The article is posted on the Internet at: https://nylawblog.typepad.com/suigeneris/2018/11/supreme-court-of-florida-weighs-in-on-judges-using-social-media.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SuiGeneris--aNewYorkLawBlog+%28Sui+Generis--a+New+York+law+blog%29
Summaries of, and commentaries on, selected court and administrative decisions and related matters affecting public employers and employees in New York State in particular and possibly in other jurisdictions in general.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS
December 01, 2018
Supreme Court of Florida weighs in on judges using social media
November 30, 2018
Employee's termination recommended after being found guilty of multiple charges and specifications
Employee's termination recommended after being found guilty of multiple charges and specifications
Dep’t of Transportation v. Mirhosseini, OATH Index No. 916/18
A computer associate employed by the New York City Department of Transportation was charged with multiple act of misconduct.
OATH Administrative Law Judge Ingrid M. Addison found the employee guilty of charges and specifications alleging the employee's:
● Being late and absent without leave on numerous occasions;
● Sleeping and lounging on the job on at least 10 occasions;
● Failing to promptly perform her assigned tasks on two occasions;
● Failing to comply with her supervisor’s directive to attend a training session;
● Being on social media on the job via the use of the office computer;
● Becoming loud and disruptive to her supervisor;
● Using Agency’s e-mail system to send abusive e-mails to recipients mainly comprised of her supervisors and directors;
● Sending false information about her director via e-mail which she copied to another New York City agency; and
● Failing to notify her supervisor, the office of labor relations, and the department of investigations that she had been arrested.
Judge Addison recommended that the Department impose the penalty of termination in view of the multitude acts of misconduct for which the employee had been found guilty.
November 29, 2018
Authority of an employer to prohibit an employee's legal use of marijuana permitted by state law
Authority of an employer to prohibit an employee's legal use of marijuana permitted by state law
Lance Carlson v. Charter Communications, LLC, USCA, 9th Circuit, No. 17-35917
§§50-46-320(4)(b) and 50-46-320 (5) of the Montana Marijuana Act [MMA] neither bars employers from prohibiting their employees from using marijuana nor authorizes wrongful termination or discrimination suits against employers.
After Charter Communications fired one of its employees, Lance Carlson, for his legal marijuana use outside of work, in violation of the company's employment policies set out in its employment handbook, Carlson sued Charter alleging wrongful termination and unlawful discrimination.
A Montana District Court dismissed Carlson's complaint and then refused to certify the question of whether these provisions of the MMA were constitutional to the Montana Supreme Court. Carlson appealed the Montana District Court's ruling.
The United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, affirmed the Montana District Court's ruling explaining that:
[1] the MMA does not preclude a federal contractor from complying with all the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act (DFWA), 41 U.S.C. §8102; and
[2] the MMA does not violate the Montana constitution.*
The Circuit Court observed that MMA is "rationally related to Montana’s legitimate state interest in providing 'careful regulation of access to an otherwise illegal substance for limited use by persons for whom there is little or no other effective alternative' while avoid[ing] entanglement with federal law.” In addition, the Circuit Court, noting that the United States Congress had adopted an appropriations rider currently restricting the Department of Justice from spending funds to prosecute individuals who comply with state marijuana laws, opined that "this temporary rule does not undercut Montana ’s legitimate state interests."
In the words of the Circuit Court, "[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carlson’s request to certify the question whether sections 50-46-320(4)(b) and (5) are constitutional to the Montana Supreme Court, because it is not an unclear question of state law appropriate for certification."
Lisa M. Schaffer, Esq., in an article posted on the Internet by FindlLaw,** notes that "A state could have a Marijuana Act that specifically prohibits employers from requiring drug-free employees. For instance, in 2018, Maine became the first state to protect workers and their non-workplace marijuana use by forbidding employers from drug testing for marijuana. Specifically, Maine 's Act to Legalize Marijuana forbids employers from discriminating against employees based on their legal marijuana use, though it does allow employers to prohibit the use and possession of marijuana 'in the workplace.'"
* The Carlson decision is posted on the Internet at:
November 28, 2018
Rejecting the findings of the hearing officer and the penalty recommended following a disciplinary action conducted pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law
Rejecting the findings of the hearing officer and the penalty recommended following a disciplinary action conducted pursuant to Civil Service Law §75
O'Connor v Cutting, 2018 NY Slip Op 07379, Appellate Division, Third Department
An Essex County deputy sheriff was served four disciplinary charges pursuant to Civil Service Law §75. The appointed Hearing Officer partially sustained two of the four charges and dismissed all the remaining charges. As to the penalty to be imposed, the Hearing Officer recommended that the deputy sheriff be suspended without pay for two months.
The Sheriff then appointed the County Manager to review the §75 Hearing Officer's findings and recommendation and make the final determination. After reviewing the hearing transcripts and exhibits, the City Manager issued a determination that rejected the §75 Hearing Officer's findings, sustained three of the charges and recommended that the deputy sheriff's employment be terminated.
The Sheriff adopted the City Manager's determination and recommended penalty and terminated the deputy sheriff'. The deputy sheriff challenged the Sheriff's decision and sought a court order annulling the City Manager's determination finding her guilty of the disciplinary charges or, in the alternative, an order vacating the penalty of dismissal imposed by the Sheriff. Supreme Court transferred the matter to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the Sheriff's decision.
Citing Matter of Kuznia v Adams, 106 AD3d 1227, the court explained that "The standard of review to be applied in reviewing an administrative determination made pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 is whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole."
Addressing the deputy sheriff's argument that the City Manager had "improperly substituted his own credibility determinations for those of the Hearing Officer," the Appellate Division said that the credibility determinations of a hearing officer are not binding upon the official charged with making a final determination, "who, in the exercise of his or her duty to weigh the evidence and resolve conflicting testimony, may make different factual findings and conclusions, provided they are supported by substantial evidence."
Finding that the City Manager had provided specific reasons for his credibility determinations that were supported by logical inferences drawn from the testimony and the additional evidence that had been adduced at the hearing and that the deputy sheriff was "the least credible witness," the Appellate Division said it found that the City Manager's "factual findings and conclusions" were supported by substantial evidence.
As to the penalty imposed on the deputy sheriff, dismissal from her position, the Appellate Division said that it found that the penalty of termination was "not excessive."
The court said that a penalty imposed by the appointing authority following a §75 disciplinary hearing must the upheld "unless it is 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," with due consideration given as to "whether the impact of the penalty on the individual is so severe that it is disproportionate to the misconduct, or to the harm to the agency or the public in general."
Finally the Appellate Division observed that it was mindful that great leeway must be accorded in matters concerning police discipline because "a higher standard of fitness and character pertains to police officers than to ordinary civil servants" and, inasmuch as strict discipline is essential for law enforcement administration, "the penalty of dismissal has been routinely upheld for officers who have disobeyed direct orders."
Here, said the court, "we cannot say that dismissing petitioner from her position as a deputy sheriff for disobeying a direct order shocks our sense of fairness."
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
November 27, 2018
Employee terminated for using department vehicle for non-work related purposes
Employee terminated for using department vehicle for non-work related purposes
Dep’t of Transportation v. Mirhosseini, OATH Index No. 916/18
A civil engineer with the New York City Department of Transportation was charged with repeatedly using a Department van for non-work related purposes; altering trip log sheets; misrepresenting his use of the vehicle by omitting entries on the trip log sheets; and failing to follow the directives of his supervisor.
OATH Administrative Law Judge Kara J. Miller did not credit employee’s claim that his supervisor had given him permission to use the van to run his personal errands and sustained those charges.
Judge Miller, however, found that the appointing authority did not prove that the employee falsified his time records or that he fraudulently received compensation for time he did not work.
The ALJ recommended that the employee be terminated from his position, which recommendation was adopted by the appointing authority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
CAUTION
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL.
For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf.
Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
NYPPL Blogger Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard.
Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law.
Email: publications@nycap.rr.com