Commissioner of Education lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a person dismissed from a position in the Classified Service

Commissioner of Education lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a person dismissed from a position in the Classified Service

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 16,620

An Education Analyst [EA] filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Education challenging the New York City Department of Education’s terminating her employment and sought an order by the Commissioner directing the Department to reinstate her to her "former job status and title with full benefits."

The Department claimed that EA “was a probationary employee appointed to a civil service position [i.e., a position in the classified service] who failed to meet its expectations, that she was terminated from her position during her probationary period, and that its actions were legal, proper and reasonable.”*

The Commissioner said that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction explaining that Civil Service Law §17 vests jurisdiction to administer the provisions of the Civil Service Law with respect to the offices and employments in the classified service in the applicable civil service commission, personnel officer or other form of civil service administration.

In case of the City of New York, the City is empowered to administer the Civil Service Law through whatever form of administration it chooses to prescribe in its City Charter. Further, said the Commissioner, Civil Service Law §102(3) vests jurisdiction to address alleged violations of the Civil Service Law in State Supreme Courts.

In contrast, the Commissioner noted that under of the Civil Service Law §35(g), the Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction over positions certified as positions involving teaching and the supervisory staff of school districts and BOCES,  i.e., positions in the Unclassified Service.

The position of Education Analyst, however, is not among the positions that have been certified by the Commissioner of Education pursuant to §35 (g) of the Civil Service Law as a position involving teaching or being a member of the supervisory staff of a school district or a BOCES. To be considered a pedagogical position for which certification by the Commissioner is required the position must involve teaching or “the function of administration of teaching, i.e., supervision and direction of supervisors, principals and all other members of the teaching and supervisory staffs.”

Finding that there was no evidence in the record that EA’s job duties involved teaching or the supervision of pedagogical staff, the Commissioner said that “It is well settled that the termination of a classified [service] employee is not the proper subject of an appeal brought pursuant to §310 of the Education Law" and dismissed EA’s appeal.

*The Civil Service of the State of New York consists of positions jurisdictionally classified as being in the Unclassified Service and positions jurisdictionally classified as being in the Classified Service. In addition, there are a number of positions in the Military Service of the State.

.

Dismissal of a teacher rated satisfactory for 18 consecutive years until assigned to a special education class overturned as “shocking to the court’s sense of fairness”

Dismissal of a teacher rated satisfactory for 18 consecutive years until assigned to a special education class overturned as “shocking to the court’s sense of fairness”

2014 NY Slip Op 05032, Appellate Division, First Department

A licensed common branches and special education teacher [Teacher] had been employed by the New York City Department of Education for more than 21 years when he was terminated in 2011. He had received satisfactory ratings for 18, Teacher was then assigned to a self-contained special education class comprised of 12 students who were chronologically fourth, fifth, sixth, graders, but who were functioning at two and three years below grade level. The principal of the school rated Teacher unsatisfactory. Teacher's request to be assigned to another class or, in the alternative, be assigned an aide or assistant, was denied.

Teacher was again assigned the same class with the same group of students for three consecutive years, until the older students completed the eighth grade. He was rated as unsatisfactory all three years he taught this class based in part on his inability to control the classroom and his inability to plan and effectively execute certain lessons. His requests to be assigned to a different class were repeatedly denied, although various teachers and administrators were purported to advise him as to how to improve his performance. Teacher was also criticized for “failing to follow the Teacher's College Workshop Model lessons, even though the Workshop Model made no provisions for students with learning disabilities.”

Served with disciplinary charges, the Hearing Officer determined that Teacher was guilty of seven out of nine of the specified charges spanning a three-year period. Although the Hearing Officer acknowledged that Teacher had attempted to improve his performance by working with a mentor and participating in the Peer Intervention Plus Program (PIP Plus), the Hearing Officer deemed his performance to be unsatisfactory.

Teacher contended that the remediation efforts were inadequate as he never received organized or consistent lessons from his peers and that they usually consisted of rushed, disorganized, and informal hallway meetings. He also contended that the assistance he received from the assistant principals was uncoordinated and often contradictory. As an example, Teacher said that he had sought help designing a lesson from one assistant principal but when a different assistant principal observed the lesson that the first assistant principal had prepared with him, the second one rated it as unsatisfactory “because the lesson failed to follow a specific structure established by written guidelines.”

Although the Appellate Division said that it did not dispute the specific findings of the Hearing Officer concerning Teacher's deficiencies in the management of this one special education class, it found that under the circumstances presented here the penalty of termination shocked its sense of fairness.

The court said that it was troubled “to see [the Department of Educations] apparent determination to terminate [Teacher], a 21-year veteran with 18 years of satisfactory ratings, because of his difficulty with one class in which he was kept for three years.

Finding that the Hearing Officer's decision to dismiss Teacher to be manifestly disproportionate to his conduct, the Appellate Division remand the matter “for the imposition of a lesser penalty.”

_______________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - a 442-page volume focusing on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. Now available in two formats - as a large, paperback print edition, and as an e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

_______________

 .

Filing age discrimination complaints in federal courts

Filing age discrimination complaints in federal courts

Hildebrand v Allegheny [Pennsylvania] County, USCA, 3^rdCircuit, Docket 13-1231

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a state or local government employee may not maintain an age discrimination in employment action pursuant to the Civil Rights Statute, 42 U.S.C 1983, but may only proceed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA], 29 U.S.C. §§621-634.

The court agreed with Allegheny County’s argument that the ADEA “is the exclusive remedy for claims of age discrimination in employment” and thus its employee was precluded from bring a  §1983 cause of action alleging age discrimination, explaining that §1983 is a statutory remedy* and Congress retains the authority to repeal it or replace it with an alternative remedy, in this instance the ADEA.

The Circuit Court also held that the plaintiff in this action was not obligated to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies with particularity but may, instead, allege in general terms that the required administrative process had been completed.

* The Circuit Court also noted that The Supreme Court has held that §1983 suits are precluded by statute in a case where a plaintiff sought vindication of a constitutional – rather than a statutory – right, citing Smith v Robinson, 468 U.S. 992.

NYS State Department of Civil Service has established a resource center to assist in the recruitment persons with disabilities for appointment to State positions

NYS State Department of Civil Service has established a resource center to assist in the recruitment persons with disabilities for appointment to State positions
Source: NYS Department of Civil Service General Information Bulletin 14-01

Civil Service Law §55-b provides for the employment of persons with disabilities by the State. The Civil Service Commission may determine up to 1,200 that may be performed by persons with a physical or mental disability who are found otherwise qualified to perform satisfactorily the duties of any such position. Upon such determination the position is placed in the noncompetitive class and may be filled only by persons who have been certified by the Department’s Employee Health Service as being a person with either a physical or mental disability.

Civil Service Law §55-c provides for the employment of veterans with disabilities by the State. 500 such positions may be designated by the State Civil Service Commission as positions with duties that may be performed by disabled veterans and veterans with disabilities who are found otherwise qualified to perform satisfactorily. Such positions are also placed in the noncompetitive class and may be filled only by veterans of the armed forces of the United States who served during time of war as defined in Civil Service Law §85.1(c).*

Employees appointed to positions pursuant to §55-b or §55-c are eligible to compete promotional examinations.

The Department of Civil Service has established a “55-b/c Recruitment Resources Center.” The Center’s Internet site is www.cs.ny.gov/rp55 and will serve as the central online location through which individuals currently approved for the Governor’s Program to Hire Individuals and Veterans with Disabilities (55-b or 55-c Program) will submit up-to-date employment and contact information for consideration by State agencies filling entry-level positions. This site is designed to make it quicker and easier for State agencies to find qualified 55-b/c job seekers. The Department encourages State Departments and Agencies to begin using the 55-b/c Recruitment Resources Center when filling entry-level positions.

Questions regarding the 55-b/c program or use of the 55-b/c Recruitment Resources Center, may be emailed SSDRecruitServices@cs.ny.gov or call: (518) 473-8961 for questions regarding the Governor’s Program to Hire Persons with Disabilities (55-b Program); or(518) 473-9733 for the Governor’s Program to Hire Veterans with Disabilities (55-c Program).

The text of the Department’s General Information Bulletin 14-01 is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/Manuals/SPMM/GIBS/GIB14-01.cfm

*N.B. There are two “§55-c” set out in the Civil Service Law. The second “§55-c" provides for the acceptance of a high school individualized education plan diploma granted to a child with handicapping conditions whenever a high school diploma is required by the State Civil Service Department or a municipal civil service commission or personnel officer as a minimum qualification in any competitive examination. 

.

Essential considerations in a court’s review of an administrative decision after an administrative hearing required by law

Essential considerations in a court’s review of an administrative decision after an administrative hearing required by law
Willis v New York State Liq. Auth., 2014 NY Slip Op 04776, Appellate Division, Second Department

In this CPLR Article 78 action challenging a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority adopting the recommendation of an administrative law judge the Appellate Division succinctly sets out the essential elements in a court’s review of a challenge to the determination as follows:

1. "Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, and at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence;

2. “Substantial evidence is "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact;

3. Substantial evidence is "[m]ore than seeming or imaginary, it is less than a preponderance of the evidence, overwhelming evidence or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt;

4. "The standard demands only that a given inference is reasonable and plausible, not necessarily the most probable;

5. “The strict rules of evidence do not apply to administrative proceedings and hearsay evidence is admissible; and.

6. “Hearsay evidence may constitute substantial evidence if sufficiently relevant and probative and may, under appropriate circumstances, form the sole basis for an agency's determination, unless it is seriously controverted.”

In sustaining the challenged determination of the State Liquor Authority, the court explained that the Authority’s determination, sustaining three charges was supported by substantial evidence and that testimony at the hearing, consisting of conclusory denials, did not seriously controvert the Authority's showing of substantial evidence in support of the charges.

As to the penalty imposed by the Authority, the Appellate Division said that it was “not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,” citing S&S Pub, Inc. v NYS Liquor Authority, 109 AD3d 460, and that “[i]n setting a penalty, consideration of the history and previous record … is appropriate,” citing Untitled LLC v NYS Liq. Auth., 82 AD3d 460 among other decisions.

.