Unfair rejection of applicants for employment or a license required for employment because of a conviction of a criminal offense prohibited

In describing the thrust of New York State's Correction Law §752 the Appellate Division said §752 prohibits unfairly discriminating against persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses absent "a direct relationship between the offense(s) and the duties or responsibilities inherent in the license or employment sought or held by the individual, or such employment or license poses an unreasonable risk to the public" after consideration of certain enumerated elements set out in the statute.

The New York City Transit Authority [NYCTA] denied a former employee [Plaintiff] re-employment because he had been convicted of criminal possession of a firearm.

Plaintiff brought a CPLR Article 78 action and subsequently appealed Supreme Court's dismissal of his petition seeking a court order directing NYCTA to approve his application for reemployment. The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court's ruling, noting that NYCTA "reasonably determined" that Plaintiff's re-employment would pose an unreasonable risk. 

The court explained that when making its determination under color of §752, the public employer must consider the eight enumerated factors set out in Correction Law §753(1). These include, but are not limited to, considering the specific duties and responsibilities related to the employment sought, the age of the person at the time of the criminal offense, the seriousness of the offense, and information produced by the person with respect to his rehabilitation and good conduct. 

In its decision the court referred to an affidavit submitted by NYCTA's Director of Employment Operations for Human Resources indicating that NYCTA had reviewed the recommendation letters and certificates submitted by Plaintiff in support of his reemployment by NYCTA but had decided not to re-employ Plaintiff after considering all of the relevant factors including:

[1] The duties and role of the position Plaintiff was seeking;

[2] Plaintiff's prior work history with NYCTA;

[3] The seriousness of Plaintiff's prior misconduct; and 

[4] The amount of time that had elapsed since Plaintiff's misconduct.

Citing Bonacorsa v Van Lindt, 71 NY2d 60, the Appellate Division observed that a finding of unreasonable risk "depends upon a subjective analysis of a variety of considerations relating to the nature of the license or employment sought and the prior misconduct."

The Appellate Division opined that NYCTA's determination that Plaintiff would pose an unreasonable risk because "he was convicted of criminal possession of a firearm only two years before seeking re-employment with NYCTA and he sought a role that required unsupervised contact with the public and other employees" was reasonable and unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling.

Click HEREto access the Appellate Division's decision.

Performance reports and the testimony by administrators submitting the reports considered by the arbitrator in a disciplinary hearing

Supreme Court denied the Plaintiff's petition to vacate an arbitration award terminating Plaintiff's employment and granted the Appointing Authority's cross motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appealed Supreme Court's disposition of the matter.

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed [1] the Arbitrator's finding the Petitioner guilty of the disciplinary charges and specifications filed against him and [2] the penalty imposed, dismissal from his position. The court noted that the Arbitrator's decision was supported by the evidence, which included "eight observation reports and credible testimony of the principal and assistant principals who authored those reports," which described Plaintiff's persistent teaching deficiencies and inability to control his students.

Further, said the court, "[t]he evidence also demonstrated the school administrators' efforts to remediate [Plaintiff's] deficiencies, which ultimately were unsuccessful due to [Plaintiff's] lack of effort or interest in improving his performance."

Addressing the penalty imposed, termination of Plaintiff's employment, the Appellate Division opined that the penalty of dismissal "does not shock the conscience" in light of the prior disciplinary action taken against Plaintiff's which documented Plaintiff's "inability to meet standards of effective instruction" after considerable attempts were made to help him to improve his performance.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

 

 

Recall rights of educators receiving disability retirement benefits from the New York State Teachers' Retirement System

Plaintiff in this CPLR Article 78 proceeding applied for and was granted disability retirement benefits by the New York State Teachers' Retirement System [TRS].* 

Subsequently Plaintiff's condition improved and the school district [Board] recalled him and appointed Plaintiff as a probationary teacher. The Board subsequently summarily terminated Plaintiff from that position under color of §3013 of the Education Law and then appointed another individual to replace him.

Plaintiff challenged the Board's action, seeking a court order annulling the Board's  terminating his employment and directing the Board to reinstatement him to the position with back pay. Plaintiff argued, among other things, that the Board had "violated his recall rights pursuant to Education Law §2510 and interfered with his tenure rights by unlawfully terminating him without a hearing" in violation of §2510[3][a] of the Education Law. The Board, in its defense, contended, among other things, that Education Law §2510 only applied to small city school districts and Plaintiff's employer was a central school district.

Supreme Court granted Plaintiff's petition, holding that both Education Law §§2510(3)(a) and 3013(3)(a) applied under the circumstances. The court opined  that "the overall statutory scheme of both sections, as it related to recall rights, 'are most effectuated by affording similar protections to teachers within all school districts,' regardless of size." The court also ruled, among other things, that Plaintiff did not give up his recall rights upon acceptance of the position, and, in doing so, he also did not relinquish his rights to tenure.

The Board appealed Supreme Court's ruling, which ruling was affirmed by the Appellate Division following its analysis of the legislative history of the provisions of the Education Law respectively relied upon by the parties. 

Although the Board contended that Supreme Court erred in granting Plaintiff's petition as the controlling law is Education Law §3013, rather than Education Law §2510, arguing that §2510 does not grant recall rights to teachers who received disability retirement, the Appellate Division held:

1. Its review of Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 claims is limited to whether the Board's determination, made without a hearing, was arbitrary and capricious, irrational, affected by an error of law or an abuse of discretion;

2. No deference is given to the Board's interpretation of the law as the questions raised on appeal depend only "the accurate apprehension of legislative intent;" and

3. "The main goal in statutory construction is to discern the will of the Legislature and, as the clearest indicator of legislative intent is the statutory text, the starting point in any case of interpretation must always be the language itself, giving effect to the plain meaning thereof".

Citing Matter of Soriano v Elia, 155 AD3d 1496, [leave to appeal denied 31 NY3d 913], the Appellate Division held that Education Law §2510(3)(a) supersedes Educational Law §3013(3) (a) "as it regards recall rights, and, consequently, it applies to all school districts, not just those districts within cities with less than 125,000 inhabitants."

The court pointed out that "Education Law §2510 has generally not been limited in its application to small city school districts; rather, it has been applied to other types of school districts, including central school districts," citing a number of court decisions including Van Derzee v Board of Educ. of Odessa-Montour Cent. School Dist., 228 AD2d 998, leave to appeal denied 89 NY2d 803.

Accordingly, the Appellate Division found that Plaintiff in the instant appeal "was entitled to recall rights pursuant to Education Law §2510(3)(a), which included, among other things, an opportunity for an administrative hearing prior to his termination," and held that "the Board's summary termination of [Plaintiff's]  employment was affected by an error of law and Supreme Court properly granted [Plaintiff's] petition."

* See §511 of the Education Law, which provides for a member of the New York State Teachers' Retirement System's "Retirement on account of disability" in general, and subdivisions (4), (5), and (6) of §511 of the Education Law with respect to discontinuing such disability retirement status in particular.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision. 

 

Former school district treasurer sentenced after pleading guilty to stealing school district funds

This decision illustrates acts of misconduct by a public official called Jobbery, i.e., using one's public office or position of trust for ones' personal gain or advantage.

On May 14, 2021, State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli reported that a former school district treasurer pled guilty to stealing $34,000 from the school district at which she was employed.

The former district treasurer admitted she stole about $24,000 by depositing checks payable to the school district into bank accounts that she controlled. She also admitted stealing at least $10,000 more by using the school district’s Amazon account and credit cards to purchase personal items while serving as the district's treasurer over a six year period. Pleading guilty to two counts of federal program theft for stealing from a school district that received federal funds, she was sentenced to two years of probation, will be required to serve 50 hours of community service and was ordered to pay $34,000 in restitution.

Comptroller DiNapoli said that this case was investigated in partnership with the FBI and the New York State Police and was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of New York.

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has been committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by mailing a complaint to Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236, or by filing a complaint online at investigations@osc.state.ny.us.

 

The top 20 NYPPL searchers made during the weekend ending May 16, 2021

Have you ever wonder what other NYPER readers are researching over a weekend?

Below are the headings of the top 20 NYPPL items accessed during the weekend ending May 16, 2021.

Reports issued during the week ending May 14, 2021 by the New York State Comptroller

Giving effect to the plain meaning of the relevant statutory language is the clearest indicator of legislative intent

Education Law Blogs

Ability to pass hearing test without the assistance of a hearing aid found a business necessity for the purpose of qualifying for a security position

Responding to Freedom of Information requests

Residence requirements for public officers

Workers’ compensation benefits not available for injuries sustained by an individual in the course of an altercation unrelated to his or her employment

Absence from an assigned post

Distinguishing between “constructive criticism” and a “reprimand” in the nature of disciplinary action

Anastasia Titarchuk named Chief Investment Officer of the New York State Common Retirement Fund

Nepotism and public employment in New York State

Requesting reconsideration of a final administrative decision does not serve to toll or extend the running of the controlling statute of limitations

IRS Alerts Payroll and HR Professionals to Phishing Schemes

Final administrative determination for the purposes of determining the statute of limitations

At-will employee not entitled to a pre-termination hearing

Important Information on W-2/SSN Data Theft Scam

Terminating an educator during his or her probationary period

Conducting disciplinary hearings in absentia

Court rules that the employer rebutted the employee’s prima facie case it unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race

Concerning name-clearing hearings