding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of guilt, the court said that in light of all the circumstances, the penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the misconduct as to be `shocking to one’s sense of fairness’ -- the Pell doctrine [Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222].

As to Dinnocenzo’s testimony concerning the reason for his absences and minimizing the length of those absences, this, said the court, raised an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve. The Hearing Officer apparently was not persuaded by Dinnocenzo’s efforts to explain his actions.
.

Rebutting a statutory presumption

Rebutting a statutory presumption
Hutnik v Kelly, 37 AD3d 346

New York City police officer John Hutnik applied for accident disability retirement benefits pursuant to Section 207-k of the General Municipal Law. Section 207-k creates a rebuttable presumption that Hutnik’s “heart-related disability” underlying his application for accidental disability retirement benefits was service-related.

In this instance the Appellate Division found that this statutory presumption was “rebutted by credible evidence” that Hutnik did not suffer from a heart-related disability, notwithstanding his personal physician’s opinion to the contrary. As there was no other evidence or claim presented by Hutnik as to any other possible cause for the medical condition underlying his claim, the Appellate Division sustained the rejection of his application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/rebuttable-presumption.html

Failure to exhaust the available administrative remedy to challenge a determination held a fatal defect in seeking judicial relief

Failure to exhaust the available administrative remedy to challenge a determination held a fatal defect in seeking judicial relief
Matter of Connor v Town of Niskayuna, 2011 NY Slip Op 01556, Appellate Division, Third Department

A number of police officers submitted applications for membership in the New York State and Local Retirement System. Although advised of the availability of two optional retirement plans available to them pursuant to §§384 and 384-d of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and that an election to become a member of either optional retirement plan must be filed within one year of becoming a police officer or member of the Retirement System, none of the police officers in this action filed an election to become a member of either of the two optional plans when they submitted their applications. Accordingly, they were automatically enrolled in the retirement plan provided by Retirement and Social Security Law §375-c.

The police officers subsequently filed an application for enrollment in the §384-d retirement plan. The Comptroller, however, issued a written determination declining to process their respective applications because the statutory one-year election period had expired.

The police officers involved then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to compel the Comptroller to accept their applications and to make all contributions required in connection with their membership in the §384-d plan. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the police officers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, pointing out “It is hornbook law that one who objects to the act of an administrative agency must exhaust available administrative remedies before being permitted to litigate in a court of law," citing Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 NY2d 52.

Here, said the court, the Retirement and Social Security Law sets out the procedure for challenging a retirement benefit determination made by the Comptroller whereby the disappointed individual is to request a hearing and redetermination and then, upon final determination of the Comptroller, he or she commence a CPLR Article 78 proceeding.

In this instance, despite their dissatisfaction with the Comptroller's decision to reject their applications as untimely, the police officers failed to avail themselves of the proceedures set out in Retirement and Social Security Law §374(d).* The Appellate Division said that that the Comptroller's written refusal to process their applications constituted a "determination" within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §374(c).

As the police officers could have challenged the rejections of their respective applications by requesting a hearing and redetermination, they failed to do so. Accordingly, Supreme Court correctly dismissed their Article 78 petition for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies available to them by statute.

*§374.d provides, in pertinent part, that: “At any time within four months … the applicant or his [or her] counsel may serve a written demand upon the comptroller for a hearing and redetermination of such application. … The comptroller shall have the same power upon such hearing as upon the original application. After such hearing the comptroller shall make his final determination. A copy thereof shall be mailed to the applicant and his [or her] counsel, if any. Such final determination shall be subject to review only as provided in article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01556.htm
.

FMLA does not cover faith healing trip

FMLA does not cover faith healing trip
Source: Adjunct Law Prof Blog; http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adjunctprofs/
Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, Mitchell H. Rubinstein, Esq., Adjunct Professor of Law, St. Johns Law School and New York Law School, All rights reserved.

Tayag v. Lahey Clinic, ____F.3d____(1st Cir. Jan. 22, 2011), is both an interesting and important case. The First Circuit held that a company that fired a woman for taking unapproved time off to accompany her husband on a “faith healing” trip did not violate the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. The circuit agreed with a lower court's finding that the trip, a seven-week “healing pilgrimage” was not protected under the statute “because it was effectively a vacation.” Such travel is not “medical care” as defined by the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. §2601.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

NYPPL Comments: In Sanni v NYS Office of Mental Health [USDC, EDNY, decided February 15, 2000], “faith healing” was one of the issues in a disciplinary action.

Thomas Sanni, then employed in a grade 27 project director position at Kings Park Psychiatric Center, was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law.

Ultimately a hearing officer found Sanni guilty of 11 of the 14 charges filed against him. Among the charges for which Sanni was found guilty: “Improperly participating in and supporting the decision to employ the minister of [Sanni’s] church to exorcise a patient 'possessed by spirits.'”
.

Employer’s “one-strike rule” denying employment to applicants who test positive for drug or alcohol use did not have an unlawful disparate impact on rehabilitated drug addicts
Source: Posted on the Internet in CCH Workday at http://cch-workday.blogspot.com/ . Reproduced with permission. Copyright© CCH 2011, All rights reserved.

Rejecting disparate treatment and disparate impact claims brought under the ADA and California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by a former drug addict who was denied a longshoreman’s job, a divided Ninth Circuit panel upheld the Pacific Maritime Association’s “one-strike rule,” which automatically eliminates from consideration job applicants who test positive for drug or alcohol use (Lopez v Pacific Maritime Assoc, 09-55698 March 2, 2011). Not only was it lawful for the employer association to eliminate applicants who were using drugs when they applied to be longshore workers, it was also permissible to disqualify those applicants permanently, the appeals court [Judge Pregerson dissented in part] held, affirming summary judgment to the employer association.

While the one-strike rule imposes a harsh penalty, and many people question the rule’s reasonableness in light of the fact that many drug users later rehabilitate themselves, “unreasonable rules do not necessarily violate the ADA or the FEHA,” the majority wrote.

The employer association represents shipping lines, stevedore companies, and terminal operators that run the ports along the west coast, negotiating bargaining agent and administering payroll and hiring policies. One of those policies is the one-strike rule, under which the association rejects outright any job applicant who tests positive for drug or alcohol use during the pre-employment screening process. Applicants are notified at least seven days in advance of administering the drug test. Failing the drug test, even once, disqualifies an applicant permanently from future employment.

The plaintiff first applied for a longshoreman position in 1997 at a Long Beach, California port. At that time, however, he suffered from an addiction to drugs and alcohol, and tested positive for marijuana at the time of his drug test; he was therefore disqualified from further consideration under the one-strike rule. He became clean and sober in 2002 and, in 2004, reapplied to be a longshoreman. However, because of the one-strike rule, his application was rejected. He attempted to appeal, but the employer does not entertain appeals from disqualifications arising from positive drug tests. This action followed, alleging the employer violated the ADA and the FEHA by discriminating against him on the basis of his protected status as a rehabilitated drug addict. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer.

Disparate treatment. The plaintiff asserted three arguments in support of his disparate treatment claim, none of which prevailed. First, he claimed the one-strike rule facially discriminates against recovering or recovered drug addicts. The appeals court disagreed. “The rule eliminates all candidates who test positive for drug use, whether they test positive because of a disabling drug addiction or because of an untimely decision to try drugs for the first time, recreationally, on the day before the drug test,” the appeals court reasoned. “Conversely, the rule allows a drug addicted applicant who happens to be sober at the time of the drug test to complete pre-employment processing successfully. . . The triggering event for purposes of the one-strike rule is a failed drug test, not an applicant’s drug addiction.” The majority cited the Supreme Court’s 2003 opinion in Raytheon Co v Hernandez in support. There, the Court held that an employer’s policy not to rehire workers who lost their jobs due to drug-related misconduct constituted a neutral, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to rehire an aggrieved employee.

Next, the plaintiff argued that the employer adopted the one-strike rule intentionally to exclude recovering and recovered drug addicts from its workforce. However, the record belies that allegation, the appeals court found. Before adopting the measure, the longshore industry suffered numerous serious accidents and injuries, including several fatalities. These incidents were attributed in part to a workplace culture that permitted drug and alcohol use. Conducting pre-employment drug screening in order to eliminate job applicants who would be more likely to use drugs or alcohol at work was a union-approved approach to these safety concerns. The employer decided to make permanent the disqualification of applicants who tested positive because it thought that applicants who could not abstain from using an illegal drug, even after receiving advance notice of an upcoming drug test, showed less responsibility and less interest in the job than applicants who passed the drug test. As such, there was no evidence that the employer rejected applicants who tested positive based on a calculation that an applicant might test positive because of a drug addiction, rather than because of recreational use.

Finally, the plaintiff contended, summary judgment was in error because the employer only learned of the plaintiff’s drug addiction shortly after disqualifying him. This assertion only served to undermine his claim, however, that he was disqualified from employment due to his protected status as a recovering addict. If it were truly unaware that a disability existed, it would be impossible for the employer’s hiring decision to have been based, even in part, on the applicant’s stated disability, and he could not, ipso facto, have been subject to disparate treatment, the court wrote.

Disparate impact. The plaintiff’s disparate impact claim also failed. While he argued that the one-strike rule disparately affected recovering drug addicts by eliminating anyone who previously tested positive for drug use, the plaintiff offered “only the bald assertion that this result must be so.” However, “as we have noted, the rule does not necessarily screen out recovering drug addicts disproportionately.” The plaintiff must have produced evidence from which a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the one-strike rule results in the employer hiring fewer recovering drug addicts, as compared to the number of qualified recovered drug addicts in the relevant labor market. The record contains neither statistical nor anecdotal evidence to that effect, notwithstanding an affidavit from a forensic economist introduced by the plaintiff in support of this assertion.

Dissent.

Judge Pregerson dissented in part; he would have allowed the plaintiff to advance his disparate impact claim based on the forensic expert testimony that drug addicts are disproportionately affected by the lifetime ban, as well as evidence that at least 27 individuals were subjected to the ban during roughly the same period. “Because the identities of those individuals are protected, the court does not know which, if any, of them were drug addicts rather than casual users, or which of the addicts, if any, were later rehabilitated. It is clear, however, that a significant number of individuals were impacted by the ban. It is also reasonable to infer that at least some of those individuals, like Lopez, were at one time addicted to drugs, but after participating in a drug rehabilitation program, were able to overcome their addiction,” Pregerson argued. He also asserted the district court erred in requiring statistical evidence to support the disparate impact claim. While statistical evidence is generally required to show disparate impact under, for example, the ADEA, such evidence is not required for similar claims under the ADA. Furthermore, the dissent noted, “it is manifestly unreasonable to require statistical data regarding the number of recovering addicts either hired by an employer or screened out by the test. These figures are not kept by employers, and indeed such data likely could not be lawfully acquired.”

“I do not suggest that we now determine whether lifetime employment bars resulting from a positive drug test necessarily violate the ADA,” the dissent noted. Here, however, Pregerson was swayed by the unique nature and scope of the employer association in this case. “Where such a test is mandated by an employer who exercises singular control over an industry spanning the whole west coast of the United States, the potential impact of the policy is broad and pervasive.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/03/02/09-55698.pdf