Failure to give preclusive effect to a criminal conviction in an administrative disciplinary action involving the same incident reversible error

Failure to give preclusive effect to a criminal conviction in an administrative disciplinary action involving the same incident reversible error
Matter of Social Servs. Employees Union, Local 371 v City of New York, Dept. of Juvenile Justice, 2011 NY Slip Op 02455, Appellate Division, First Department

Judge Alice Schlesinger confirmed an arbitration award reinstating Bowana Robinson to his position as an institutional aide at the City of New York's Department of Juvenile Justice. The award also provided Robinson with back pay and seniority.

The Appellate Division vacated the lower court’s ruling and remanded the matter to the arbitrator “for a determination of an appropriate penalty.” The court said that the arbitrator had failed to “give preclusive effect” to the fact that Robinson had plead guilty plea of petit larceny, which “was irrational” and the arbitrator’s award “places Robinson back into a position where he has the responsibility to voucher property of individuals being brought into a juvenile facility.”

The ruling in Kelly v. Levin, 440 NYS2d 424 involved a similar situation - an administrative tribunal's failure to give preclusive effect to a relevant criminal conviction by a court. Kelly involved a school business administrator charged with larcenies of school funds and bringing discredit upon the school district.

The Education Law §3020-a disciplinary panel found the Kelly guilty of the charge of bringing discredit upon the district, but not guilty of the larceny charges. Kelly, however, had been convicted of two counts of grand larceny for theft of school property prior to being served with the §3020-a disciplinary charges (see People v Kelly, 72 AD2d 670).

The court ruled that it was reversible error for an administrative disciplinary body to acquit an employee if the individual has been found guilty of a criminal act involving the same allegations.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_02455.htm .

Refusing a light duty assignment may affect eligibility for other benefits

Refusing a light duty assignment may affect eligibility for other benefits

Peluso v Fairview Fire District, 269 AD2d 623

One factor to consider in cases involving claims resulting from job related injuries or disease: the impact of refusing to accept a light duty assignment with respect to other benefits that might be available to a disabled worker.

Clearly both General Municipal Law Section 207-a, applicable to firefighters and General Municipal Law Section 207-c, applicable to law enforcement personnel, provide for the discontinuation of benefits if a disabled police officer or firefighter declines to perform a light duty assignment consistent with his or her position unless the individual can produce evidence that he or she is medically unqualified to perform the light duty assignment.

In the Peluso case, the Appellate Division agreed with the Workers’ Compensation Board that Peluso’s rejection of a light duty assignment was evidence that he had voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. This, said the court, justified the Board denying his claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

Peluso retired from his position of fire captain, claiming he could no longer work as the result of a disabling back condition caused by several job related injuries.

The Appellate Division, in affirming the Board’s action, said that the fire chief’s testimony that several different types of light-duty assignments were available to all firefighters, including Peluso, depending on the nature of the disability constituted substantial evidence sufficient to sustain the Board’s determination.

The fire chief had testified that Peluso did not request a light-duty assignment, did not accept a light duty assignment when one was offered to him and that he continued to perform his regular duties as a captain, including responding to two calls on his last day of work.

=======================

General Municipal Law§§ 207-a and 207-c - a 1098 page e-book focusing on administering General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/207-c and providing benefits thereunder is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://section207.blogspot.com/ for additional information about this electronic reference manual.

========================

Disclosure of the terms of settlement agreements pursuant to a FOIL demand

Disclosure of the terms of settlement agreements pursuant to a FOIL demand

Hansen v Wallkill, App. Div., 2d Department, 270 AD2d 390

Sometimes an individual and an employer decides to terminate the individual’s employment or settle a disciplinary action in accordance with agreed upon terms and conditions. Such an agreement typically contains a “non-disclosure” clause. What happens if the terms of the settlement are made public without the expressed consent of both parties? This was the issue raised in the Hansen case.

Jon Hansen and the Town of Wallkill entered into a settlement agreement that required the Town to make “severance payments” to Hansen. When the town supervisor, Howard Mills, revealed the amount of the severance payments being made to Hansen under the terms of the agreement to the town board, Hansen sued for damages, claiming the disclosure constituted a breach of contract.

Hansen pointed to a clause in the agreement that provided that the terms of the settlement were to remain confidential except as may be required by law or legal process.

Mills, on the other hand, argued that the town board was told the amount of Hansen’s severance pay in response to a question during a regular meeting and that his disclosing this information was required under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).*

The Appellate Division sustained a lower court’s ruling dismissing Hansen’s complaint.

The court said that “[i]t is well settled that FOIL imposes a broad duty of disclosure on government agencies,” citing Section 84 of the Public Officers Law.

In essence, all public records are to be disclosed pursuant to a FOIL demand except:

1. When disclosure is specifically prohibited by law or by a court order; or

2. Where a record falls within an exception which permits the custodian of the record or document, as a matter of the exercise of discretion, to withhold the information and the entity elects to exercise its discetion and withholds it.

The disclosure of the amount of the severance payment, said the court, does not fall within any of the FOIL exceptions. Further, while the town supervisor did not seek court authorization for the disclosure, the agreement did not require prior court authorization to do so.

Suppose the information sought under FOIL concerns a disciplinary settlement. Can a public employer agree to keep the settlement document confidential?

This issue was considered by the Appellate Division in LaRocca v Jericho UFSD, 220 AD2d 424. In LaRocca, the court decided that the terms of a disciplinary settlement were subject to disclosure under FOIL.

The court held that a disciplinary settlement agreement did not constitute an employment history as defined by FOIL and therefore was presumptively available for public inspection. In addition, the court said that “as a matter of public policy, [a public employer] cannot bargain away the public’s right to access to public records.”

The Appellate Division decided that a settlement agreement, or any part of it, providing for confidentiality or denying the public access to the document is unenforceable as against the pubic interest.

The settlement agreement between LaRocca and Jericho, however, contained references to charges that LaRocca denied, or were not admitted, together with the names of other employees. The Appellate Division held that disclosure of those specific portions of the agreement would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy within the meaning of FOIL and thus could be redacted from the document.

* A “FOIL request” is the method used by an individual to inform the custodian of the public record involved that he or she wishes to inspect or copy public records and to identify the particular documents or records of interest.

Employee suspended without pay for eight days after being found guilty of refusing to immediately comply with supervisor’s instruction

Employee suspended without pay for eight days after being found guilty of refusing to immediately comply with supervisor’s instruction
NYC Dept. of Transportation v Solli, OATH Index #2888/10 .

OATH Administrative Law Judge Kara Miller recommended dismissal of charges brought against a New York City Department of Transportation employee. .

With respect to charges involving an alleged verbal and physical altercation with a co-worker with a co-worker, Judge Miller determined that the employee, Donna Solli, attempted to avoid a confrontation with a co-worker by leaving the area. .

The co-worker, however, followed Solli to a different location and initiated physical contact. Judge Miller found that “the force used by [Solli], if any, was defensive. .

Solli was also served with a separate charge of insubordination. The Department alleged that Solli refused her supervisor’s instructions to repair a pothole.

Although Solli ultimately complied with the supervisor’s directive, Judge Miller ruled that her failure to do so promptly was misconduct. .

The ALJ recommended that the Department place Solli on suspension without pay for eight days. . The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/10_Cases/10-2888.pdf
.

Extending a promotion eligible list following wrongful disqualification

Extending a promotion eligible list following wrongful disqualification
Matter of Carozza v City of New York, 37 AD3d 247

Brigitte Carozza won her lawsuit contending that she and her co-plaintiffs had been “wrongfully disqualified retroactively from consideration for promotion by reason of having just been placed in new job titles” (see Matter of Carozza v City of New York, 10 AD3d 488 [2004]).* As a result, Carozza and her co-plaintiffs were placed on promotion eligible lists just one month before those lists expired.

Carozza and her co-plaintiffs immediately brought a second lawsuit seeking the creation of special eligible lists pursuant to Civil Service Law §56(3). The placement of their names on such a list would provide them with an additional period of eligibility for promotion from a list. Carozza, and her co-petitioners, however, were not as successful in this second action.

The Appellate Division ruled that Carozza’s “successful challenge” to her, and her co-petitioners’ disqualification was not based on a finding that an error had caused a flaw in the entire promotional process, resulting in a list that did not accurately measure the merit and fitness of those candidates whose names were on the list.**

Accordingly, said the court, the remedy sought in this second lawsuit “does not comport” with the merit and fitness mandate set out in Article V, Section 6 of the New York State Constitution.

The court’s rationale: “Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the original lists had no legal existence and thus could not have expired.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at
:http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/eligibility-for-promotion.html

__________________________

* In Carozza I, the court said: “CSC rationally concluded that the employees' acceptance of jobs in a new title series could not retroactively disqualify them for promotions in their old title series for which they were qualified at the time they took the promotional examination, at least in the absence of clear notice that by accepting the new jobs they were effectively voiding the examinations and otherwise disqualifying themselves for promotion in the old series.”

** Civil Service Law §56(3), in pertinent part, provides as follows: Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the name of any applicant or eligible whose disqualification has been reversed or whose rank order on an eligible list has been adjusted through administrative or judicial action or proceeding shall be placed on an eligible list for a period of time equal to the period of disqualification or for the period the application has been improperly ranked, up to a maximum period of one year or until the expiration of the eligibility list, whichever is longer. If an eligible list expires prior to the expiration of such period of restoration, the name of the applicant or eligible shall be placed on a special eligible list, which shall have a duration equal to the remainder of the period of restoration.