Employee demoted after being found guilty of misconduct

Employee demoted after being found guilty of misconduct

2013 NY Slip Op 07363, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

In this action an employee asked the Appellate Division to annul a determination by the appointing authority finding the employee guilty of specified acts of misconduct and demoting the employee to a lower grade position.

The court rejected the employee's claim that the appointing authority’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence, explaining that substantial evidence is "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact," citing 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176.

Further, said the Appellate Division, the penalty imposed by the appointing authority, demotion, “is not so disproportionate to the offense[s] as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, and thus does not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_07363.htm
.

Applying the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Applying the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

Marsico v Armstrong, 2013 NY Slip Op 07487, Appellate Division, Second Department

Education Law §2510(2) provides that “Whenever a board of education abolishes a position under this chapter, the services of the teacher having the least seniority in the system within the tenure of the position abolished shall be discontinued [emphasis supplied].*

The Board of Education abolished Business Education teacher positions in accordance with Education Law §2510(2) and then established a preferred eligible list pursuant to Education Law §2510(3) for use in the event a vacancy became available and the Board elected to fill the position.

Donna Marsico was granted tenure as a Business Education teacher by the Board effective September 1, 1994. Upon the abolishment of her positions, the Board placed Marsico’s name on the appropriate preferred list as “the most senior teacher for rehiring purposes.” The Board, however, later concluded that Marsico’s service with the school district as an Adult Education teacher from 1993 to 2007 should not have been considered in determining her seniority for placement on the preferred list.

The Board then adopted a resolution establishing a new preferred eligible list listing the names of two other teachers as having greater seniority in the tenure area than Marsico. One of those teachers was later appointed from the preferred list.

Marsico filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 [1] seeking a review of the resolution establishing the new preferred eligible list, [2] seeking an order to compel the Board to restore “her reinstatement rights pursuant to the initial preferred eligible list” and [3] directing the Board to appoint her to the position to which the other teacher had been appointed.

The Board moved to dismiss Marsico’s petition based upon the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.** Supreme Court granted the Board’s motion to the extent that it  “stayed the proceeding and referred the matter to the Commissioner of Education”

The Commissioner subsequently decided Marisco’s administrative appeal challenging the Board's several determinations and agreed with the Board, dismissing her administrative appeal on the merits. [Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision 16,158].***

.

The Supreme Court then denied Marisco’s petition and dismissed the proceeding.

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s ruling explaining that “Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court either should have dismissed the petition upon the [Board’s] motion, pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or, upon the Commissioner's determination of the administrative appeal, should have permitted Marsico to amend her petition so as to seek review of the Commissioner's determination and to join the Commissioner as a party.”

As Supreme Court elected to await the Commissioner's determination rather than dismiss the petition, the Appellate Division remitted the matter Supreme Court “to permit Marsico to amend her petition and join the Commissioner as a party and, thereafter, for a determination of the amended petition.”

* In contrast, in the event positions in the competitive class in the classified service are abolished [educators are in the unclassified service], §80.1 of the Civil Service Law provides that the incumbents of such positions shall be laid off “in the inverse order of original appointment on a permanent basis in the classified service in the service of the governmental jurisdiction in which such abolition positions occurs [emphasis supplied]. §80-a(1) of the Civil Service Law so provides for employees in the noncompetitive class employed by the State as the employer[emphasis supplied].

** The doctrine of primary jurisdiction may be applied by a court in order to permit an administrative agency an initial opportunity to decide an issue in a case in which the court and the agency have concurrent jurisdiction.

*** The Commissioner's decision is posed on the Internet at: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume50/d16158.htm

The Appellate Division's decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_07487.htm

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

The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant New York State laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5216.html

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

.

Employee has a duty of loyalty to the appointing authority

Employee has a duty of loyalty to the appointing authority

56 N.Y.2d 656

An employer is sometimes confronted with a situation in which an employee’s duty of loyalty to the employer is called into question or there appears to be a conflict of interest with respect to the employee’s performance.

In this action, the employee sued the agency after it had discharged him for “disloyalty and conflict of interest.”

At the time of his dismissal, the employee served as an associate counsel to the agency. The agency alleged that while its employee, the individual was also actively assisting one of the organizations that the agency was established to regulate.

In the words of the Court of Appeals, “Given the nature of the attorney-client relationship and petitioner's position as associate counsel to [agency] ... it cannot be said that reports of [the employee's] active assistance to two public interest lobbying groups regulated by the [agency] were an improper basis for the [agency's] decision to terminate petitioner's employment (cf. Arnett v Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134; Cooper v Johnson, 590 F.2d 559). Nor was petitioner entitled to a due process hearing* inasmuch as he never alleged that there was public dissemination of the reasons for his dismissal. Finally, petitioner, a nontenured employee, has demonstrated no procedural violation in the manner in which his employment was terminated.”

* Presumably the court was referring to a "name clearing hearing."
.

Retirement System not required to explain the tax implications of its response to an employee’s question

Retirement System not required to explain the tax implications of its response to an employee’s question

Hauser v. Comptroller, 83 A.D.2d 649

From time to time Personnel Officers receive questions from employees that may require extensive analysis or speculation because of the fact that there may be different results depending on the course of action followed by the employee. It seems that as long as the answer is correct, the Court will not impose an unreasonable burden on the administrator to explain the implications of the answer.

The case arose when a retiree sought to change the basis for his retirement from “service retirement” to “ordinary disability” retirement.

Max Hauser contended that the Employees’ Retirement System should have advised him of the possible federal tax benefits were he to elect “ordinary disability” retirement rather than the service retirement option.

In rejecting the argument, the Court indicated that the information given Hauser regarding the amount of benefits was correct and “to require the Retirement System to advise every applicant of the tax implications of their retirement would impose an unreasonable burden on the system”.
.

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending November 16, 2013

Selected reports and information published by New York State's Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli during the week ending November 16, 2013

Click on text highlighted in color  to access the full report

DiNapoli Announces New In–State Private Equity Investment Through Softbank Capital

On Friday, November 15, 2013 State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Friday announced the New York State Common Retirement Fund’s In–State Private Equity Program investment in The Dodo Inc., a start–up website focusing on animal issues, through investment manager SoftBank Capital.

DiNapoli: Former Fire District Treasurer Accused of Stealing More Than $50,000

The former Crystal Beach Fire District treasurer was arrested Thursday, November 14, 2013 for allegedly stealing and spending more than $50,000 of public funds on tanning, TV and shopping sprees, according to State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

Comptroller DiNapoli Releases Municipal Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli Wednesday announced his office completed audits of the

Northern Onondaga Public Library District and the

Town of Sidney.

Comptroller DiNapoli Releases State Audits

New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced Wednesday, November 13, 2013 the following audits have been issued:

Plaza College;

Dowling College;

Mercy College;

Department of Health;

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority;

State University of New York Farmingdale State College; and the

State Education Department.
.