Alcoholism as a defense in a disciplinary action
Murolo v Safir, Appellate Division, 246 A.D.2d 653, Leave to appeal denied, 91 N.Y.2d 813
In McEniry v Landi, 84 NY2d 554, the Court of Appeals said that alcoholism qualifies as a disability within the meaning of the State’s Human Rights Law [Section 292.21, Executive Law]. A New York City firefighter, David Murolo, challenged his disciplinary dismissal by contending his misconduct was caused by an alcohol abuse problem that he had overcome. He claimed that his firing violated the Human Rights Law, citing the McEniry decision.
Disciplinary action began after Murolo called in a false alarm. While his fellow firefighters were responding to the false alarm, Murolo took $223 of “communal money” from the station house. After admitting at a disciplinary hearing that he had called in the false alarm and had taken the money, Murolo testified that:
1. He had been drinking heavily prior to the incident and “was not thinking straight.”
2. He had entered a counseling program for his alcohol problem as directed by the Department and had begun to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
The hearing officer determined that his status as a recovering alcoholic did not shield him from discipline for misconduct and recommended his termination. The Commissioner adopted the hearing officer’s recommendation.
Although a Supreme Court justice accepted Murolo’s argument and remanded the case to the Commissioner for the imposition of a lesser penalty, the Appellate Division disagreed and reinstated the Commissioner’s original determination.
The Appellate Division distinguished the situation in McEniry from Murolo’s.
In McEniry the issue was whether alcoholism prevented the officer from satisfactorily performing his duties. The Court of Appeals held that if an individual establishes a prima facie case that his discharged was based on his or her alcoholism, the burden shifts to the employer to show either that (1) the employee was not disabled by alcoholism, (2) there was an alcoholism disability but no reasonable accommodation was possible or (3) there an alcoholism disability but termination was for other reasons than behavior stemming from alcoholism.
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 in other jurisdictions in general.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL
September 09, 2010
Determining the compensation of the officers of a town
Determining the compensation of the officers of a town
Taney v Town of Waterloo, NYS App. Div., 245 A.D.2d 1079, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 91 N.Y.2d 957
Although a Town Board may determine the compensation to be paid a Town Justice, its decision to pay its justices at different rates may raise a federal “equal protection” issue. The Taney decision is an example of such a situation.
After Alfred C. Taney was reelected Waterloo Town Justice in 1996, the Town Board voted to reduce his salary from $8,975 to $1,200. It kept the salary being paid to its other Town Justice, who was then in the middle of his term of office, at $8,975. In 1997, the Town Board again considered the compensation being paid to its Town Justices. Taney’s salary was kept at $1,200; the salary of the other Town Justice’s was increased 3 percent. Taney filed a suit pursuant to Article 78 [Article 78, Civil Practice Law and Rules], contending that the Board’s actions violated his Constitutional rights under 42 USC 1983.
Seneca County Supreme Court Justice Harvey decided that Board’s 1997 salary determinations were arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of its discretion. The Court directed the Board to set Taney’s 1997 salary at “a fair and equitable amount.”
On appeal the Appellate Division commented that, pursuant to Section 27 of the Town Law, a Town Board has the power to set the salaries of its Town Justices and it is not obligated to pay all justices the same rate of compensation. Accordingly, the Court concluded that “there is nothing illegal per se in the Town Board’s 1997 decision to pay [Taney] a salary different from the other Town Justice [and] the amount of that salary is a decision left to the sound discretion of elected Town officials, who ordinarily should not be second-guessed.”
Nevertheless, the Appellate Division rejected the Board’s argument that Taney’s $1,200 salary was consistent with the salaries of Town Justices in other towns and that Taney was not given a raise in 1997 because of his reduced caseload.
Technical issues figured prominently in the decision. While “the determination of a Town Justice’s salary ... is properly the subject of a CPLR article 78 proceeding,” the Appellate Division held that:
1. The merits of the Board’s 1996 decision were not properly before the lower court because the Statute of Limitations for filing an Article 78 petition challenging the Board’s 1996 action had expired; and
2. The lower court should have considered Taney’s allegations concerning the Constitutionality of the Board’s 1996 action as the controlling “three-year Statute of Limitations with respect to the 42 USC 1983 cause of action ... has not expired.”
Accordingly, said the Court, “whether [Taney’s] constitutional rights were violated by the [Board’s] 1996 salary determination may be litigated in the context of that cause of action,” citing Benjamin v Town of Fenton, 892 F Supp 64.
Taney v Town of Waterloo, NYS App. Div., 245 A.D.2d 1079, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 91 N.Y.2d 957
Although a Town Board may determine the compensation to be paid a Town Justice, its decision to pay its justices at different rates may raise a federal “equal protection” issue. The Taney decision is an example of such a situation.
After Alfred C. Taney was reelected Waterloo Town Justice in 1996, the Town Board voted to reduce his salary from $8,975 to $1,200. It kept the salary being paid to its other Town Justice, who was then in the middle of his term of office, at $8,975. In 1997, the Town Board again considered the compensation being paid to its Town Justices. Taney’s salary was kept at $1,200; the salary of the other Town Justice’s was increased 3 percent. Taney filed a suit pursuant to Article 78 [Article 78, Civil Practice Law and Rules], contending that the Board’s actions violated his Constitutional rights under 42 USC 1983.
Seneca County Supreme Court Justice Harvey decided that Board’s 1997 salary determinations were arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of its discretion. The Court directed the Board to set Taney’s 1997 salary at “a fair and equitable amount.”
On appeal the Appellate Division commented that, pursuant to Section 27 of the Town Law, a Town Board has the power to set the salaries of its Town Justices and it is not obligated to pay all justices the same rate of compensation. Accordingly, the Court concluded that “there is nothing illegal per se in the Town Board’s 1997 decision to pay [Taney] a salary different from the other Town Justice [and] the amount of that salary is a decision left to the sound discretion of elected Town officials, who ordinarily should not be second-guessed.”
Nevertheless, the Appellate Division rejected the Board’s argument that Taney’s $1,200 salary was consistent with the salaries of Town Justices in other towns and that Taney was not given a raise in 1997 because of his reduced caseload.
Technical issues figured prominently in the decision. While “the determination of a Town Justice’s salary ... is properly the subject of a CPLR article 78 proceeding,” the Appellate Division held that:
1. The merits of the Board’s 1996 decision were not properly before the lower court because the Statute of Limitations for filing an Article 78 petition challenging the Board’s 1996 action had expired; and
2. The lower court should have considered Taney’s allegations concerning the Constitutionality of the Board’s 1996 action as the controlling “three-year Statute of Limitations with respect to the 42 USC 1983 cause of action ... has not expired.”
Accordingly, said the Court, “whether [Taney’s] constitutional rights were violated by the [Board’s] 1996 salary determination may be litigated in the context of that cause of action,” citing Benjamin v Town of Fenton, 892 F Supp 64.
Determining the compensation of the officers of a town
Determining the compensation of the officers of a town
Taney v Town of Waterloo, NYS App. Div., 245 A.D.2d 1079, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 91 N.Y.2d 957
Although a Town Board may determine the compensation to be paid a Town Justice, its decision to pay its justices at different rates may raise a federal “equal protection” issue. The Taney decision is an example of such a situation.
After Alfred C. Taney was reelected Waterloo Town Justice in 1996, the Town Board voted to reduce his salary from $8,975 to $1,200. It kept the salary being paid to its other Town Justice, who was then in the middle of his term of office, at $8,975. In 1997, the Town Board again considered the compensation being paid to its Town Justices. Taney’s salary was kept at $1,200; the salary of the other Town Justice’s was increased 3 percent. Taney filed a suit pursuant to Article 78 [Article 78, Civil Practice Law and Rules], contending that the Board’s actions violated his Constitutional rights under 42 USC 1983.
Seneca County Supreme Court Justice Harvey decided that Board’s 1997 salary determinations were arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of its discretion. The Court directed the Board to set Taney’s 1997 salary at “a fair and equitable amount.”
On appeal the Appellate Division commented that, pursuant to Section 27 of the Town Law, a Town Board has the power to set the salaries of its Town Justices and it is not obligated to pay all justices the same rate of compensation. Accordingly, the Court concluded that “there is nothing illegal per se in the Town Board’s 1997 decision to pay [Taney] a salary different from the other Town Justice [and] the amount of that salary is a decision left to the sound discretion of elected Town officials, who ordinarily should not be second-guessed.”
Nevertheless, the Appellate Division rejected the Board’s argument that Taney’s $1,200 salary was consistent with the salaries of Town Justices in other towns and that Taney was not given a raise in 1997 because of his reduced caseload.
Technical issues figured prominently in the decision. While “the determination of a Town Justice’s salary ... is properly the subject of a CPLR article 78 proceeding,” the Appellate Division held that:
1. The merits of the Board’s 1996 decision were not properly before the lower court because the Statute of Limitations for filing an Article 78 petition challenging the Board’s 1996 action had expired; and
2. The lower court should have considered Taney’s allegations concerning the Constitutionality of the Board’s 1996 action as the controlling “three-year Statute of Limitations with respect to the 42 USC 1983 cause of action ... has not expired.”
Accordingly, said the Court, “whether [Taney’s] constitutional rights were violated by the [Board’s] 1996 salary determination may be litigated in the context of that cause of action,” citing Benjamin v Town of Fenton, 892 F Supp 64.
Taney v Town of Waterloo, NYS App. Div., 245 A.D.2d 1079, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 91 N.Y.2d 957
Although a Town Board may determine the compensation to be paid a Town Justice, its decision to pay its justices at different rates may raise a federal “equal protection” issue. The Taney decision is an example of such a situation.
After Alfred C. Taney was reelected Waterloo Town Justice in 1996, the Town Board voted to reduce his salary from $8,975 to $1,200. It kept the salary being paid to its other Town Justice, who was then in the middle of his term of office, at $8,975. In 1997, the Town Board again considered the compensation being paid to its Town Justices. Taney’s salary was kept at $1,200; the salary of the other Town Justice’s was increased 3 percent. Taney filed a suit pursuant to Article 78 [Article 78, Civil Practice Law and Rules], contending that the Board’s actions violated his Constitutional rights under 42 USC 1983.
Seneca County Supreme Court Justice Harvey decided that Board’s 1997 salary determinations were arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of its discretion. The Court directed the Board to set Taney’s 1997 salary at “a fair and equitable amount.”
On appeal the Appellate Division commented that, pursuant to Section 27 of the Town Law, a Town Board has the power to set the salaries of its Town Justices and it is not obligated to pay all justices the same rate of compensation. Accordingly, the Court concluded that “there is nothing illegal per se in the Town Board’s 1997 decision to pay [Taney] a salary different from the other Town Justice [and] the amount of that salary is a decision left to the sound discretion of elected Town officials, who ordinarily should not be second-guessed.”
Nevertheless, the Appellate Division rejected the Board’s argument that Taney’s $1,200 salary was consistent with the salaries of Town Justices in other towns and that Taney was not given a raise in 1997 because of his reduced caseload.
Technical issues figured prominently in the decision. While “the determination of a Town Justice’s salary ... is properly the subject of a CPLR article 78 proceeding,” the Appellate Division held that:
1. The merits of the Board’s 1996 decision were not properly before the lower court because the Statute of Limitations for filing an Article 78 petition challenging the Board’s 1996 action had expired; and
2. The lower court should have considered Taney’s allegations concerning the Constitutionality of the Board’s 1996 action as the controlling “three-year Statute of Limitations with respect to the 42 USC 1983 cause of action ... has not expired.”
Accordingly, said the Court, “whether [Taney’s] constitutional rights were violated by the [Board’s] 1996 salary determination may be litigated in the context of that cause of action,” citing Benjamin v Town of Fenton, 892 F Supp 64.
Public entities are immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of its governmental functions absent proof of a special relationship
Public entities are immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of its governmental functions absent proof of a special relationship
Zeitlin v NYC Board of Education, NYS Supreme Court [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]
Pupils assaulting teachers has become an occupational hazard in a number of school districts. What is a school district’s liability if a student assaults a teacher?
In the Zeitlin case New York State Supreme Court Justice Solomon considered a schoolteacher’s demand for compensatory and punitive damages based on his school district’s alleged failure to protect him from student assaults.
Citing Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, Justice Solomon described the basic law in such situations as follows:
Public entities are immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of their governmental functions unless the injured person establishes a special relationship with that entity underlying a specific duty to protect that individual and reliance on the performance of that duty by the individual.
What is involved in establishing such a “specific duty?” According to the ruling, such a duty comes into being only where all four of the following elements are satisfied:
1. Assumption: An assumption by a municipality or municipal agency, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured;
2. Knowledge: Knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm;
3. Direct Contact: Direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and
4. Justifiable reliance: The injured party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s undertaking.
In the Zeitlin case the Court concluded that although providing security against physical attack from third parties was a governmental function, “Zeitlin fails to meet the first element [assumption] of a claimed special duty of protection and for that reason alone, his claim must fail” and dismissed his complaint. In other words, Zeitlin was unable to demonstrate a critical element -- that the District has assumed any responsibility for his safety at the work site.
This “four element” test is not usually applied in cases involving the safety of students, however. As the Appellate Division said in Foster v New Berlin Central School District, 246 AD2d 880, “school districts are under a duty to adequately supervise students in their care and will be liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision.”
Zeitlin v NYC Board of Education, NYS Supreme Court [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]
Pupils assaulting teachers has become an occupational hazard in a number of school districts. What is a school district’s liability if a student assaults a teacher?
In the Zeitlin case New York State Supreme Court Justice Solomon considered a schoolteacher’s demand for compensatory and punitive damages based on his school district’s alleged failure to protect him from student assaults.
Citing Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, Justice Solomon described the basic law in such situations as follows:
Public entities are immune from negligence claims arising out of the performance of their governmental functions unless the injured person establishes a special relationship with that entity underlying a specific duty to protect that individual and reliance on the performance of that duty by the individual.
What is involved in establishing such a “specific duty?” According to the ruling, such a duty comes into being only where all four of the following elements are satisfied:
1. Assumption: An assumption by a municipality or municipal agency, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured;
2. Knowledge: Knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm;
3. Direct Contact: Direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and
4. Justifiable reliance: The injured party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s undertaking.
In the Zeitlin case the Court concluded that although providing security against physical attack from third parties was a governmental function, “Zeitlin fails to meet the first element [assumption] of a claimed special duty of protection and for that reason alone, his claim must fail” and dismissed his complaint. In other words, Zeitlin was unable to demonstrate a critical element -- that the District has assumed any responsibility for his safety at the work site.
This “four element” test is not usually applied in cases involving the safety of students, however. As the Appellate Division said in Foster v New Berlin Central School District, 246 AD2d 880, “school districts are under a duty to adequately supervise students in their care and will be liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision.”
Unit exclusivity
Unit exclusivity
CSEA and Warrensburg CSD, 30 PERB 3056
Suffolk Co Corrections Officers Assoc v PERB, App. Div., 246 A.D.2d 660
Exclusivity is an important issue to a collective bargaining unit. It sets out those tasks that may be performed only by unit members to the exclusion of all others. An employer violates its duty to negotiate under Section 209-a.1(d) of the Civil Service Law if it unilaterally transfers work “established and maintained exclusively by a collective bargaining unit” to non-unit workers.
In the Warrensburg case, CSEA Local 857 charged that the Warrensburg Central School District violated Section 209-a.1(d) when it assigned chaperoning duties at plays and concerts to employees represented by the Warrensburg Teachers Association [Association], a different negotiating unit.
The District contended that under a memorandum of understanding, members of the Teachers Association had “the right of first refusal in chaperoning all school events.”
PERB sustained its administrative law judge’s finding that District administrators regularly served in a chaperoning capacity at these events and thus CSEA did not have exclusivity with respect to performing such duties.
PERB said that collective bargaining agreements between the Association and the District dating back to 1982 specifically covered “chaperoning duties and rights,” while Local 857 agreements were silent with respect to such activities.
PERB rejected Local 857’s argument that it had “exclusivity” with respect to concerts conducted at the high school while Association members regularly chaperoned elementary school concerts, commenting that “the location of a concert, being unrelated to chaperoning duties, cannot form any discernible boundary within which to test exclusivity.”
A similar case involved the Suffolk County Court, First District, located in Hauppauge, which employed 18 correction officers who were responsible for the care and custody of detainees being held there.
In 1992 the Court was moved to Central Islip from Hauppauge and the 18 correction officers were reassigned to the Suffolk County Maximum Security facility in Riverhead. Deputy sheriffs were assigned to take care of the detainees at the Court’s Central Islip facility.
The Suffolk County Correction Officers Association [SCCOA], filed an improper practice charge against the County with PERB, contending that the County’s unilateral transferring the responsibility for District Court detainees to deputy sheriffs violated Section 201.a[1](d) and (e) of the Civil Service Law. SCCOA argued that the Taylor Law required that “prior negotiations” be undertaken before such a change could be implemented.
A PERB administrative law judge [ALJ] determined that SCCOA did not prove that its unit members had previously performed the duties reassigned to the deputy sheriffs exclusively. After PERB affirmed the ALJ’s ruling, SCCOA appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed PERB’s determination.
.
CSEA and Warrensburg CSD, 30 PERB 3056
Suffolk Co Corrections Officers Assoc v PERB, App. Div., 246 A.D.2d 660
Exclusivity is an important issue to a collective bargaining unit. It sets out those tasks that may be performed only by unit members to the exclusion of all others. An employer violates its duty to negotiate under Section 209-a.1(d) of the Civil Service Law if it unilaterally transfers work “established and maintained exclusively by a collective bargaining unit” to non-unit workers.
In the Warrensburg case, CSEA Local 857 charged that the Warrensburg Central School District violated Section 209-a.1(d) when it assigned chaperoning duties at plays and concerts to employees represented by the Warrensburg Teachers Association [Association], a different negotiating unit.
The District contended that under a memorandum of understanding, members of the Teachers Association had “the right of first refusal in chaperoning all school events.”
PERB sustained its administrative law judge’s finding that District administrators regularly served in a chaperoning capacity at these events and thus CSEA did not have exclusivity with respect to performing such duties.
PERB said that collective bargaining agreements between the Association and the District dating back to 1982 specifically covered “chaperoning duties and rights,” while Local 857 agreements were silent with respect to such activities.
PERB rejected Local 857’s argument that it had “exclusivity” with respect to concerts conducted at the high school while Association members regularly chaperoned elementary school concerts, commenting that “the location of a concert, being unrelated to chaperoning duties, cannot form any discernible boundary within which to test exclusivity.”
A similar case involved the Suffolk County Court, First District, located in Hauppauge, which employed 18 correction officers who were responsible for the care and custody of detainees being held there.
In 1992 the Court was moved to Central Islip from Hauppauge and the 18 correction officers were reassigned to the Suffolk County Maximum Security facility in Riverhead. Deputy sheriffs were assigned to take care of the detainees at the Court’s Central Islip facility.
The Suffolk County Correction Officers Association [SCCOA], filed an improper practice charge against the County with PERB, contending that the County’s unilateral transferring the responsibility for District Court detainees to deputy sheriffs violated Section 201.a[1](d) and (e) of the Civil Service Law. SCCOA argued that the Taylor Law required that “prior negotiations” be undertaken before such a change could be implemented.
A PERB administrative law judge [ALJ] determined that SCCOA did not prove that its unit members had previously performed the duties reassigned to the deputy sheriffs exclusively. After PERB affirmed the ALJ’s ruling, SCCOA appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed PERB’s determination.
.
September 08, 2010
Court vacates hearing officer’s disciplinary determination after finding that it was arbitrary and capricious
Court vacates hearing officer’s disciplinary determination after finding that it was arbitrary and capricious
Trupiano v Meadow Union Free School Dist., 2010 NY Slip Op 32264(U), August 10, 2010, Supreme Court, Nassau County, Judge: Michele M. Woodard [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]
From September 2004 through March 2007, the East Meadow UFSD teachers engaged in numerous activities to protest the fact that they did not have a successor collective bargaining agreement in place,* including picketing the School District's school buildings.
East Meadow, pursuant to Education Law §3020-a, preferred disciplinary charges on one of its teachers, Gina Trupiano, alleging that Trupiano “intentionally created a health and safety risk by purposefully situating her vehicle alongside the curb … in order to preclude children from being dropped off at curbside. The action resulted in children being dropped off in the middle of the street which resulted in an otherwise avoidable and unnecessary health and safety hazard.”
Hearing Officer Howard C. Edelman found that although Trupiano “did not knowingly and purposely park her vehicle alongside the curb … he concluded that by doing so, Trupiano "created a safety hazard to children” and sustained the charge. The penalty imposed: Trupiano received a counseling memo as the penalty.
Judge Woodward vacated the hearing officer’s award, finding that, in this instance, the Hearing Officer s decision that Trupiano is culpable of the charge preferred against her is not "amply supported by the evidence."
In the words of the court, “While the Hearing Officer s decision is indeed thoughtful, the irony is that the Hearing Officer therein repeatedly acknowledges that Trupiano broke no laws on March 2, 2007, was engaged in a constitutionally protected form of free speech and that she "obviously... did not wish harm to any child."
Accordingly, the court ruled that the disciplinary determination was "arbitrary or capricious."
* The terms and conditions addressing mandatory subjects of collective bargaining set out in the expired collective bargaining agreement are continued in effect pending the successor agreement in accordance with PERB’s so-called “Triborough Doctrine” promulgated in 1972.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/pdfs/2010/2010_32264.pdf
============================================
If you are interested in learning more about disciplinary procedures involving public officers and employees, please click here:
http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/
============================================
.
Trupiano v Meadow Union Free School Dist., 2010 NY Slip Op 32264(U), August 10, 2010, Supreme Court, Nassau County, Judge: Michele M. Woodard [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]
From September 2004 through March 2007, the East Meadow UFSD teachers engaged in numerous activities to protest the fact that they did not have a successor collective bargaining agreement in place,* including picketing the School District's school buildings.
East Meadow, pursuant to Education Law §3020-a, preferred disciplinary charges on one of its teachers, Gina Trupiano, alleging that Trupiano “intentionally created a health and safety risk by purposefully situating her vehicle alongside the curb … in order to preclude children from being dropped off at curbside. The action resulted in children being dropped off in the middle of the street which resulted in an otherwise avoidable and unnecessary health and safety hazard.”
Hearing Officer Howard C. Edelman found that although Trupiano “did not knowingly and purposely park her vehicle alongside the curb … he concluded that by doing so, Trupiano "created a safety hazard to children” and sustained the charge. The penalty imposed: Trupiano received a counseling memo as the penalty.
Judge Woodward vacated the hearing officer’s award, finding that, in this instance, the Hearing Officer s decision that Trupiano is culpable of the charge preferred against her is not "amply supported by the evidence."
In the words of the court, “While the Hearing Officer s decision is indeed thoughtful, the irony is that the Hearing Officer therein repeatedly acknowledges that Trupiano broke no laws on March 2, 2007, was engaged in a constitutionally protected form of free speech and that she "obviously... did not wish harm to any child."
Accordingly, the court ruled that the disciplinary determination was "arbitrary or capricious."
* The terms and conditions addressing mandatory subjects of collective bargaining set out in the expired collective bargaining agreement are continued in effect pending the successor agreement in accordance with PERB’s so-called “Triborough Doctrine” promulgated in 1972.
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/pdfs/2010/2010_32264.pdf
============================================
If you are interested in learning more about disciplinary procedures involving public officers and employees, please click here:
http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/
============================================
.
Some procedural basics in perfecting an appeal to the Commissioner of Education
Some procedural basics in perfecting an appeal to the Commissioner of Education
Kathleen Vendel, et al., v the Board of Education of the Marion Central School District, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision #16,134
The decision of the Commissioner of Education in Vendel sets out a number of procedural elements that must be satisfied in order to perfect an appeal to the Commissioner. Significantly, a party's failure to comply with one or more of these requirements could prove fatal to the Commissioner's considering the merits of the appeal.
Some 100 residents of the Marion Central School District appealed the School Board decision concerning the public's participation at board meetings. The Board had adopted a policy limiting non-members of the Board interested in speaking at its meetings to three minutes. Also in Vendel's submission to the Commissioner was an appeal involving "certain interactions with the community” by the Board and an application seeking “the removal of various individuals” from the Board.
The Commissioner dismissed Vendel's appeal and application without considering the merits of the allegations, explaining:
1. The individuals filing an appeal must have standing. An individual may not maintain an appeal pursuant to Education Law §310 unless aggrieved in the sense that he or she has suffered personal damage or injury to his or her civil, personal or property rights. Merely having status as a resident and a taxpayer in a school district is not sufficient to confer standing to challenge school board policies.
Except with respect to Vendel’s allegations concerning alleged harassment, said the Commissioner, “there has been no showing that any of the petitioners are personally aggrieved by the board policy or actions complained of.” The appeal, therefore, was dismissed for lack of standing, except with respect to Vendel’s claims relating to the harassment complaint.
2. Verification of the appeal. The appeal was defective as “neither the petition nor petitioners’ reply are properly verified.”
The Commissioner noted that 8 NYCRR §275.5 of the Commissioner's Regulations require all pleadings in an appeal to the Commissioner be verified.*
3. Failure to name a necessary party. To the extent that the petition seeks removal of individual board members petitioners have failed to join them as parties.
The Commissioner pointed out that a party whose rights would be adversely affected by a determination of an appeal in favor of a petitioner is a necessary party and must be joined as such.**
4. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner. As to the “propriety of the actions of the Trooper” in the course of events leading to the appeal, the Commissioner said that the Trooper is not an officer or employee of the School District and thus is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education.
5. Statute of limitations to file an appeal. The Commissioner commented that the petitioners challenge any actions in relation to the July 13, 2009 board meeting but was not commenced until September 1, 2009.
Citing 8 NYCRR §275.16, the Commissioner said that “An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the making of the decision or the performance of the act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown.”
The Commissioner did make one observation concerning one of the issues presented by Vendel “for the benefit of the parties” -participation of individuals at board meetings.
Regarding taxpayers and residents of a school district participating in board meetings, the Commissioner said that a board of education should, whenever possible and appropriate, consider public input on matters under consideration. However, the Commissioner also noted that a school board has the right to control the agenda at board meetings and “there is no statutory mandate that requires a board to permit public input at its meetings.”
* The affidavit of verification was stated to have been made “on the oath of Carol Moranz” but was signed by Vendel. Moranz was not a petitioner in this appeal and the Commissioner’s regulations require the petition to be verified under oath of at least one of the petitioners (see 8 NYCRR §275.5).
** Joinder requires that an individual be clearly named as a respondent in the caption and served with a copy of the notice of petition and the petition so as to inform the individual that he or she should respond to the petition and enter a defense.
The Commissioner’s decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume50/d16134.htm
.
Kathleen Vendel, et al., v the Board of Education of the Marion Central School District, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision #16,134
The decision of the Commissioner of Education in Vendel sets out a number of procedural elements that must be satisfied in order to perfect an appeal to the Commissioner. Significantly, a party's failure to comply with one or more of these requirements could prove fatal to the Commissioner's considering the merits of the appeal.
Some 100 residents of the Marion Central School District appealed the School Board decision concerning the public's participation at board meetings. The Board had adopted a policy limiting non-members of the Board interested in speaking at its meetings to three minutes. Also in Vendel's submission to the Commissioner was an appeal involving "certain interactions with the community” by the Board and an application seeking “the removal of various individuals” from the Board.
The Commissioner dismissed Vendel's appeal and application without considering the merits of the allegations, explaining:
1. The individuals filing an appeal must have standing. An individual may not maintain an appeal pursuant to Education Law §310 unless aggrieved in the sense that he or she has suffered personal damage or injury to his or her civil, personal or property rights. Merely having status as a resident and a taxpayer in a school district is not sufficient to confer standing to challenge school board policies.
Except with respect to Vendel’s allegations concerning alleged harassment, said the Commissioner, “there has been no showing that any of the petitioners are personally aggrieved by the board policy or actions complained of.” The appeal, therefore, was dismissed for lack of standing, except with respect to Vendel’s claims relating to the harassment complaint.
2. Verification of the appeal. The appeal was defective as “neither the petition nor petitioners’ reply are properly verified.”
The Commissioner noted that 8 NYCRR §275.5 of the Commissioner's Regulations require all pleadings in an appeal to the Commissioner be verified.*
3. Failure to name a necessary party. To the extent that the petition seeks removal of individual board members petitioners have failed to join them as parties.
The Commissioner pointed out that a party whose rights would be adversely affected by a determination of an appeal in favor of a petitioner is a necessary party and must be joined as such.**
4. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner. As to the “propriety of the actions of the Trooper” in the course of events leading to the appeal, the Commissioner said that the Trooper is not an officer or employee of the School District and thus is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Education.
5. Statute of limitations to file an appeal. The Commissioner commented that the petitioners challenge any actions in relation to the July 13, 2009 board meeting but was not commenced until September 1, 2009.
Citing 8 NYCRR §275.16, the Commissioner said that “An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the making of the decision or the performance of the act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown.”
The Commissioner did make one observation concerning one of the issues presented by Vendel “for the benefit of the parties” -participation of individuals at board meetings.
Regarding taxpayers and residents of a school district participating in board meetings, the Commissioner said that a board of education should, whenever possible and appropriate, consider public input on matters under consideration. However, the Commissioner also noted that a school board has the right to control the agenda at board meetings and “there is no statutory mandate that requires a board to permit public input at its meetings.”
* The affidavit of verification was stated to have been made “on the oath of Carol Moranz” but was signed by Vendel. Moranz was not a petitioner in this appeal and the Commissioner’s regulations require the petition to be verified under oath of at least one of the petitioners (see 8 NYCRR §275.5).
** Joinder requires that an individual be clearly named as a respondent in the caption and served with a copy of the notice of petition and the petition so as to inform the individual that he or she should respond to the petition and enter a defense.
The Commissioner’s decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume50/d16134.htm
.
Full evidentiary hearing required before discontinuing GML Section 207-a benefits
Full evidentiary hearing required before discontinuing GML Section 207-a benefits
Giorgio v Bucci, Appellate Division, 246 A.D.2d 711, Motion to appeal denied, 91 N.Y.2d 814
Thomas Giorgio, a Binghamton firefighter, began receiving disability benefits pursuant to Section 207-a effective January 13, 1996 based on his claim of a work-related injury on that date. On May 23, 1996 Binghamton told Giorgio that his benefits were being terminated, alleging that there was “newly discovered evidence that his condition predated the January 13, 1996 incident.”
Giorgio sued, but withdrew that action when the City agreed to continue his benefits and give him a “pre-termination hearing.” The City upheld the original decision to deny him Section 207-a benefits on the grounds that Giorgio’s injury was not the result of a work-related incident. Again Giorgio sued, seeking reinstatement to the payroll, restoration of his leave credits and a declaration that the administrative procedure used by the City was unconstitutional.
On the merits of Giorgio’s “due process claims,” the Appellate Division said that he had been denied “the right to a full evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of his benefits.” Why? Because, said the Court, Giorgio had not been allowed to confront and cross-examine witnesses or to offer evidence on his own behalf.
The lesson here is that when an employer holds a hearing to determine whether Section 207-a [and, presumably, Section 207-c] benefits should be discontinued, it must be a full evidentiary hearing, complying with all the requirements of administrative due process.
Giorgio v Bucci, Appellate Division, 246 A.D.2d 711, Motion to appeal denied, 91 N.Y.2d 814
Thomas Giorgio, a Binghamton firefighter, began receiving disability benefits pursuant to Section 207-a effective January 13, 1996 based on his claim of a work-related injury on that date. On May 23, 1996 Binghamton told Giorgio that his benefits were being terminated, alleging that there was “newly discovered evidence that his condition predated the January 13, 1996 incident.”
Giorgio sued, but withdrew that action when the City agreed to continue his benefits and give him a “pre-termination hearing.” The City upheld the original decision to deny him Section 207-a benefits on the grounds that Giorgio’s injury was not the result of a work-related incident. Again Giorgio sued, seeking reinstatement to the payroll, restoration of his leave credits and a declaration that the administrative procedure used by the City was unconstitutional.
On the merits of Giorgio’s “due process claims,” the Appellate Division said that he had been denied “the right to a full evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of his benefits.” Why? Because, said the Court, Giorgio had not been allowed to confront and cross-examine witnesses or to offer evidence on his own behalf.
The lesson here is that when an employer holds a hearing to determine whether Section 207-a [and, presumably, Section 207-c] benefits should be discontinued, it must be a full evidentiary hearing, complying with all the requirements of administrative due process.
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 decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these 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.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor 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.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press.
Email: n467fl@gmail.com