All Correction Law §753 factors must be considered before disqualifying an applicant because of his or her conviction of a crime

All Correction Law §753 factors must be considered before disqualifying an applicant because of his or her conviction of a crime
Matter of Acosta v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 02073, Court of Appeals

In this decision the Court of Appeals explains that where a prospective employer rejects an applicant for employment because of that individual’s conviction of a crime, Correction Law §753 requires that the employer must determine that the conviction is relevant to the duties of the position or poses an unreasonable danger to clients, co-workers or the public.*

In affirming the Appellate Division’s ruling, the Court of Appeals said that it concluded that “the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to comply with the requirements of the Correction Law and thus acted arbitrarily in denying [Acosta’s] application for security clearance.”

The Court of Appeals explained:

The Legislature has determined that, as a general rule, it is unlawful for a public or private employer to deny an application for a license or employment on the ground that the applicant was previously convicted of a crime. This general prohibition advances the rehabilitation and reintegration goals of the Penal Law. Furthermore, barring discrimination against those who have paid their debt to society and facilitating their efforts to obtain gainful employment benefits the community as a whole. The "direct relationship" exception and the "unreasonable risk" exception to this general rule may be resorted to only upon a consideration of each of the eight factors enumerated in Correction Law §753 (see Arrocha, 93 NY2d at 364).

As to the “direct relationship” exception, here there must be “a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the specific license or employment sought or held by the individual" in order to deny the applicant the employment or a license.

The second exception, “unreasonable risk” permits the denial of employment or a license to an individual where "the issuance or continuation of the license or the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public."

The following eight criteria must each be considered by the appointing authority:

1. The public policy of this state, as expressed in this act, to encourage the licensure and employment of persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses.

2. The specific duties and responsibilities necessarily related to the license or employment sought or held by the person.

3. The bearing, if any, the criminal offense or offenses for which the person was previously convicted will have on his fitness or ability to perform one or more such duties or responsibilities.

4. The time which has elapsed since the occurrence of the criminal offense or offenses.

5. The age of the person at the time of occurrence of the criminal offense or offenses.

6. The seriousness of the offense or offenses.

7. Any information produced by the person, or produced on his behalf, in regard to his rehabilitation and good conduct.

8. The legitimate interest of the public agency or private employer in protecting property, and the safety and welfare of specific individuals or the general public."

In the words of the Court of Appeals, A failure to take into consideration each of these factors results in a failure to comply with the Correction Law's mandatory directive.

* NYPPL’s summary of the Appellate Division’s ruling, 62 AD3d 455, is posted on the Internet at http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/02/rejection-of-applicant-for-employment.html ]

The Court of Appeal's decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02073.htm
.

Evidence - "Because I said so" isn't enough

Evidence - "Because I said so" isn't enough
Source: Administrative Law Professor Blog. Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, All rights reserved http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/adminlaw/

One of the more frequent causes of court appeals of administrative decisions arises from the tendency of administrative decision makers to make decisions based on their experience and gut feelings rather than objective evidence. Somebody who has been in the business for a long time may come to believe that she or he knows what is going on and everyone else should just listen - ipse dixit in old Law Latin. But that's not due process. On her Law of the Land blog, Patty Salkin describes a recent Pennsylvania case where this happened in "PA Appeals Court Agrees that City Must Issue Condition Use Permit for Strip Club Where City Failed to Meet Burden of Proof".

The Pittsburgh zoning code was updated in 2009 and permitted adult entertainment as a conditional use in the Urban Industrial zoning district. Marquise wanted to operate a strip club on land in the urban industrial zone, but the City Council failed to hold a hearing as was required by the Pittsburgh Code and Marquise’s application was subsequently denied. The trial court granted the application and the City appealed.The City argued on appeal that it had presented substantial evidence that the proposed strip club would cause harm to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Court noted that the burden of persuasion as to health, safety and welfare concerns falls on the objector, in this case the City. The Court looked to the language in the ordinance and determined that the burden of persuasion had not expressly shifted to the applicant.

Instead, the Court noted that the applicant only had to show specific requirements while the City had the burden to show all general policy concerns and negative effects.

Marquise satisfied all of the required specific conditions set out in the Pittsburgh Code. The Court further noted that the City only presented speculative evidence of the possible harm that would be caused by granting the conditional use permit. Additionally, the City failed to present any evidence of potential health and safety impacts as well as evidence that the proposed strip club would cause a detrimental effect on traffic. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision.

I guess these cases are often about adult entertainment facilities because you have enough money on one side and enough moral outrage on the other to get the case to a published level. Speculation isn't evidence. Also, by not holding a hearing the City Council lost the benefit of judicial deference.

EMM

Randall comments: This is a two-way street as the Appellate Division indicated in Murane v Department of Educ. of the City of New York. In Murane the court noted that the employee’s contention that she received an unsatisfactory performance rating because the principal was biased against was "speculative and insufficient to establish bad faith." In other word, Murane was iewed by the court as ipse dixit* as she failed to present evidence sufficient to demonstrate bad faith on the part of the principal to support her allegation. The Murane decision is posted at: http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2011/03/four-month-statute-of-limitations-for.html.

* Latin: He himself said it. An unsupported statement that rests solely on the authority of the individual who makes it.
.

Terminating of a tenured public officer without an administrative hearing

Terminating of a tenured public officer without an administrative hearing
Pirozzi v Safir, App. Div., First Department, 270 AD2d 2, motion for leave to appeal denied, 95 NY2d 756

New York City police officer John Pirozzi was terminated from his position without a hearing after he was convicted of a crime he committed in the line of duty and that the appointing authority deemed constituted a violation of Pirozzi’s oath of office.

Claiming that he was entitled to administrative due process before he could be removed from his position, Pirozzi sued. The department, citing Section 30(1)(e) of the Public Officers Law, argued that Pirozzi was removed by operation of law upon his conviction and thus he was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing.*

The Appellate Division agreed and dismissed Pirozzi’s petition. The court said that Pirozzi was properly terminated from the Police Department without a hearing in light of his conviction of aggravated harassment in the second degree. The court cited Duffy v Ward, 81 NY2d 127, as authority for its ruling.

However, in the event a public officer is terminated pursuant to Section 30(1)(e) as a result of his or her conviction of a felony, or a crime involving the violation of his or her oath of office, and the conviction is later reversed or vacated, the individual may request reinstatement to his or her former position, except in cases where the former position was “an elective office.” In the event the appointing authority denies the individual’s request for reinstatement his or her former position, he or she is entitled to a hearing with respect to that decision if the initial conviction was the only basis for the termination.

* Section 30(1)(e) of the Public Officers Law applies only in cases where the individual is a public officer. A police officer is a public officer. Although every public officer is a public employee, not every public employee is a public officer.

===================
The Discipline Book - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State is a 1272 page e-book available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/ for additional information concerning this electronic reference manual.
===================
.

Refusal to accept shift reassignment results in employee's dismissal for "unauthorized absence"

Refusal to accept shift reassignment results in employee's dismissal for "unauthorized absence"
Kennedy v City of New York, 270 AD2d 93

The Kennedy decision demonstrates the importance of the following the principle “obey now; grieve later.”* In Kennedy’s case, her failure to honor that principle led to a disastrous results.

Stephanie Kennedy, an untenured employee in the noncompetitive class, was involuntarily reassigned to the night shift. She filed a grievance contending that a less senior employee should have been assigned to the night shift and refused to report to her assignment on the night shift while her grievance was pending.** As a result, she was terminated from her position.

Kennedy sued, alleging that her dismissal was made in bad faith because she was involuntarily reassigned to another shift without having been given a reasonable opportunity to arrange for childcare. The Appellate Division ruled that Kennedy’s termination was not made in bad faith.

The court pointed out that Kennedy presented no evidence that she had sought “an accommodation with respect to the transfer*** while she tried to arrange for childcare or invoked the hardship exception provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.”

The problem, said the court, was that Kennedy absented herself from work without permission while she pursued her unsuccessful grievance based on her claim that other, more junior employees should have been made to work the night shift. This unauthorized absence neutralized any inference of bad faith on the part of the appointing authority when it discharged her.

* However, there are exceptions to this general rule such as where complying with the employer’s directive would involve an unlawful act or expose the individual or others to bodily harm.

* Kennedy’s grievance was ultimately denied.

*** The court’s decision characterized Kennedy’s change to the night shift as a transfer. It would be better to have described it as a reassignment. Transfers within the meaning of the Civil Service Law involve a movement of a individual under the jurisdiction of one appointing authority to another; a reassignment of an individual involves his or her change from one position to a different position under the jurisdiction of the same appointing authority.
.

Arbitrator’s award based on a finding of “past practice” did not modify the collective bargaining agreement between the parties

Arbitrator’s award based on a finding of “past practice” did not modify the collective bargaining agreement between the parties
Matter of Romaine v New York City Tr. Auth., 2011 NY Slip Op 02015, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court decision confirming an arbitration award, noting that “An arbitration award rendered after a consensual arbitration may be vacated by a court only on the grounds set forth in CPLR 7511(b).*

The court ruled that the arbitrator had not modified the relevant collective bargaining agreement [CBA] by relying on “past practices” to determine that the New York City Transit Authority was required to assign "shuttle work" to volunteers on its overtime list.

The arbitrator essentially determined that a mutual agreement had developed between the parties with respect to “shuttle work” over the past 20 years, which was an integral part of the collective bargaining agreement and “did not negate or bypass an express provision of the CBA.”

The Appellate Division also rejected the Transit Authority’s argument that the arbitration award “violates a strong public policy,” commenting that "[T]he scope of the public policy exception to an arbitrator's power to resolve disputes is extremely narrow."

Here, said the court, the Authority failed to show that the "court can conclude without engaging in any extended fact-finding or legal analysis that a law prohibit[s], in an absolute sense, [the] particular matters [to be] decided'" or that the award itself violates a well-defined law of this State.”

* The Appellate Division also noted that “A court may vacate an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitrator "exceeded his [or her] powers" within the meaning of CPLR 7511(b)(1)(iii) "only where the arbitrator's award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02015.htm
.