Books from the Public Employment Law Press

Books from the Public Employment Law Press

For information about PELP's e-book Layoff, Preferred Lists and Reinstatement of public employees in New York, go to: http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/

For information about PELP's The Discipline Book, now available in both an e-book and in a softcover format, go to: http://booklocker.com/books/3449.html

For information about PELP's e-book Disability Retirement and General Municipal Law Sections 207-a/c go to: http://booklocker.com/books/3916.html

An individual must prove his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence” in order to prevail at a “name-clearing hearing”

An individual must prove his or her case by a “preponderance of the evidence” in order to prevail at a “name-clearing hearing”
Casale v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2010 NY Slip Op 06218, decided on July 27, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department

Nicholas Casale, claiming that certain statements in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's letter to him terminating his employment* characterizing his actions as “dishonest” were false, demanded a name-clearing hearing.**

The hearing officer ruled that Casale was required to prove that the Authority’s statements to which he objected were false by a preponderance of the evidence and that Casale failed to meet this test.

The hearing officer found that Casle had repeatedly mischaracterized his source of information in an investigation of corruption as a confidential informant, concluding that “this conduct was dishonest.”

The Appellate Division said that such a determination by a hearing officer is not foreclosed as a matter of law even if the hearing officer believed that Casale was acting to benefit the Authority rather than for his own personal gain. The court said that the hearing officer is to determine the issue of an employee's dishonesty “with reference to the employer's general business or the employee's own functions and that is precisely what occurred here.”

Nor, said the court, did the hearing officer exceed his jurisdiction in "finding that petitioner engaged in a pattern of dishonesty." The terms of the stipulation governing the name-clearing hearing did not limit the inquiry to the fabrication of the existence of a confidential informant.

* Although Casale’s tenure status is not indicated in the decision, typically New York courts have directed "name-clearing hearings" for probationary employees and for employee without tenure who allege that they have been "stigmatized" as a result of “State action” and the employer has made such "stigmatizing" information public.

** A name clearing hearing serves only one purpose - to provide the individual with an opportunity to clear his or her “good name and reputation” in situations where he or she alleges that information of a stigmatizing nature has been made public by his or her former employer. Courts have held that the internal disclosure of allegedly stigmatizing reasons for the discharge or demotion of an employee to the individual and, or, to agency administrators “having a right to know” does not constitute a public disclosure of such information and thus a name-clearing hearing" is not required because of such intra-agency communications.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_06218.htm

US Department of Labor COBRA website updated

US Department of Labor COBRA website updated
Source: Labor Department press release

The Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration has updated its dedicated COBRA web page to reflect the relevant changes resulting from the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010.

The website address is: http://www.dol.gov/COBRA

Temporary appointment to a position in the public service

Temporary appointment to a position in the public service
CSEA Local 1000 v NYS Dept. of Civil Service, App Div, 250 A.D.2d 968, Motion to appeal denied, 92 N.Y.2d 808

The State Fair Division of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets employed a number of individuals in noncompetitive class or labor class positions and designated them as “temporary employees.” CSEA Local 1000 commenced an Article 78 action to compel the State Department of Civil Service to grant each such individual “permanent employee status.”

A state Supreme Court justice dismissed CSEA’s petition after finding that these employees “were hired as temporary employees and did not thereafter obtain permanent status by operation of law or otherwise....” Accordingly, the Court ruled, these individuals were not legally entitled to permanent status. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision.

The rationale underlying the Appellate Division’s decision wasthat the positions in question were not funded by the State. The ability to establish and pay for these positions depended on revenues from the annual State Fair and other non-State revenue sources.

The record showed that the individuals were “appointed to temporary positions” and such appointments were “on a temporary basis.” The decision comments that “fundamentally an unlawful extended period of temporary service cannot ripen into a permanent appointment unless the appointee met all of the requirements for permanent appointment at the time of the temporary appointment,” citing Reis v New York State Housing Finance Agency [77 NY2d 915] and Montero v Lum [68 NY2d 253].

However, it should be noted that the Reis and Montero cases concerned claims of permanent status in competitive class positions advanced by provisional employees. Section 64 of the Civil Service Law provides for temporary appointment, including temporary appointments to positions in the competitive class; Section 65 of the Civil Service Law specifically provides for provisional appointment to competitive class positions.

Nothing in the Civil Service Law precludes making a permanent appointment to a temporary position although such an appointment has the potential of resulting in a “layoff/preferred list” situation. In addition, Section 64.5 of the Civil Service Law authorizes permanent appointment to an encumbered position under certain circumstances. Section 64.5 appointments are commonly referred to as “contingent permanent appointments.”

In any event, an appointment to a temporary position should be distinguished from a personnel transaction involving the appointment of individual to a position “temporarily vacant” due to the permanent incumbent being on a leave of absence without pay. Generally, a reference to a “temporary position” reflects financial considerations, such as the source of funding or the continued availability of funds. In contrast, “temporary appointment” reflects the employment status of the individual and the tenure rights, if any, that flow from such status. Accordingly, there is a significant difference between a “temporary position” and a “temporary appointment.”

To illustrate the need to distinguish between the status of a position and the status of an individual serving in a position, the Appellate Division did not have any trouble holding that permanently appointing a candidate on an eligible list to a non-existent position just before the list expired did not offend the Civil Service Law. The appointment was made “from the old list” in anticipation of a vacancy that would result upon the retirement of the then incumbent a few weeks later. The Appellate Division dismissed the action brought by individuals on the new eligible list for the position challenging the appointment to a position that did not exist.

Employee may be disciplined for refusing to cooperate in a non-disciplinary investigation interview

Employee may be disciplined for refusing to cooperate in a non-disciplinary investigation interview
NYC Health and Hospital Corporation v Jones, OATH Index #1100/10

Karin Jones, a clerical employee at a City hospital, was charged with misconduct arising from an incident involving a mother strike or push her young child during a visit to the hospital.

Jones was charged with failure to cooperate in an official investigation because she would not answer questions unless her union representative was present.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis sustained one charge based upon Jones’ refusal to answer questions asked by the hospital's child protective coordinator. The coordinator was conducting a “time-sensitive investigation,” i.e., to determine if a reportable event had occurred while the mother and child were still at the hospital. At this point – the “first interview -- the coordinator wanted to find out what Jones had seen.

As the focus of the first interview was “investigatory” rather than “disciplinary” insofar as Jones was concerned, the Administrative Law Judge ruled that Jones could be disciplined for refusing to cooperate with the child protective coordinator in the course of the “first interview.”

In contrast, ALJ Lewis dismissed charges based upon Jones’ refusal to answer questions asked by her supervisors in the course of a second interview without her union representative present. In this instance the ALJ found that the supervisor’s questioning Jones was primarily focused upon her failure to cooperate and thus it was reasonable for Jones to believe that providing information during this second interview could lead to disciplinary action.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/10_Cases/10-1100.pdf