An employee alleged not to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is entitled to notice of the allegation and the opportunity to contest it

An employee alleged not to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is entitled to notice of the allegation and the opportunity to contest it

Jakubowicz v Village of Fredonia, 2018 NY Slip Op 02059, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Supreme Court, Chautauqua County directed that Jakubowicz, an employee of the Village of Fredonia,  be "fully reinstated to his former employment with full back pay and benefits retroactive to the date of his termination." The Village appealed.*

The Appellate Division first addressed "Appeal No. 2" in which the Village contended that a commercial driver's license is a minimum qualification for Jakubowicz's position as a Mechanic II in the Village and that "his failure to maintain such minimum qualification required the termination of his employment."

The court rejected the Village's claim, noting that the Mechanic II position in the Village required  possession, "at time of appointment and during service in this classification, of a valid NYS Motor Vehicle Operator's license appropriate for the type of vehicles which the employee may from time to time operate."

Explaining that due process and fundamental fairness require that a qualification or requirement for employment must be expressly stated in order for an employer to bypass the protections afforded by the Civil Service Law or a collective bargaining agreement and summarily terminate an employee, the Appellate Division said that in this instance the  requirement of a commercial driver's license is not "expressly stated."

In addition, said the court, quoting Matter of Carr v New York State Dept. of Transp., 70 AD3d 1110, while "an employee charged with failing to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is only entitled to notice of the charge and the opportunity to contest it", the Village in this instance offered Jakubowicz a hearing "to afford [him] the opportunity to present information to the Village why [he] should not be administratively terminated from employment." However, there is no dispute that a hearing was never held.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court was correct in determining that Jakubowicz's termination was arbitrary and capricious.

* The Village submitted two appeals, denominated Appeal 1 and Appeal 2, but dismissed Appeal 1 as academic in view of its ruling with respect to Appeal 2.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02059.htm

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after an adversarial hearing is limited

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after an adversarial hearing is limited

Buccieri v County of Westchester, 2018 NY Slip Op 07305, Appellate Division, Second Department

A Westchester County employee [Petitioner] was served with disciplinary charges and specifications pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service. The appointing authority, the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation [Commissioner], suspended Petitioner without pay for 30 days while the §75 disciplinary action was pending.*

The §75 hearing officer found Petitioner guilty of a number of the specifications set out in the charges and recommended a penalty: a 30-day suspension without pay. The Commissioner adopted the findings of the hearing officer and imposed the penalty recommended, suspension with out pay for 30 days.**

Petitioner filed a CPLR Article 78 petition seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's determination, contending that the Commissioner was not a qualified decision maker.

Supreme Court agreed, finding that the Commissioner had actively participated in the underlying events leading up to the disciplinary proceeding. Thus, said the court, the Commissioner should have recused herself from reviewing the hearing officer's findings and recommendation and rendering a final determination.

Accordingly, Supreme Court remanded the matter the Commissioner to appoint a duly qualified, impartial decision maker to review the hearing officer's findings and recommendation and to render a new determination.

The Commissioner appointed a Westchester County Department of Human Resources Deputy Commissioner to review the hearing officer's findings and recommendation and to render a new final determination, and if Petitioner was found guilty of any of the charges and specification filed against Petitioner, the to be imposed.

The Deputy Commissioner adopted the findings and the penalty recommended by the §75 hearing officer, suspension of Petitioner's for 30 days without pay. Petitioner then commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a judicial review the Deputy Commissioner's determination.

The Appellate Division set out the following guidelines followed by courts in reviewing a challenge to an administrative determination such as one made after a §75 disciplinary hearing:

1. Judicial] review of an administrative determination in an employee disciplinary case made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 is limited to considering whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

2. It is the duty of the administrative tribunal, not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses and determine which testimony to accept and which to reject.

3. A court may set aside the penalty imposed by an appointing authority only if it found to be so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.

* An employee so suspended without pay pursuant to §75 must be respored to the payroll after 30 days pending a final disciplinary determination by the appointing authority.

** The time during which an officer or employee is suspended without pay may be considered as part of the penalty at the discretion of the appointing authority. If he or she is found not guilty of all charges and specifications, he or she shall be restored to his or her position with back pay for the period of his or her suspension without pay less the amount of any unemployment insurance benefits he or she may have received during such period.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_07305.htm

An employee alleged not to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is entitled to notice of the allegation and the opportunity to contest it

An employee alleged not to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is entitled to notice of the allegation and the opportunity to contest it

Jakubowicz v Village of Fredonia, 2018 NY Slip Op 02059, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Supreme Court, Chautauqua County directed that Jakubowicz, an employee of the Village of Fredonia,  be "fully reinstated to his former employment with full back pay and benefits retroactive to the date of his termination." The Village appealed.*

The Appellate Division first addressed "Appeal No. 2" in which the Village contended that a commercial driver's license is a minimum qualification for Jakubowicz's position as a Mechanic II in the Village and that "his failure to maintain such minimum qualification required the termination of his employment."

The court rejected the Village's claim, noting that the Mechanic II position in the Village required  possession, "at time of appointment and during service in this classification, of a valid NYS Motor Vehicle Operator's license appropriate for the type of vehicles which the employee may from time to time operate."

Explaining that due process and fundamental fairness require that a qualification or requirement for employment must be expressly stated in order for an employer to bypass the protections afforded by the Civil Service Law or a collective bargaining agreement and summarily terminate an employee, the Appellate Division said that in this instance the  requirement of a commercial driver's license is not "expressly stated."

In addition, said the court, quoting Matter of Carr v New York State Dept. of Transp., 70 AD3d 1110, while "an employee charged with failing to possess a minimum qualification of his or her position is only entitled to notice of the charge and the opportunity to contest it", the Village in this instance offered Jakubowicz a hearing "to afford [him] the opportunity to present information to the Village why [he] should not be administratively terminated from employment." However, there is no dispute that a hearing was never held.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court was correct in determining that Jakubowicz's termination was arbitrary and capricious.

* The Village submitted two appeals, denominated Appeal 1 and Appeal 2, but dismissed Appeal 1 as academic in view of its ruling with respect to Appeal 2.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02059.htm

Unauthorized recording of a court proceeding

Unauthorized recording of a court proceeding

Matter of Attorney Grievance Committee M-3080, 2018 NY Slip Op 07278, Appellate Division, First Department

Attorney Grievance Committee M-3080 for the First Judicial Department instituted disciplinary against an attorney alleging the attorney had made an unauthorized recording of a court proceeding in violation of New York Rules of Professional Conduct, 22 NYCRR 1200.0 rule 8.4(d), Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice.

The Committee found the attorney guilty of professional misconduct and a Referee was appointed to conduct a sanction hearing. Ultimately the parties stipulated that the attorney had engaged in a pattern of misconduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Noting  that [1] the attorney had no disciplinary history nor had ever been sanctioned by any court for misconduct; [2] the misconduct arose in the course of a contentious domestic relations action in which the attorney appeared pro se; [3] the attorney at the time of the incident had limited experience in the practice of law; and [4] the attorney had acknowledged  the wrongfulness of making an unauthorized recording in light of Rule 8.4(d), the Appellate Division found that " public censure" was an appropriate penalty and granted the parties' motion for "discipline by consent."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_07278.htm

Pension plan managers vested with exclusive authority to determine a member's retirement benefits precludes judicial review of its calculation of Plan benefits

Pension plan managers vested with exclusive authority to determine a member's retirement benefits precludes judicial review of its calculation of Plan benefits

Hughey v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 02129, Appellate Division, First Department

Plaintiff in this action retired from his position with the Long Island Rail Road, an MTA subsidiary, at age 63.49. Plaintiff, as a commuter rail employee, was also eligible to  receive Tier II pension benefits after the requisite years of service under the Railroad Retirement Act. In addition, MTA employees receive pension benefits from the MTA Pension Plan.

Article 3.07(a)(ii) of the MTA Pension Plan, provide for an "offset" that reduced the amount of benefits payable under the Plan by the benefits "which would be payable to the Member involved at age 62 under Tier II. "Plaintiff, however, was still in service at age 62 and did not retired from MTA at age 63.49. Accordingly, the amount of the offset was determined by the MTA's Board of Managers on the basis of Plaintiff's actual age at the effective date of his retirement, 63.49 years of age.

Plaintiff sought a review of the Board's determination basing his pension benefits on his actual age at retirement, 63.49 years rather than determining his pension benefits to be that which would have been payable had he actually retired at age 62, a difference of $160.83 per month.

The Board denied Plaintiff's appeal, which determination was affirmed by the Appellate Division. 

The court explained that "Article 6.02 of the Plan conferred on its Board of Managers" sole and absolute discretionary authority to interpret the Plan and decide any dispute and all matters arising in connection with the operation or administration of the Plan, as well as to decide questions, including legal and factual questions, relating to the calculation and payment of benefits under the Plan.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_02129.htm