Summarily terminating an individual serving a "disciplinary probation period"

In Ryan v City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 00966, decided on February 21, 2023, the Appellate Division's decision states that an individual in "dismissal probation" status may be terminated without a hearing for any reason, or no reason at all, absent a showing that the individual was dismissed in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason. At the time the charges resulting in Ryan's termination were brought, Ryan was on "dismissal probation" pursuant to a negotiated discipline settlement agreement which resolved earlier disciplinary charges brought against him.

Other decisions addressing summarily dismissing an individual serving a period of "disciplinary probation" include:

Taylor v Cass, 122 A.D.2d 885: A County employee won reinstatement with full back salary and contract benefits because the court determined that he was improperly dismissed while serving a disciplinary probation period. The terms of Taylor’s disciplinary probation provided that he could be terminated without any hearing if, in the opinion of his superior, his job performance was “adversely affected” by his “intoxication on the job” at any time during his disciplinary probationary period. Taylor was subsequently terminated without a hearing for “failing to give a fair day’s work” and “sleeping during scheduled working hours”; and

Wright v City of New York, 192 A.D.2d 411: The Appellate Division ruled that an employee who had agreed to a disciplinary probation in settlement of disciplinary charges filed against him that provided that his probation status would be the same as any other probationary employee was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing when he was dismissed because of subsequent incidents. In other words, under the terms of relevant disciplinary probation the individual was to be treated as a "new employee" and he could be summarily terminated for any lawful reason.

In York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, New York State's Court of Appeals set out the basic rule concerning the dismissal of probationary employees upon their appointment to a position in the Classified Service as follows: 

After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad faith.  

This reflects the view that the individual should be provided with a minimum period of time to demonstrate his or her ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position. Should the appointing authority elect to dismiss such a probationary employee before he or she has completed the individual's required minimum period of probation, the individual is entitled to "notice and hearing" otherwise accorded a "tenured employee." 

Another element to consider: New York State's Military Law §243(9) provides, in pertinent part, in the event a probationary employee deployed on military duty before the expiration of his or her maximum period of the individual's probationary, the time he or she is absent on such military duty is to be credited as satisfactory service during such probationary period.

Click HERE to access the Ryan decision posted on the Internet.

Evaluating a defendant's motion for summary judgment in the course of Title VII litigation

The complainant [Plaintiff] in this Title VII action appealed the decision of a United States District Court to grant the Employer and several named employees of the Employer [Defendants'] motions for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims. 

Plaintiff had alleged that the Defendants had  (1) discriminated against him after one of his coworkers claimed he had engaged in workplace misconduct, including sexual harassment; (2) retaliated against him for appealing, pursuant to his union contract, subsequent adverse disciplinary decisions; and (3) violated his due process rights in the course of investigating and responding to the allegations of his alleged workplace misconduct. 

Reviewing the lower court's decision granting summary judgment to Defendants de novo, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted that summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." To establish a due process violation, said the court, a plaintiff must show that he possessed “a protected liberty or property interest” and that he was deprived of that interest “without constitutionally adequate process.” In addition, the Plaintiff must “establish [an individually named] defendant’s personal involvement in the claimed violation in order to hold that defendant liable in his individual capacity.”

The Circuit Court, observing that Plaintiff failed to address the district court’s dismissal of his intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation claims in his brief, held that Plaintiff waived those issues for purposes of this appeal, citing Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114. In Norton that Second Circuit Court held that “Issues not sufficiently argued in the briefs are considered waived and normally will not be addressed on appeal.”

Here the Circuit Court concluded that "there is no genuine dispute of material fact and that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on each of [Plaintiff's] discrimination, retaliation, and due process claims."

Addressing Plaintiff 's due process claims against individual Defendants, the Circuit Court affirm the district court's ruling on the basis of qualified immunity, explaining the “unlawfulness of their conduct”—if any—was not “clearly established at the time.” With respect to Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim, the Circuit Court  affirm the district court's ruling holding that Plaintiff had not been engage in any relevant Title VII-protected activity.

Click HERE to access the Circuit Court's decision posted on the Internet.

Woman arrested for allegedly stealing over $450,000 in New York State pension and Social Security payments

On February 23, 2023, New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia Ryan K. Buchanan and the Inspector General for the Social Security Administration Gail S. Ennis announced the arrest of a Georgia resident, Sandra Smith, for allegedly stealing over $450,000  in New York state pension and Social Security payments made to her deceased mother-in-law over a 16-year period.* 

Admitting to investigators that she stole the money, Sandra Smith was charged with 20 counts of wire fraud and 10 counts of theft of government funds. She was arraigned before U.S. Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand.

“The defendant callously took advantage of her mother-in-law’s death to profit at the expense of New York’s retirement system and the Social Security Administration,” DiNapoli said. “She has now been brought to justice and we will seek full restitution. I thank U.S. Attorney Buchanan and the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General for their partnership on this matter.”

“Smith allegedly stole money that taxpayers and government employees paid into both retirement systems,” Buchanan said. “Money she was not entitled to. Through this joint effort, one more person who believed they could game the system has been caught and will be prosecuted.”

“For nearly 15 years, the beneficiary’s death was allegedly concealed by Ms. Smith so that she could illegally obtain Social Security benefits, which is a federal crime. These charges exemplify that my office will continue to pursue those who defraud the Social Security Administration,” Ennis said. “I thank the New York Office of the State Comptroller for investigating with us. I also thank the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane Schulman for prosecuting this case.”

Sandra Smith’s mother-in-law, Minnie Smith, was a longtime Brooklyn resident who had worked for the State Insurance Fund from 1985 until her retirement in 2005. She subsequently moved to Georgia to be close to family and died on Sept. 14, 2006. Her family did not notify the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS) or the SSA of her death and the retirement system received a change of address form purportedly signed and dated by “Minnie Smith.”  

At the time of Minnie Smith’s death in September 2006, Sandra Smith was her caretaker and handled her finances. As her caretaker, Sandra Smith had access to Minnie Smith’s bank account. After Minnie Smith died, Sandra Smith did not close the bank account. Instead, she kept Minnie Smith’s bank account open and NYSLRS and SSA continued to deposit funds into the account until early 2021. Sandra Smith knew exactly when those benefits would be deposited each month, and each month she allegedly withdrew the funds from the account almost as soon as they were deposited. 

When Minnie Smith's death was discovered, payments were stopped and the Comptroller DiNapoli’s Division of Investigations coordinated with the SSA-OIG, which was conducting its own review of the fraud.  

A total of $264,700 in retirement system payments and $194,351 in Social Security payments were deposited into Minnie Smith’s bank account from September 2006 through April 2021.

* The Comptroller noted that the charges filed against Sandra Smith in this case are merely accusations and Smith is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

###

Since taking office in 2007, Comptroller DiNapoli has been committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. Allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money may be reported to the Comptroller DiNapoli by using the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by filing a complaint online using the Internet at https://www.osc.state.ny.us/investigations, or by mailing a complaint to the Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

Disclosing complaints or allegations of a public officers' misconduct sought pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law

In the Matter of New York Civil Liberties Union [CLU] v New York City Department of Correction [DOC], 2023 NY Slip Op 00930, the Appellate Division noted that the personal privacy exemption in Public Officers Law §87(2)* allows state agencies to protect sensitive matters "which are of little or no public interest, and which may include unsubstantiated allegations," citing Matter of New York Times Co. v City of New York Off. of the Mayor, 194 AD3d 157.

However, cautioned the court, "Public Officers Law §87(2) does not create a categorical or blanket exemption from disclosure for unsubstantiated complaints or allegations of uniformed officers' misconduct ... Documents concerning unsubstantiated complaints or allegations should be disclosed to the extent that they can be redacted to prevent an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, including the removal of identifying details [citations omitted]."

In this instance the Appellate Division held that DOC did not establish that identifying details in the records or data requested by CLU could not be redacted to prevent an unwarranted invasion of privacy. 

Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court properly required DOC to disclose the requested records, subject to redactions with specific justification under Public Officers Law §87(2). Supreme Court, said the Appellate Division, also properly required that DOC sufficiently document its justification for redactions to facilitate potential in camera** review by Supreme Court.

Addressing CLU's request for an award of attorney's fees and costs, the Appellate Division opined that "as this proceeding at this stage concerns a novel interpretation of legislation that both repealed a statute and enacted new provisions to a longstanding statutory scheme", it cannot be said that DOC had no reasonable basis for denying access to the records at issue.

* See Public Officers Law §89(2), concerning personal privacy exceptions authorized by law. 

** Judicial review of a matter in the privacy of the judge's chambers."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

See, also, Matter of Puig v New York State Police, https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_00258.htm

School board policy requiring speakers at board meetings to disclose their name and address challenged

A school board's policy requires speakers at board meetings to provide their names and addresses.  Petitioner in this Education Law §310 appeal to the Commissioner of Education sought to avoid giving her last name or street address in order to speak at a school board meeting. Petitioner asked the Commissioner of Education to removal from the school board president for enforcing this policy, which Petitioner alleged violated the board’s Ethics Code.  Petitioner also contended that the Commissioner should invalidate the board’s policy that speakers be required to give their name and address before speaking because it allegedly violated New York State's Open Meetings Law.

The Commissioner dismissed Petitioner's application on number of procedural grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, noting Public Officers Law §107 vests consideration of alleged violations of the Open Meetings Law in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. 

The Commissioner's decision cites Comm on Open Govt OML-AO-5607 (2019) and Comm on Open Govt OML-AO-2717 (1997), advisory opinions issued by Committee staff*, which posit that while the public entity may request an individual to provide his name and address, "a person may not be required [sic] to do so in order to attend, speak or otherwise participate relative to a meeting of a public body".

As the school board indicated that after receipt of the instant appeal it “voted against suspending its policy to conform to ... these opinions" issued by Committee staff, the Commissioner said that she would transmit her decision in this matter "to the Committee on Open Government for appropriate action."

* The Committee's staff prepares written advisory opinions in response to particular sets of facts and circumstances.

Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.