Employee terminated after refusing to accept reassignment to another location

Employee terminated after refusing to accept reassignment to another location
Dippell v Hammons, 246 A.D.2d 450

Dagmar Dippell, an attorney employed by the New York City Human Resources Administration, refused to report to her new assignment in Queens. This resulted in Dippell’s demotion following a disciplinary hearing.

When she continued to refuse to report to the new location, a second hearing was conducted and she was terminated. Dippell appealed, contending that the determinations by the two Administrative Law Judges [ALJs] were not supported by substantial evidence.

Commenting on the hearings that preceded Dippell’s dismissal, the Appellate Division cited the “obey now, grieve later” principle. The Court said that the first ALJ had ample grounds to conclude that Dippell had no basis for disregarding that principle. Although Dippell’s physician had recommended a “non-stressful job” for her, that, standing alone, “was inadequate to establish that the reassignment would be unduly debilitating to her health.”

The ALJ found that Dippell’s testimony lacked credibility and that she came across as “stubborn and misguided.” According to the decision, the ALJ credited the testimony of a department witness that Dippell was reassigned because of her failure to return from a Florida vacation on time and her “longstanding poor relationship with her immediate supervisor.”

The second proceeding was held before a different ALJ. The Appellate Division noted that Dippell failed to appear at that hearing. The Appellate Division said that the second ALJ “properly concluded” that dismissal was the only appropriate penalty, because Dippell had previously been demoted for similar misconduct.

Participating in an arbitration may bar extrication from the process

Participating in an arbitration may bar extrication from the process
Suffolk County v Faculty Asso. of SCCC, App. Div., 247 A.D.2d 472

Suppose a party appears at a grievance arbitration but later decides that it didn’t have to. May it ask to have the arbitration award vacated?

This was the significant issue in the Suffolk County case. The Appellate Division indicated that once a party has appeared in an arbitration and a decision had been rendered, it may be too late for the party to extricate itself the process.

Suffolk County participated in a grievance arbitration proceeding involving the Faculty Association of Suffolk County Community College. The county challenged the arbitration and won a court order vacating the award made by the arbitrator after persuading a New York State Supreme Court justice that “there was no agreement to arbitrate the grievance in question” between the parties.

The Faculty Association appealed and the Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling, reinstating the award. The Court said, “the absence of an agreement to arbitrate is not a basis upon which a party who participated in the arbitration may seek to have the resulting award vacated.”

The Court also rejected the County’s alternative argument, in which it contended that the arbitration award violated public policy, on a technical ground. Why? Because, said the Court, the County did not raise the “public policy” argument in its motion to vacate the arbitration award at the Supreme Court level. Accordingly, the County’s “public policy” theory was not properly before it on appeal.

Selected bills recently signed into law

Selected bills recently signed into law
Source: New York State Legislature

Chapter 423 of the Laws of 2010: Provides that employers who provide funeral leave for family members of deceased shall not deny such leave for same-sex committed partners of the deceased.

Chapter 426 of the Laws of 2010: Requires New York City school districts to notify parents of bedbug infestations.

Chapter 430 of the Laws of 2010: Relates to health insurance coverage for surviving spouses or domestic partners of members of the New York City Department of Correction.

Chapter 480 of the Laws of 2010: Relates to the residence of peace officers employed as fire protection inspectors, urban park rangers and traffic enforcement agents level IV by a city with a population over one million [i.e., the City of New York].

.