Employee’s dismissal overturned after court finds that the penalty of termination was so disproportionate as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness

Employee’s dismissal overturned after court finds that the penalty of termination was so disproportionate as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness
James v Hoosick Falls Cent. School Dist., 2012 NY Slip Op 02374, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Board of Education of the Hoosick Falls Central School District terminated Dennis James’ employment.after he was found guilty of disciplinary charges filed against him pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 flowing from his alleged involvement in an off-duty domestic dispute. The District's Superintendent of Schools, Kenneth A. Facin, became concerned about James’ continued presence at the school after he learned of the alleged incident and initiated the disciplinary action.

The Hearing Officer determined that James and his girlfriend had a physical altercation during which James’ girlfriend was injure and "considering the severity of the resultant injuries, nature of [James’] conduct, and the public backlash,” recommended that James be dismissed from his position. The Board adopted the Hearing Officer's findings and terminated James.

One of the first issues addressed by the Appellate Division was James’ argument that “the Hearing Officer erred in basing his determination upon substantial evidence rather than a preponderance of the evidence.”

The Appellate Division rejected this theory, citing Rosenthal v Hartnett, 36 NY2d 269. The court noted that “Although Civil Service Law §75 does not articulate a specific level of proof for the hearing level (a gap frequently filled by a provision of collective bargaining agreements), the substantial evidence standard that is generally applicable to administrative determinations applies to disciplinary matters involving public employees under the statute.

As to James’ contention that the Hearing Officer admitted into evidence a written statement prepared by an individual who did not appear at the hearing, the court said that §75(2) provides that "[c]ompliance with technical rules of evidence shall not be required" and it is settled that hearsay may be considered at hearings conducted under the statute.”

Finding that substantial evidence supported the Hearing Officer's determination, the Appellate Division said that it would defer to the Hearing Officer's credibility determinations and, “accepting those determinations, the record contains ample evidence of James’ actions to sustain the two charges.”

However, the court found merit in James’ assertion that the penalty was inconsistent with the Pell Doctrine,*arguing that “termination was so disproportionate as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,” pointing out that James:

[1] had been employed by the District for 20 years without any prior incidents of misconduct;

[2] the misconduct in question occurred off premises; 

[3] the misconduct did not involve anyone associated with the school;

[4] James “did not hold a high profile job at the school;”

[5] the District pursued the disciplinary charges out of concern for the safety of the school, but it was conceded that no member of the school’s staff had indicated a concern about working with James; and

[6] there was no proof introduced indicating that the students at the school were in any danger because of James’ presence.

The Appellate Division said that “under these circumstances, termination is unduly disproportionate” and remitted the matter to the School District “for imposition of a less severe penalty.”

* Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02374.htm

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

The Discipline Book, - a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State. This more than 1500 page e-book is now available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/for additional information concerning this electronic reference manual.

 =======================

Payments for vacation credit upon retirement or resignation must be authorized by formal resolution by the governing body

Payments for vacation credit upon retirement or resignation must be authorized by formal resolution by the governing body

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision #11173

A board of education resolution appointing its school superintendent included a clause stating that the superintendent would "continue to receive and be eligible for all contractual benefits accrued over his years of service with the District."

When the superintendent resigned he expected to be paid for his accumulated but unused vacation credit and had submitted his resignation "subject to (his) vacation pay." The Commissioner of Education, however, ruled that this was not sufficient to overcome the need for the type of formal resolution required by §92 of the General Municipal Law.*

After holding that paying prior administrators for unused vacation could not be relied upon to support such a payment, the Commissioner concluded that the Board's resolution appointing the superintendent "is not the type of resolution contemplated by §92" as is was not "an act clearly declarative of the will of the Board...to pay any administrator cash in lieu of unused vacation." The Commissioner also ruled that the superintendent had not proved the existence of an "oral contract" to provide for such a payment.

Typically §92 is strictly construed as it expresses a statutory exception to the prohibition against gifts of public monies set out in Article VII, §7 of the State Constitution. Accordingly, the resolution authorizing expenditure such as those to "liquidate" vacation credits**must be clear and unequivocal.

Where a contract, such as one resulting from Taylor Law negotiations, provides for such payments, the prevailing view is that such payments are lawful.

* §92.1 of the General Municipal Law, in pertinent part, provides that “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any such governing board or mayor may also in like manner provide for cash payment of the monetary value of accumulated and unused vacation time or time allowances granted in lieu of overtime compensation standing to the credit of its officers and employees at the time of their separation from the service, or in case of death in service, to be paid to their beneficiaries.”

** N.B. §92.1, however, is silent with respect to the liquidation of “unused sick leave” upon separation from service or in the case of death while in service.

A tentative collective bargaining agreement between the State and Council 82 Supervisors Unit announced

A tentative collective bargaining agreement between the State and Council 82 Supervisors Unit announced

Source: Office of the Governor

On April 5, 2012 Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and Council 82 Executive Director James Lyman announced a tentative contract agreement between the State and Council 82 Supervisors Unit.

The tentative contract, which is subject to ratification by unit members includes zero percent wage increases for 2011-2013 and ensures protections against layoffs, and offers health benefits commensurate with other state bargaining units. The contract provides for a 2% general salary increase in both 2014 and 2015, 9 days of deficit reduction leave, and adjustments to the health insurance premium.

The agreement follows the pattern of contracts negotiated over the past year and includes:

> A zero percent wage increases for 2011-2013; a 2% increase in both 2014 and 2015.

> The agreement includes 3% and 4% wage increases for 2009-2011; same pattern as other units that have completed negotiations for a new agreement. These increases were previously reserved for in the state financial plan.

> A $1,000 retention bonus paid out $775 in the third year and $225 in the fourth year.

> Deficit Reduction Leave (DRL) totaling nine days, saving $2.3 million. The total deduction for the days comes from the "retro pay for 2009-11."

> Employees will be repaid the value of 4 DRL days in equal installments starting at the end of the contract term.

> Retroactive payments that are scheduled to be paid in one payment this fiscal year.

· A six percent increase for health insurance premiums, making the employee share 16% for individuals and 31% for family premiums.

> A health plan opt-out so officers can opt-out through a spouse/partner to a non-State health plan.

> Members will receive broad layoff protection. However, workforce reductions due to management decisions to close or restructure facilities authorized by legislation, SAGE recommendations or material or unanticipated changes in the state's fiscal circumstances are not covered by this limitation.

COLA pension increases affect Section 207-a retirement benefits

COLA pension increases affect Section 207-a retirement benefits
Wise v Jennings, 290 AD2d 702, 703, lv denied 97 NY2d 612

Section 207-a of the General Municipal Law provides that firefighters who retire after suffering a work-connected disability are to receive employer-paid supplements to their retirement allowance until their mandatory age of retirement.

The amount of the supplement: the difference between their retirement allowance and the amount that they would have earned as active firefighters had they not retired for disability, including adjustments for negotiated salary increases.

When the legislature provided for an automatic cost of living adjustment [COLA] to retirees, including those retired for accidental or service connected disability, the City of Albany advised its retirees receiving Section 207-a supplements that it would recompute and reduce their supplements to reflect the increase they received as a result of the COLA adjustment. William Wise, a retired City of Albany firefighter and President of the Albany Permanent Professional Firefighters Retirees' Association, sued the City contending that the City could not withholding any portion of the supplemental income payments as an adjustment for the amount that they receive as a COLA increase. A Supreme Court justice dismissed Wise's petition and he appealed.

Pointing out that General Municipal Law Section 207-a was intended only to affect the source, not the amount, of payments made to disabled firefighters, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's ruling.

The Appellate Division said that COLA's legislative history demonstrates that it constituted a clear policy directive to offset the negative effects of inflation experienced by public retirees whose pension benefits were eroded as a result of annual increases in the cost of living without commensurate increases in benefits. Accordingly, the court reasoned, "[a]s a clear pension supplement, we agree that since the payment of the adjustment is dependent upon the right to receive a disability retirement allowance, the COLA adjustment must be found to be generated through that income stream."

As Section 207-a only permits the employer to supplement the "difference between the amounts received under such allowance or pension and the amount of the firefighters' regular salary or wages [had he or she remained an active firefighter]," the deduction of an amount equal to the COLA adjustment from the firefighters' Section 207-a supplement was proper. This determination, said the court, is consistent with the underpinnings of Section 207-a, which is to ensure that permanently disabled firefighters receive an amount equal to that of active firefighters holding the same position and rank with only the income source and not the amount affected.

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

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.

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

Allegations of defamation of the employee follow postings made on the employer's web site

Allegations of defamation of the employee follow postings made on the employer's web site 

Firth v State of New York, NYS Court of Appeals, 98 NY2d 365

From time to time, an employee will sue his or her public employer contending that he or she was defamed because of the employer's dissemination of information concerning his or her performance of official duties that the individual considers demeaning or embarrassing.

Among the most common "defamation" claims are those involving an individual alleging that internal communications between administrators or between an employee and an administrator or a third party concerning the worker contains libelous or defamatory statements.*

As a general rule, unless the individual is able to demonstrate "publication" and prove "malice," the courts usually dispose of such cases involving a public employer by applying the doctrine of "qualified immunity."

The electronic age has provided an additional potential source of litigation based on allegations that the publication of certain information constitutes libel.

Many public jurisdictions maintain a "web-site" to disseminate information to the public. The Firth decision concerns a situation where placing a report critical of an individual resulted in the individual suing the public entity for defamation.

George Firth, formerly employed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as its Director of the Division of Law Enforcement, sued the State, alleging that it defamed him when it placed a report issued by the Office of the State Inspector General critical of Firth's managerial style and the procedures he used in procuring weapons for the agency on State-maintained web-sites available to the public.

At a press conference, the Office of the State Inspector General distributed a report entitled The Best Bang for Their Buck, in which Firth's management style was criticized. On the same day, the State Education Department posted an executive summary of the report with links to the full text of the report on its Government Locator Internet site.

As characterized by the Court of Appeals, the central issue in Firth's appeal concerned how "defamation jurisprudence, developed in New York courts in connection with traditional, i.e., printed, mass media communications, applies to communications in a new medium -- cyberspace -- in the modern Information Age" insofar as the statute of limitations for bringing such a law suit is concerned.

The court's conclusion: the single publication rule is applicable to allegedly defamatory statements that are posted on an Internet site and an unrelated modification of information displayed in another part of the same Web site does not constitute a republication for the purpose of determining the one-year statute of limitations for defamation actions set out in Section 215(13) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

In effect, the statute of limitations begins to run when the statement alleged to have disparaged the individual is first made available on the Internet.

Although "republication" will "retrigger" the running of the statute of limitations, the Court of Appeals ruled that "[t]he mere addition of unrelated information to a Web site cannot be equated with the repetition of defamatory matter" as a separate publication.

Consider another aspect of the electronic distribution of information electronically -- the use of E-mail as a vehicle for transmitting statements alleged to disparage an individual. This issue was not addressed by the court in the Firth decision.

Clearly the date on which the E-mail was initially transmitted would trigger the running of the statute of limitations in such cases. But what is the effect of the "forwarding" of E-mail?

Will the courts consider "forwarding" an E-mail by the recipient to another individual to be a "republication" for the purposes of determining the timeliness of an action? Still another element to consider -- may the "forwarder" be sued for the alleged libel?

If the courts deem each "forwarding" [and, perhaps, the "forwarder"] of an E-mail to be an independent and unique "republication" for the purposes of determining the running of the statute of limitations and liability, it may be that alleged disparagement by E-mail may never become stale insofar as bringing a viable law suit is concerned. Undoubtedly these issues will be presented to the courts for resolution because of the proliferation electronic communication and dissemination of information in the workplace.

* Murphy v Herfort, 140 A.D.2d 415, is an example of litigation resulting from communications between administrators while Missek-Falkoff v Keller, 153 AD2d 841, is an example of a case in which one employee sued another employee claiming that the contents of a memorandum from the second employee to a superior concerning a "problem" with the coworker constituted libel. Allegations of defamation may arise following an employee's former employer supplying information to a prospective employer of the individual in response to a request for "references." Buxton v Plant City, 57 LW 2649, provides an example of this type of complaint.