Former employee entitled to a name clearing hearing upon satisfying the “stigma plus” test

Former employee entitled to a name clearing hearing upon satisfying the “stigma plus” test

Knox v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 04735, Appellate Division, First Department

State Supreme Court, New York County rejected the New York City Department of Education’s motion to dismiss the petition filed by Dr. Tulsa Knox challenging the Department’s decisions that Dr. Knox was ineligible for re-employment, and granting Dr. Knox’s petition to the extent of remanding the matter for a name-clearing hearing.*

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The court said that Dr. Knox had demonstrated "stigma plus," i.e., defamation by the government, coupled with a likelihood of dissemination of the stigmatizing material that could significantly impair her ability to gain employment as a school psychologist in the future.

The Appellate Division said that the placement of Dr. Knox’s name on the Department’s  "Ineligible/Inquiry List" and certain adverse information concerning Dr. Know had been  disseminated “not only within the Department of Education, but also to the Bronx County District Attorney's Office and the State Department of Education.” This, said the court, satisfied Dr. Knox’s burden of showing “stigma plus”.

* N.B. Absent a violation of a constitutional or statutory provision, reinstatement is not an available remedy to an individual even if vindicated at a name clearing hearing.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_04735.htm

Refusal to answer questions during an administrative disciplinary investigation

Refusal to answer questions during an administrative disciplinary investigation

Matter of Eck v County of Delaware, 36 AD3d 1180

There were many issues considered by the Appellate Division in deciding Eck’s appeal of an adverse Section 75 Civil Service Law disciplinary determination.

One issue involved the law regarding compelling an employee to answer questions concerning his performance against his will in the course of a pre-disciplinary investigation that could result in administrative disciplinary action and, or, criminal action being taken against the individual.

Kenneth R. Eck, Jr., a deputy sheriff with the Delaware County Sheriff’s Department, was served with Section 75 disciplinary charges.

Charges filed against Eck included the allegation that he had conducted an unauthorized investigation of two Delaware County employees, one of whom was Eck’s former wife, because of Eck’s suspicion that the two were involved in a romantic relationship.

Among the several charges leveled against Eck was one that alleged that he refused to answer questions regarding his activities during the Sheriff’s investigation of incident.

The Section 75 Hearing Officer found Eck guilty of the charges filed against him. After reviewing Eck’s personnel file, the Hearing Officer recommended Eck be dismissed from his position. The County adopted the Hearing Officer’s findings and recommendation and terminated Eck.

In rejecting Eck’s appeal seeking reinstatement to his former position, the Appellate Divisions considered a number of elements raised by Eck in an effort to have the disciplinary decision vacated. One element concerned Eck’s argument that the disciplinary action was unlawful because it compromised his Fifth Amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination.

In response to Eck’s claim that he could not be disciplined for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when he refused to answer certain questions posed by the attorney representing the County during the investigation of his “activities during off-duty hours,” the Appellate Division pointed out that:

1. It is understood that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects an individual not only in the context of a criminal trial, “but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings.”

2. An individual’s “[a]nswers may be compelled regardless of the privilege if there is immunity from federal and state use of the compelled testimony or its fruits in connection with a criminal prosecution against the person testifying”.

3. In a situation where a public employee is compelled to answer questions or face dismissal, the individual’s responses are automatically cloaked with immunity.

Accordingly, said the court, “where a public servant . . . refuses ‘to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, without being required to waive his immunity, . . . the privilege against self-incrimination would not [be] a bar to his dismissal’”

In this instance the court found that “the questions were narrowly tailored to the matters under investigation and [Eck] was compelled to answer them on pain of termination, his answers would have been automatically cloaked by immunity.”* In view of this, the Appellate Division concluded that Eck’s “assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege did not bar disciplinary action against him.”

This, together with the Hearing Officer’s finding that Eck (1) used his position to obtain information about a co-workers whereabouts in furtherance of his own unauthorized investigation; (2) his surveillance endangered the co-worker, who often worked undercover; (3) he disparaged the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department in the presence of other officers and civilians; and (4) he disclosed information about his disciplinary hearing after being instructed not to discuss it, persuaded the Appellate Division that under the circumstances, “the penalty of termination is not disproportionate to these offenses.”

* This is often referred to as “use immunity.”

Employee organization may, through collective bargaining, negotiate away an employee’s statutory right to a disciplinary procedure provided an alternate procedure providing for administrative due process is available to the individual

Employee organization may, through collective bargaining, negotiate away an employee’s statutory right to a disciplinary procedure provided an alternate procedure providing for administrative due process is available to the individual
Matter of Hickey v New York City Dept. of Education, 2011 NY Slip Op 04541, Court of Appeals

Helen Hickey and Rachael Cohn, tenured teachers in the New York City School system, commenced Article 78 proceedings against the Board of Education seeking court orders compelling the Board to expunge "letters of reprimand" from their respective personnel files, contending that the Board’s actions failed follow Education Law §3020-a disciplinary procedures. Both letters had been placed in their respective personnel files and indicated that the matter "may lead to further disciplinary action."*

The Board contended that the letters were properly placed in the teachers’ files because, pursuant to the controlling Collective Bargaining Agreement, their union had negotiated a waiver of the §3020-a procedures with respect to the placement of letters of reprimand in tenured teacher's files and it had been replaced with a different procedure.

Education Law §3020(1) provides: "No person enjoying the benefits of tenure shall be disciplined or removed during a term of employment except for just cause and in accordance with the procedures specified in section [3020]-a of this article or in accordance with alternate disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement."

Noting that §3020-a does not define "discipline," the Court of Appeals said that §3020-a authorizes a hearing officer to impose as a penalty "a written reprimand, a fine, suspension . . . without pay, or dismissal." Section 3020(4)(a), said the Court, further provides that "Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, the procedures set forth in section [3020]-a of this article . . . may be modified by agreements negotiated between the city school district of the city of New York and any employee organization representing employees or titles that are or were covered by any memorandum of agreement executed by such city school district and the united federation of teachers on or after [June, 10, 2002]."

The Court of Appeals, assuming, but not deciding, that the letters complain of constituted "discipline" for purposes of §3020-a, decided “there is ample basis to conclude that the union knowingly waived the procedural rights granted in Education Law §3020-a in this limited arena.”

As the letters at issue were held as not being subject to §3020-a procedures, the Court ruled that neither Hickey nor Cohen was not entitled to have them expunged from their respective personnel files.

This not the first time that the Court of Appeals has addressed the issue of alternatives to a statutory disciplinary procedure. In Antinore v State [40 NY2d 6] the Court said that a union could bargain away the employee’s statutory disciplinary rights in favor of an alternative disciplinary procedure so long as the alternate procedure provided constitutional due process protections equivalent to those available under the statutary proceedure that it replaced.

The collective bargaining agreement** controlling in Antinore provided that an individual served with administrative disciplinary charges could elect either a disciplinary proceeding set out in a collective bargaining agreement or, in the alternative, elect to have the matter considered pursuant to a statutory disciplinary procedure, in this instance Civil Service Law §75.

Antinore elected to have the charges filed against him adjudicated pursuant to the procedure set out in the collective bargaining agreement. After the arbitrator found him guilty, Antinore sued, contending that he was entitled to a §75 disciplinary hearing as a matter of law. The Court of Appeal rejected his claim, holding that where an individual has elected to have disciplinary charges filed against him or her adjudicated pursuant to a process that provided administrative due process, he or she may not later claim the right to relitigate the charges under a statutory due process proceeding.

Significantly, the Court of Appeals said that a union could bargain away the employee’s statutory disciplinary rights in favor of an alternative disciplinary procedure if the alternate procedure provided constitutional due process protections equivalent to those available under the statute it replaced.

* See http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/constructive-criticism-or-discipline.html setting out the differences between letters constituting “constructive criticism” and letters constituting “reprimand.”

** This option was set out in the initial collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the State as an employer and the Civil Service Employees Association with respect to employees in negotiating units represented by CSEA.

The Hickey decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_04541.htm