Policy limits on vacation travel during FMLA leave

Policy limits on vacation travel during FMLA leave

Source: The FMLA Blog - http://federalfmla.typepad.com/fmla_blog/

Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved by Carl C. Bosland, Esq. Reproduced with permission. Mr. Bosland is the author of A Federal Sector Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act & Related Litigation.

A federal district court recently upheld an employer's policy requiring an employee to remain in the immediate vicinity of their home as a condition of receiving paid sick leave, including during periods when the employee is on FMLA leave.  In limited circumstances, the policy allowed an employee to travel outside of the immediate vicinity of their home for medial treatment, family needs, and with the prior consent of the employer.  Violation of the policy could result in termination of paid leave, as well as discipline. 

Denise Pellegrino was employed by the Communications Workers of AMerica (CWA) in a clerical capacity.  Pursuant to the CWA FMLA-Sick Leave Policy, Pellegrino notified the CWA that she needed leave for surgery.  The CWA approved Pellegrino's request for FMLA leave, and notified her that she would be required to substitute paid sick leave for the absence.  While on approved leave, Pellegrino traveled to Cancun, Mexico, where she stayed for a week.  There was no medical or family reason for the trip, nor had she secured the CWA's prior consent to travel outside of the immediate vicinity of her home during leave. The CWA terminated Pellegrino for violation of the CWA's leave policies. 

Pellegrino filed suit alleging that her termination violated the FMLA.  CWA moved for summary judgment alleging that the FMLA did not protect Pellegrino from termination for a reason unrelated to her FMLA leave- namely, violation of the CWA policy restricting unapproved travel for someone receiving paid sick leave benefits.  CWA argued that it would have terminated her irrespective of her status under the FMLA as it had the right to enforce its policies restricting unapproved travel where an employee is on paid sick leave.   The Court agreed with the CWA.

The Court confirmed that the FMLA does not shield an employee from termination if the employee was allegedly involved in misconduct related to the use of FMLA leave.  So long as employer policies do not conflict with or diminish an employee's FMLA rights, the FMLA, the Court found, "in no way prevent an employer from instituting policies to prevent the abuse of FMLA leave."  Here, CWA terminated Pellegrino because she violated CWA's Sickness and Absenteeism policy by leaving the immediate vicinity of her home without prior approval, or for any other permissible reason.  The Court reasoned that the policy served the legitimate purpose of ensuring that the privilege of paid sick leave is not abused. The Court also found that the policy does not discourage or prevent CWA employees from taking FMLA leave. 

The Court awarded summary judgment to the CWA for violation of the CWA travel restriction policy, a legitimate reason independent of her use of FMLA leave.

Mr. Bosland Comments: The FMLA does not prohibit an employer from enacting and enforcing leave and attendance policies to control leave abuse even where, as here, those policies may apply to FMLA leave.  Remember, under federal law, FMLA leave is always unpaid.  The only way an employee can get paid while on FMLA leave is pursuant to an employer's paid leave policy.  Employers are not required to offer paid sick or personal leave, but many do.  An employer's paid leave policy may not single out FMLA leave for special treatment.  Rather, as in Pellegrino, the paid leave policy should generally apply to all absences due to sickness or disability, which may also encompass FMLA leave.

In a fascinating footnote, the Court in dictum opined that, even if an employer did not have a formal policy restricting travel during FMLA leave, "no reasonable jury could find that an employer acts illegitimately or interferes with FMLA entitlements when that employer terminates an employee for taking a week-long vacation to Mexico without at least notifying the employer that her doctor had approved the travel or that she would be out of the country."  

I note that the FMLA generally does not require an employee on approved FMLA leave to notify an employer of their whereabouts during leave.  The Court's dictum would appear to impose such a requirement where none exists.  Absent a policy, I would not counsel employers to take adverse actions against employees for failure to provide notice of their intent to leave the vicinity of their homes during FMLA leave.    

The decision is consistent with a long line of cases allowing employers to impose and enforce neutral leave and attendance policies to curb leave abuse, even where the leave is covered by the FMLA.  

   

Pellegrino v. Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Civil Action No. 10-0098 (W.D. Pa. May 18, 2011) http://op.bna.com/dlrcases.nsf/id/jaca-8h2m25/$File/Pellegrino.pdf

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

Rules of the New York State Civil Service Commission typically do not control with respect to employees of a political subdivision of the State.

Rules of the New York State Civil Service Commission typically do not control with respect to employees of a political subdivision of the State.

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Inc. v Baldwin Union Free School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 04461, Appellate Division, Second Department

Francesco Pignataro, an employee of the Baldwin Union Free School District, filed a grievance and a demand for arbitration alleging that the District wrongly removed him from the payroll. Ultimately a proposed settlement of the matter was negotiated pursuant to which, among other things, it was agreed that Pignataro would receive the sum of $50,000 as compensation for his leave accruals in exchange for his resignation and the withdrawal of his grievance.

The Appellate Division subsequently ruled that Pignataro's letter of resignation was not "delivered" to the Board so as to preclude Pignataro from unilaterally withdrawing his letter of resignation without the Board's consent "under the pertinent Civil Service Law regulation (see 4 NYCRR 5.3[c])."*

However, 4 NYCRR 1.1, Application of rules, provides that

“Except as otherwise specified in any particular rule, these rules shall apply to positions and employments in the classified service of the State and public authorities, public benefit corporations and other agencies for which the Civil Service Law is administered by the State Department of Civil Service.”

Accordingly, 4 NYCRR 5.3[c] controls only with respect to employees of the State of New York as an employer and those entities for which the Civil Service Law is administered by the New York State Department of Civil Service. The Baldwin Union Free School District is not such an entity.

A number of local civil service commissions have adopted a rule similar to 4 NYCRR 5.3[c].** For example, Westchester County Civil Service Rule 17 addresses resignations and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

“17.3 Withdrawal or amendment [of a resignation]. A resignation may not be withdrawn, cancelled or amended after it is delivered to the appointing authority, without the consent of the appointing authority.”

In the event the Nassau County Civil Service Commission has adopted a rule addressing the ability of an individual to withdraw his or her resignation, presumably the Appellate Division would apply that rule in resolving the matter.

* 4 NYCRR 5.3(c) provides that a resignation of a civil service employee, which must be in writing, "may not be withdrawn, cancelled or amended after it is delivered to the appointing authority, without the consent of the appointing authority." However, this rule applies only to employees in the classified service of the State and public authorities, public benefit corporations and other agencies for which the Civil Service Law is administered by the State Department of Civil Service. Many local civil service commissions have adopted a similar rule.:

** Section 20 of the Civil Service Law sets out the procedures to be followed by a local civil service commission or personnel officer wishing to amend its “personnel rules.” It provides that such rules may be amended only after a public hearing and requires the approval of the State Civil Service Commission. Finally, to have the “force and effect of law,” the amendment must be filed with the Secretary of State to complete the process.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_04461.htm

Appellate Division holds that Commissioner of Education has primary jurisdiction to decide tenure area matters

Appellate Division holds that Commissioner of Education has initial jurisdiction to decide tenure area matters

Matter of Moraitis v Board of Educ. Deer Park Union Free School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 04254, Appellate Division, Second Department

Deep Park granted Regina Moraitis tenure in the position of "computer teacher," effective August 31, 2003. On January 16, 2009, her position as "computer teacher" was abolished.  

Moraitis filed a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order compelling Deer Park to reinstate her as a full-time teacher in an accepted tenure area. Supreme Court granted Moraitis’ petition directing Deer Park to “reclassify” Moraitis into an accepted tenure area without loss of tenure time, directed her reinstatement as a full-time teacher, and directed the reinstatement of her benefits from the date of dismissal, with damages in the nature of lost salary and insurance payments.

Deer Park appealed and the Appellate Division vacated the lower court’s ruling.*

The Appellate Division, agreeing with Deer Park’s contention that the proceeding should have been dismissed on the ground that the Commissioner of Education had primary jurisdiction** over the dispute, explained: “It is within the unique knowledge and expertise of the Commissioner of Education to determine the factual issues of whether the [Moraitis] has tenure in an accepted tenure area, and whether her former position, and any new position which she may seek, are similar in nature.


* The Appellate Division, in considering a procedural defense, noted that “Under the facts of this case, a notice of claim pursuant to Education Law §3813(1) was not required.”

** "The doctrine of primary jurisdiction,” -- where the courts and an administrative agency have concurrent jurisdiction and the dispute involves issues beyond the conventional experience of judges . . . "the court will stay its hand until the agency has applied its expertise to the salient questions" [see Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_04254.htm

The Five-Step Program for Effective Discipline

The Five-Step Program for Effective Discipline

Reprinted with permission from HR Matters E-Tips, copyright Personnel Policy Service, Inc., Louisville, KY, all rights reserved, the HR Policy and Employment Law Compliance Experts for over 35 years, 1-800-437-3735.  Personnel Policy Service markets group legal service benefits and publishes HR information products, including the free weekly electronic newsletter, HR Matters E-Tips (http://www.ppspublishers.com/hrmetips.htm).  This article is not intended as legal advice.  Readers are encouraged to seek appropriate legal or other professional advice.

No one likes to discipline employees, and as a result supervisors may ignore problem behavior just to avoid confrontation. But, an effective disciplinary procedure is a necessary component of solid employment policies. Below are four pointers to help you determine what type of discipline is appropriate and a five-step progressive disciplinary system you can implement. 

Yet, inaction can be equally dangerous if employee behavior problems are consistently ignored. When your managers do not actively address poor performance and misconduct, morale and productivity will suffer. You can relieve some of this unavoidable stress by establishing clear expectations for employee behavior and by training supervisors to take a proactive approach using a five-step combination of corrective counseling and progressive discipline. This approach should require supervisors to confront employee performance and misconduct problems and to document the proceedings. Further, it should give employees specific feedback, plus action plans and timelines for improvement. * Four Considerations to Determine the Appropriate Discipline * The type of corrective action you should take in a given situation generally depends on four issues: (1) the nature and seriousness of the infraction, (2) whether it is a first time or repeat offense, (3) past handling of similar disciplinary problems, and (4) whether there are special circumstances impacting the level of needed response. (Download free Disciplinary Procedure model policy including HR best practices and legal background.) * Step One: Informal Counseling * Unless an employee has engaged in a serious or repeated offense, the most appropriate initial response normally is to have an informal, yet specific, solutions-oriented coaching session with the employee. During this discussion you should: 1. Remind the employee of pertinent policies and work rules; 2. Provide concrete examples of how the employee’s behavior or performance has fallen short of expectations; 3. Explain the impact of the employee’s deficiencies on the organization and coworkers; and 4. Describe actions the employee needs to take to correct the problem. In many instances, having one or two candid discussions is all you need to help a wayward employee get back on track. * Steps Two Through Five: Progressive Discipline * When the informal coaching attempts fail, or when there is more serious misconduct, formal disciplinary action is necessary. Most organizations follow a “progressive discipline” policy where employees incur increasingly severe consequences for repeated infractions or for the continued failure to remedy deficiencies. Typically, the normal progression in this type of a system is a formal verbal warning, one or two written warnings, suspension, and, finally, termination. 1. Oral warning and counseling. Here, you identify the problem, state your expectations, and explain the adverse consequences if uncorrected. This first disciplinary step is similar to the informal coaching session since it is intended to counsel the employee on improvement. However, the employee should understand that he is now at risk for additional disciplinary action if he does not improve. You should keep a confidential record of the session and put a copy in the employee’s personnel file.

_________________________________________________________________ Employment Practices Self-Audit Workbook. Find and fix problems today with this must-have resource for HR professionals. Don’t wait until agency watchdogs or disgruntled employees find your flaws. _________________________________________________________________

2. Written warning. If the employee’s behavior does not improve, a written warning should follow. As with oral notice, you again inform the employee of the performance expectations and required changes, but also give the employee formal written notice conveying the increased seriousness. A copy of the warning also should be placed in the employee’s personnel file. 3. Suspension. The next step is a suspension, often referred to as a “decision-making leave.” Its purpose is to place the employee on final notice and force a commitment to improve, or face termination. 4. Termination. If all efforts fail and the employee’s performance does not improve or misconduct continues, the final step is termination. (Of course, in certain circumstances involving particularly bad behavior, termination may be appropriate as the only disciplinary step.) To ensure that discharge is the proper response, all decisions should be reviewed by at least one level of management above the immediate supervisor, and by the HR manager. This review provides a system of checks and balances and should catch questionable decisions that warrant further legal review. * Four More Tips to Effective Discipline * Once you have decided to implement a progressive disciplinary system, you also have to support it with your policies and procedures. To this end, you should: 1. Develop sound written policies. It is safest to have a written discipline policy that provides clear guidelines and, at the same time, reserves your right to exercise discretion in the actual handling of unacceptable behavior or performance. Some employers resist developing a written discipline policy on the grounds that they want to maintain desired flexibility. This approach can easily lead to arbitrary, inconsistent, and even discriminatory treatment of employees. (Download free Disciplinary Procedure model policy including HR best practices and legal background.) 2. Implement disciplinary procedures fairly and carefully. Make it clear to your workforce that the goal of your discipline system is correction of problem behaviors and not punishment for the sake of punishment. Employees are more likely to accept discipline when counseling and disciplinary procedures emphasize employee improvement and when warnings are given before more severe discipline is imposed. At every phase of corrective action, the employee should be given the opportunity to respond and give feedback. 3. Train supervisors in their roles and responsibilities. Supervisors are management’s frontline contact and play a pivotal role in dealing with conduct and performance issues. You should support this role by providing proper training to spot and handle problem behaviors and by lending expertise, guidance, and support when formal disciplinary action is necessary. In addition, supervisors should be carefully trained about the vital relationship between proper discipline and employment law compliance. 4. Require and maintain accurate documentation. Proper documentation of employee problems and related corrective actions is essential to support and validate your disciplinary process. First, it provides an accurate accounting of the steps taken to help the employee improve and can be used to evaluate the employee. Second, it provides a critical line of defense if you have to justify your actions or defend a lawsuit.

Governor Cuomo’s letter to the Chancellor of the Board of Regents regarding performance evaluations for teachers

Governor Cuomo’s letter to the Chancellor of the Board of Regents regarding performance evaluations for teachers

Source: Office of the Governor

On May 13, 2011 Governor Andrew M. Cuomo sent the following letter to the Chancellor of the Board of Regents Merryl Tisch regarding changes needed to improve and accelerate performance evaluations for teachers.

The Governor's full letter is as follows:

Dear Chancellor Tisch:

Performance is the key to education. It's not about how much we spend, but the results that matter. As data show our education spending hasn't resulted in performance. New York schools spend 71 percent more than the national average, yet rank only 40^th in graduation rates and 34^th in the nation in the percentage of adults who have a high school diploma or the equivalent.

We must focus on measures and accountability. That is why the State Education Department's ("SED") current process to develop a teacher and principal evaluation system is critically important. We not only need a strong evaluation system that will improve the performance of our children, but also to support our educators so they can continually develop and improve. Our goal should be to have the best system of evaluation in the nation, yet our proposed system falls short of other states, such as Colorado and Tennessee.

What SED establishes today will have a lasting effect for decades to come so it is imperative it's done correctly. The current Draft Regulations for Teacher and Principal Evaluation ("Draft Regulations") that were recently issued, however, need revision if we are to implement a system that will be the building blocks to greater performance in our education system.

Although there are a number of details in need of improvement, we recommend SED make the following comprehensive changes:

· Increase the percentage of statewide objective data, like measuring student growth on statewide test scores, used to evaluate teacher performance; · Impose rigorous classroom observation and other subjective measures standards on school districts when evaluating teacher performance; · Require a positive teacher evaluation rating be given only when the teacher receives a combined positive rating on both subjective and objective measures, such as student growth on statewide tests; and, · Accelerate the implementation of the evaluation system.

These are discussed in more detail below and, if implemented, will greatly strengthen the evaluation process.

· First, remove the explicit language prohibiting the same measure of student growth on state assessments from being used for locally-selected assessment measures and state measures simultaneously

The Draft Regulations explicitly bar a school district from using the same measure of student growth on the same assessment for both the state assessment subcomponent and the locally-selected measures subcomponent. We believe such a prohibition is unnecessarily restrictive because it precludes a school district from using the objective state-developed growth measure for the locally-selected measures.

The Draft Regulations should be amended to permit the same student growth measure be used for the state assessment and locally-selected measures. By removing this prohibition in the Draft Regulations, up to 40 percent of the total score could be based on objective student growth measures on state tests—a percentage that is closer to many other states.

This change would ensure that greater balance is struck between using objective teacher evaluation measures, such as statewide testing, and subjective teacher evaluation measures, such as classroom observation. Given that the subjective measures have far greater weight under the evaluation process system, it is imperative that the Draft Regulations adopted do not explicitly reduce the types of objective assessments, such as growth on state tests, available to be used.

· Second, impose additional standards on school districts to improve the 60 percent of locally-developed rubric requirements, such as the observation process, to make evaluations more rigorous

The Draft Regulations must be strengthened and better defined to make the 60 percent subjective criteria to evaluate teachers more valuable. Already, New York is an outlier as compared to other states in that it requires more weight be given to subjective measures when rating teachers. Therefore, it is critical that the Draft Regulations include greater precision and impose clear standards.

For example, under the Draft Regulations, half of the 60 percent of the locally-developed rubric must be based on classroom observation. Studies have shown that a rigorous evaluation program based on classroom observation is a significant component in promoting student achievement growth. As such, the classroom observation requirement should be increased from half to at least 40 percent of the 60 percent total of the locally-developed rubric.

Moreover, the Draft Regulations should establish baseline standards to make classroom observation a more meaningful measure. At a minimum it is vital that the Draft Regulations require multiple annual observations and include criteria for using third party observers.

· Third, require a positive teacher evaluation rating be given only when the teacher receives a combined positive rating on both subjective and objective measures, such as student growth on statewide tests

As was discussed above, under the Draft Regulations, objective measurements (e.g. state assessments) have lower weight than subjective measurements to evaluate teachers. In addition, there is no guarantee that objective measures have much meaning in the currently proposed scoring bands. In essence, a teacher could receive a positive rating, such as "developing", based only on subjective teacher evaluation measures.

Other states, such as Delaware and Rhode Island, require "effective" ratings in both the subjective and objective testing measures in order for a teacher or principal to receive an overall "effective" rating. No such requirement exists under the Draft Regulations and therefore diminishes the weight given to objective measurements in the evaluation process. Therefore, at a minimum, the scoring bands should be adjusted to give greater weight to the objective measures by not allowing a positive rating based on subjective measures alone. As an alternative, it is recommended that a teacher or principal be rated "effective" in both objective and subjective categories in order to receive an overall "effective" or "highly effective" rating.

· Fourth, accelerate the timetable of implementing the evaluation system

I appreciate your assistance in accelerating the process so the evaluation system could be implemented for all teachers prior to the full implementation deadline of the 2012-13 school year. However, we must make sure that school districts begin the process in an expeditious manner. Endless implementation delays will hamper our ability to ensure our children are getting the best education, because a system not implemented is of no use.

Since SED has articulated the criteria for implementing the entire teacher and principal evaluation system, schools districts should fully implement the teacher and principal evaluation system for the 2011-12 school year and therefore the Draft Regulations should authorize school districts to do so.

Finally, my Administration will aggressively seek to incentivize schools districts to implement the evaluation system expeditiously. Therefore, only those districts that actually perform, and implement the teacher and principal evaluation system, would be eligible for the Executive's School Performance Incentive Program—a $500 million program—that I included in the Executive Budget. School districts would potentially lose millions of dollars on state awards for failure to implement the system quickly.

We must not squander the opportunity to set the right course and make New York a leader in evaluating performance in our education system. If done correctly we will revive our education system to ensure students perform better and succeed in their future careers. The recommendations above will help set the course. Now is our chance to make New York a leader in education performance.

Sincerely,
Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the doctrine of the exhaustion of administrative remedies considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the doctrine of the exhaustion of administrative remedies considered in determining the jurisdiction of the court
Matter of Neumann v Wyandanch Union Free School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 03859, Appellate Division, Second Department 

Sally Neumann sued the Wyandanch Union Free School District for its alleged breach of her employment contract. Supreme Court’s dismissal of Neumann’s breach of contract action. Neumann also claimed that she had attained tenure by estoppel as “Director of Technology” with the school district

Neumann, was employed by Wyandanch as its "Director of Technology" in November 2004. She was later transferred to the position of "Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Technology." In September 2008 the District assigned her to the position of "Assistant Director for Curriculum and Technology."

The collective bargaining agreement between the District and the Wyandanch Administrators Association provided that "Director" positions were eligible for tenure and represented by the Association, but the "Assistant Superintendent" position was nontenured and excluded from Association membership.

In July 2008, Neumann had entered into an employment contract with the District for her third year of employment as Assistant Superintendent. The contract provided that the "terms and conditions of employment" not otherwise addressed in the contract were incorporated from the collective bargaining agreement. Under the collective bargaining agreement, claims relating to its terms were subject to a mandatory grievance process.

In September 2008, following her assignment to the "Assistant Director for Curriculum and Technology" position, the District reduced Neumann's salary to $135,706. In November 2008, the District abolished Neumann's position, and no longer paid her a salary after that date.

Neumann commenced a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and plenary action seeking a judgment declaring that she had acquired tenure by estoppel as a Director based in part on her service in the Assistant Superintendent position. She also sought damages based on the District's alleged breach of contract when it reduced and finally ceased to pay her the salary provided for in the July 2008 employment agreement.

The Supreme Court, relying on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, dismissed Neumann’s action claiming she had acquired tenure by estoppel and directed her to raise her tenure claim before the Commissioner of Education. The court also dismissed her claim alleging breach of contract.

Addressing "The doctrine of primary jurisdiction,” the court explained that the doctrine provides that where the courts and an administrative agency have concurrent jurisdiction over a dispute involving issues beyond the conventional experience of judges . . . the court will stay its hand until the agency has applied its expertise to the salient questions," citing Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355. Further, said the court, "The doctrine . . . applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. In such situations “the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views.'"

In contrast, where the determination does not require the special competence of an administrative agency, the doctrine does not apply.

In this instance the Appellate Division ruled that the interpretation and enforcement of Neumann's employment agreement was not within the Commissioner of Education's specialized knowledge and experience. Rather its interpretation and enforcement depends on common-law contract rules that lie within the purview of the judiciary. Accordingly, said the court, Supreme Court’s dismissal of Neumann’s cause of action alleging breach of contract under color of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction was improper and the Supreme Court should have retained jurisdiction to decide that cause of action.

As to the School District’s argument that Neumann’s dismissal was nevertheless proper because she was required to exhaust her administrative remedies by submitting the matter to the grievance procedure mandated under the collective bargaining agreement, the Appellate Division said that “the clear terms of [Neumann’s employment agreement and relevant provisions of the collective bargaining agreement” indicate that Association’s grievance remedies were not available to Neumann with respect to her cause of action alleging breach of contract.

Consequently, Neumann was entitled to seek judicial review directly, and thus her cause of action breach of contract should not have been dismissed.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_03859.htm

Employee’s dismissal for “excessive absenteeism” failed to survive judicial scrutiny where such absences were authorized by the employer and properly documented

Employee’s dismissal for “excessive absenteeism” failed to survive judicial scrutiny where such absences were authorized by the employer and properly documented 

Matter of Iarocci v Incorporated Vil. of W. Haverstraw, 2011 NY Slip Op 50794(U), Supreme Court, Rockland County, Judge Alfred J. Weiner [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports.] 

Michael Iarocci was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §75 Civil Service. He was found guilty a pattern of excessive absences over an 18-month period.* 

Iarocci contended that his absences were all for valid reasons and that his termination was contrary to law and was arbitrary and capricious. The Village, on the other hand, argued that Iarocci’s “excessive absences” made him unreliable and, therefore, incompetent to perform his duties. 

The §75 Hearing Officer found there was "...substantial evidence to support the charge of incompetence based upon [Iarocci’s] excessive absences but that [his] absences did not affect the morale of the department to the extent that it was ... asserted in conclusory fashion by the witnesses who testified."  The Hearing Officer recommended that Iarocci be suspended for a period of 90 days without pay and that upon his return placed on disciplinary probationary for an appropriate period of time.

West Haverstraw accepted the findings of the Hearing Officer but imposed the penalty of dismissal.

Iarocci appealed that Judge Weiner said that the issue before him was whether the penalty of termination was "so disproportionate as to shock one's sense of fairness?" 

Citing Matter of Featherstone v. Franco, 95 NY2d 550, Judge Weiner said that “Judicial review of an administrative penalty is limited to whether the measure or mode of penalty of discipline imposed constitutes an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.” Further, the court observed, in Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222, the Court of Appeals set out the standard for determining the appropriate penalty is whether the punishment imposed is "...so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness." 

Judge Weiner then set out a number of decision in which courts have upheld the termination of a public employee found guilty of “excessive absence” including McKinnon v. Board of Educ. of North Bellmore Union Free School Dist. 273 AD2d 240, Alston v. Morgan 245 AD2d 287, and Romano v. Town Bd. of Town of Colonie, 200 AD2d 934.

Here, however, the record indicated that Iarocci had received authorization from his employer for his absences, followed the appropriate call-in procedures and obtained appropriate medical documentation when necessary. Further, the court found that he was never warned about his excessive absences or charged with insubordination or other misconduct. 

Other mitigating circumstances considered by Judge Weiner included Iarocci employment for ten years and no prior disciplinary problems; his frequent absences commenced only began after he had gallbladder surgery and later suffered an employment related back injury; and his promotion from Motor Equipment Operator I to Motor Equipment Operator II by West Haverstraw. 

Distinguishing Iarocci’s situation from the facts underlying the several cases in which termination has been imposed for excessive absenteeism, Judge Weiner noted that “When absenteeism has been authorized by an employer and properly documented according to procedure, termination for excessive absenteeism has not been imposed upon an employee unless it was coupled with more aggravating factors, including insubordination, [following] progressive discipline and other incidents of poor performance at work.”

Rulling that penalty of termination imposed upon Iarocci by West Haverstraw was  “disproportionate to the offense charged …” Judge Weiner said that the Town “should have given due weight to mitigating factors when deciding the appropriate penalty to impose.”

Annulling the penalty of dismissal, Judge Weiner remanded the matter to the Village Board “for the imposition of a penalty other than termination.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_50794.htm

A series of annual appointments as an educator may not result in tenure by estoppel

A series of annual appointments as an educator may not result in tenure by estoppel

Mohr v Salamanca City School District, 267 A.D.2d 983

Seniority is one of the critical elements in determining the retention of an employee in layoff situations. Such seniority, however, is a function of having tenure with the individual’s employer, as the Mohr case demonstrates. As Mohr demonstrates, tenure is attained as a result of being continued in service after completing a probationary period and not simply completing a series of annual appointments.

Brian Mohr was appointed as a teacher’s aide in Salamanca’s Bilingual Education Program in 1978. He was reappointed annually to that position until 1982 when he was appointed as a Title VII funded Bilingual Resource Teacher [BFT] for one year.

In determining seniority for the purposes of a layoff, the District found that Mohr, the least senior teacher, and he was terminated. Mohr sued, contending that because of his earlier service with the district, he was not the least senior teacher in his tenure area. Mohr argued that he had acquired tenure by estoppel as a teacher as a result of his service with the district from 1987 through and including 1992. He claimed that this entitled him to “bump” a teacher in the Seneca Language/Iroquois Culture tenure area with less seniority or, alternatively, to be placed on the preferred list for employment in “similar positions”.

The Appellate Division said “Supreme Court properly rejected those contentions.”

According to the decision, although an individual who completes his or her probationary period may attain tenure by estoppel, Mohr had not been appointed to a “tenure track” position until 1993. Each of Mohr’s pre-1993 employments by the district was dependent on the district’s receiving grant funds. As Mohr had been employed under a series of one-year contracts rather than for a “probationary term,” the court said that he could not, and did not, attain tenure by estoppel. This meant that Mohr could not “bump” a teacher with less service with the district.

In Yastion v Mills, 229 A.D.2d 775, the Appellate Division held that a teacher may work on a year-to-year contractual basis and never acquire tenure even after three years of service. Orange-Ulster BOCES had appointed Yastion to a federally funded position and his annual employment contracts specifically indicated that “tenure does not apply to this position.”

Mohr was no more successful with his claim that he should be placed on a preferred list. The Appellate Division said that “it is well settled that a teacher is entitled to be placed on a preferred eligible list if he or she is certified in the same or a similar tenure area.”

Pointing out that Mohr was not certified to teach in the Elementary Education or a similar tenure area, the court said that while he held a permit that was the equivalent of certification to teach Seneca Language/Iroquois Culture, “the closest tenure area to Seneca Language/Iroquois Culture is the foreign languages tenure area, which, said the court, applies to seventh grade and above, not to the elementary grades.” Accordingly, the Appellate Division dismissed this branch of his appeal as well, holding that Mohr was not “entitled to placement on a preferred eligibility list.”

An appeal of an arbitration award must be perfected within the controlling statute of limitations

An appeal of an arbitration award must be perfected within the controlling statute of limitations

Rodriguez v NYC Transit Authority, 269 A.D.2d 600, Motion for appeal denied, 96 N.Y.2d 704

Hermino Rodriguez was dismissed from his position of cleaner with the New York City Transit Authority after being found guilty of disciplinary charges by a tripartite arbitration board.

Objecting to his termination, Rodriguez filed an Article 78 petition. A State Supreme Court judge vacated the arbitration award and directed the Authority to reinstate Rodriguez to his former position with back salary.

Find anything wrong with this? The Appellate Division did and overturned the lower court’s ruling.

In the words of the Appellate Division, “[c]ontrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the only proper proceeding to seek review of the arbitrators’ decision in this case would be pursuant to CPLR [Civil Practice Law and Rules] Article 75...” not Article 78.

In addition, Section 7510 of the CPLR has a relatively short statute of limitation. The motion to vacate the arbitration award must be filed within 90 days of the receipt of the arbitrators’ decision.*

Rodriguez received a copy of the arbitration award affirming his termination on July 24, 1997. He filed his Article 78 petition, which was not heard until November 15, 1997. By that time it was too late for him to file an Article 75 petition.

While the Supreme Court justice treated Rodriguez’s Article 78 proceeding as an application pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR, which he could do, the court did not have the power to extend the Statute of Limitations controlling the filing Article 75 actions.

The point here is that Rodriguez could have filed his motion to vacate the arbitration award within 90 days of his receiving the determination even if he had already filed an Article 78 action. The fact that he had started an Article 78 action, however, did not toll the running of the statute of limitations applicable in an Article 75 pro­ceeding.

* Education law Section 2030-a.5 provides an even shorter statute of limitations for challenging an adverse  disciplinary arbitration award – 10 days: Section 3020-a.5 Appeal. Not later than ten days after receipt of the hearing officer’s decision, the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York state supreme court to vacate or modify the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to section seven thousand five hundred eleven of the civil practice law and rules. The court's review shall be limited to the grounds set forth in such section. The hearing panel's determination shall be deemed to be final for the purpose of such proceeding. In no case shall the filing or the pendency of an appeal delay the implementation of the decision of the hearing officer.

Termination of educator for posting sex ad on Craigslist while off-duty upheld by California court

Termination of educator for posting sex ad on Craigslist while off-duty upheld by California court Source: Meyers Nave PLC. Reproduced with permission. Copyright © 2011, Meyers Nave. All rights reserved From time to time disciplinary charges will be filed against a public employee for alleged off-duty misconduct. In a posting on its Law Blog Public Law News, Meyers Nave notes the decision in San Diego Unified School District v Commission on Professional Competence. It reports: “In San Diego Unified School District v. Commission on Professional Competence (Lampedusa), --- Cal. Rptr. 3d ---, 2011 WL 1234686 (ordered published May 3, 2011), the California Court of Appeal upheld a school district's dismissal of a schoolteacher who was terminated for posting a sexually explicit ad and photos of himself on Craigslist while off duty. The ad neither identified the school nor that he was a teacher.  Nevertheless, the Court found the dismissal was justified based on the teacher's "evident unfitness" to serve as a teacher and that he had engaged in "immoral conduct" in posting the ad. “In reversing the decision of the Superior Court (which upheld the Commission's finding of no cause for dismissal), the Court of Appeal affirmed the principal that "[t]here are certain professions which impose . . . responsibilities and limitations on freedom of action which do not exist in regard to other callings. Public officials such as judges, policemen and schoolteachers fall into such a category." “The Court's decision relied in part on the United States Supreme Court's ruling in City of San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77 (2004). In Roe, the Court upheld the termination of a police officer discharged for selling homemade pornographic videos on an online auction site. Notably, the Court held that although the police officer's activities occurred outside of work and were purportedly unrelated to his employment, they were nonetheless "detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer." Accordingly, the City of San Diego was justified in disciplining the officer for his conduct.  “The Court of Appeal in Lampedusa applied this same principal to find that "the disciplinary action taken by the District did not have an adverse impact or chilling effect on Lampedusa's constitutional rights." The decision thus supports the idea that, despite the substantial limitation on an agency's ability to discipline public employees for off-duty conduct, courts will uphold discipline for off-duty conduct when there is a sufficient nexus to the workplace, and are more likely to find that nexus with particular job classifications such as public safety. “PRACTICE TIP: A public employer considering discipline for off-duty conduct should carefully scrutinize the conduct at issue and surrounding circumstances in evaluating whether there is a sufficient nexus to the workplace to justify the discipline. As noted in the Lampedusa and Roe decisions, a public employee's position and job responsibilities can factor into that analysis.”

Recent decisions reported by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings

 Recent decisions reported by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings 

A deputy sheriff who served as union treasurer was discovered to have transferred funds totaling $13,266, drawn from union accounts into his own bank account. When confronted, he refused to reimburse the union or provide receipts showing how the money was spent. Administrative Law Judge John Spooner found that respondent’s theft was inconsistent with his law enforcement responsibilities, and recommended termination from employment. Dep’t of Finance v. Smyth (in PDF), OATH Index No. 1285/11 (Mar. 9, 2011), adopted, Comm’r Dec.

An eligibility specialist who was arrested for participating in a scheme to defraud Medicaid, was charged with failing to report her arrest, accessing New York City Human Resources Administration’s Welfare Management System (“WMS”) without authorization, obtaining information on four Medicaid beneficiaries, and providing the information to an outside party for compensation. Administrative Law Judge Ingrid Addison found no proof that respondent knowingly participated in a conspiracy to defraud Medicaid, or that she received any form of compensation. However, petitioner proved that respondent made four attempts to login to WMS with a supervisor’s password in violation of HRA’s policies. Because she found no evidence that respondent was knowingly and willingly complicit in the scheme, the ALJ found termination to be disproportionate to the proven misconduct and recommended that respondent be demoted to a position where she no longer has access to WMS and the sensitive agency information on that system.  Human Resources Admin. v. Mays (in PDF), OATH Index No. 1299/11 

Administrative Law Judge Ingrid Addison recommended dismissal of multiple charges against a computer specialist that she was not competent to perform her job. Petitioner proved that respondent made six errors in a six-month period, but failed to prove that respondent’s errors were willful, or that there was such a proliferation of them so as to deem her incompetent. Petitioner established respondent was insubordinate when she yelled at her supervisor, did not respond to a voice message, and did not update operating procedures properly. The recommended penalty was a 25-day suspension. Transit Auth. v. Victor (in PDF), OATH Index No. 799/11 (Mar. 3, 2011), adopted, Comm’r Dec

New York City Human Resources Administration alleged that respondent was absent without authorization for three periods totaling 16 months. Respondent asserted that her absences were caused by various medical conditions, particularly depression. However, respondent did not provide sufficient proof of her medical conditions. She admitted that she was never treated for depression and that her absences were not authorized. Administrative Law Judge Joan Salzman found that, though respondent had some personal difficulties, termination of employment was the appropriate penalty for her lengthy AWOL, where she had failed to follow procedures for medical absences and to communicate with the Administration about her need for leave. Human Resources Admin. v. Gonzalez (in PDF), OATH Index No. 972/11

Compelling an employee to answer work-related questions

Compelling an employee to answer work-related questions

Compelling an employee to answer work-related questions has been considered by New York and Federal courts in a number of cases. Below are listed some of the holdings by courts concerning some basic “Fifth Amendment considerations” in the context of administrative disciplinary action:

1. Forcing an employee to answer work-connected questions or be terminated from his or her position generally precludes criminal prosecution based on those answers. Testimony obtained under threat of the loss of public employment provides the employee with limited immunity in criminal prosecutions based on the individual’s responses to such inquiries.* Essentially testimony provided under threat of loss of the individual’s public employment may not be used as a basis for, or in, subsequent criminal prosecution involving that individual. [Lefkowitz v Turley, 414 US 70]. The Court of Appeals addressed this issue in People v Corrigan, 80 NY2d 326. The Court of Appeals said that under both state and federal law any statement made under the threat of dismissal is protected by the privilege against self-incrimination and is “automatically immunized from use in criminal proceedings.” The court said that the immunity that attaches to any statement that a public worker gives under compulsion bars the use of the statement itself, as well as any evidence derived directly or indirectly from it, in any criminal prosecution.

2. The several decisions in Mountain v Schenectady [474 NY2d 612; 453 NY2d 93 and 428 NY2d 772] focus on the impact of an employee’s refusal to waive his or her immunity from prosecution and suffers the loss of his or her public office as a result of such refusal. The Mountain rulings focused on the relationships between a refusal to waive immunity from prosecution and the loss of public office.**

3. Where an employee is entitled to immunity with respect to the employee’s admissions or statements made in the course of a disciplinary investigation because it had been compelled under threat of termination, “that immunity would dissolve in the face of false allegations being filed.” [Seabrook v Johnston, 660 NY2d 311, United States v Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115]. In other words, transactional or use immunity does not permit the individual to lie.

4. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a federal government agency could impose a harsher discipline on an employee who lied while being investigated for job-related conduct. Although only federal employees were involved, the ruling may influence cases involving state and local employees. As to a "Fifth Amendment" defense in such cases, in Brogan v United States, 522 US 398, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a former union official who falsely answered a federal investigator's questions. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not bar prosecuting an individual who answers questions falsely in contrast to his or her refusing to answer the same inquiries.

5. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, held that in the event employees remain silent in the course of a disciplinary action, citing the Fifth Amendment or some other reason, the appointing authority is free to consider such silence and draw adverse inferences in making its determination in a disciplinary action.

6. An appointing authority may experience a situation in which an attempt to discipline an employee appears frustrated because the employee claims that he or she has been granted immunity in connection with a criminal proceeding. According to the Appellate Division, administrative disciplinary action may proceed notwithstanding the claimed immunity (Greco v Board of Nursing Home Examiners, 91 AD2d 1108). In Greco, a Special Prosecutor granted Greco “transactional immunity from prosecution” in connection with a criminal matter in exchange for his cooperation. The Nursing Home Examiners subsequently revoked Greco’s nursing home administrator’s license. The Appellate Division, in a split decision, rejected Greco’s argument that his immunity barred revocation of his license. The court ruled, “a prosecutor cannot divest an independent body of its lawful discretion by promising broad immunity.” This is consistent with the view that an administrative disciplinary action based on the same events that may have resulted in a criminal prosecution is not “double jeopardy.” Had the board been a party to the granting of immunity, however, it would have been bound by the agreement.

7. Statements made by an employee to the police during an investigation of criminal charges filed against the employee constitutes “competent evidence” and may be admitted into evidence during the administrative disciplinary hearing (Dacey v County of Dutchess, 121 AD2d 536). In contrast, where the administrative disciplinary action precedes criminal action, in the event the appointing authority threatens to terminate or take other adverse action against an employee if he or she does not answer work-related questions, the employee’s answers to those questions are automatically shielded from use in a subsequent criminal prosecution under the doctrine of “transactional immunity” or “use immunity.”

8. Witnesses who may have participated in wrongdoing are not automatically granted transactional or use immunity by virtue of their testimony in an administrative procedure. Further, an administrative tribunal cannot bind the district attorney by a promise of immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for the individual’s testimony as a witness at an administrative hearing. By the same token, the district attorney cannot bind an administrative tribunal with respect to its exercising its lawful authority. If immunity is a consideration, the witness must be granted such immunity by the appropriate authority in order for it to be effective and binding on that authority.

Responding to the following inquiry:

May a police officer be compelled to answer questions posed by a department's internal affairs division concerning on-duty and off-duty activities that directly involve their abilities to “carry out the public trust?” the Attorney General advised that:

In Matt v LaRocca, 71 NY2d 154, the Court of Appeals said that the State “may compel any person enjoying a public trust to account for his activities and may terminate his services if he refuses to answer relevant questions, or furnishes information indicating that he is no longer entitled to public confidence.”

In addition, the Attorney General noted that the United States Supreme Court in Garner v Broderick, 392 US 273, held that if an public officer or employee refuses to answer questions specifically, directly and narrowly related to the performance of his official duties and is not required to waive immunity with respect to the answers in a criminal prosecution, the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination would not bar termination for such refusal to answer.

On the issue of “off-duty” conduct, however, the Attorney General said that there is no explicit statement in case law to the effect that a public officer or employee may be compelled to answer questions concerning such activities. The opinion then indicated that “presumably some off-duty activities are relevant to an employee's performance of his public trust ... a factual determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis.”

The Attorney General concluded that an “internal affairs division [of a law enforcement agency] may compel officers to answer questions directly relating to their official duties, assuming that no waiver of immunity is required,” suggesting that “it would be wise to coordinate the department's investigation of such persons with the district attorney's office.” [Informal Opinion of the Attorney General 93-12].

* Such limited immunity is usually referred to as “transactional immunity” or as “use immunity.”

** Mountain, a police officer, refused to waive such immunity when called before a Grand Jury. He was dismissed following a Civil Service Section 75 disciplinary hearing for refusing to so waive immunity. The appointing authority relied on Article I Section 6 of the State Constitution which provides that a public officer if called to testify before a Grand Jury concerning the performance of official duties shall be removed from office if he or she refuses to sign a waiver of immunity. The Court concluded that demanding such a waiver violated Mountain's constitutional protection against self-incrimination. While a public officer may be removed for failing to answer questions relevant to the performance of official duties, he or she may not be dismissed for failing to waive immunity. It appears that had Mountain simply been asked relevant questions concerning his performance of his official duties, without any demand for a waiver of immunity, his dismissal for refusing to answer such questions would have been lawful.

Employee terminated for making false statements in his application for employment

Employee terminated for making false statements in his application for employment

Tezeno v City of Watertown Municipal Civil Service Commission, 37 AD3d 1122

The City of Watertown Municipal Civil Service Commission, after finding that Elijah Tezeno, a City of Watertown Firefighter, had “intentionally made false statements of material fact in his applications” for employment, removed him from his position with the City.

The Appellate Division sustained the Commission’s action, commenting that:

The false statement made in petitioner's firefighter application alone constitutes a violation of Civil Service Law §50(4)(f); and

The penalty of termination is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, citing Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/disqualification-for-making-false.html

Termination of a probationer

Termination of a probationer

Mennella v Uniondale UFSD, Comm. Ed. Decision 14245

The Uniondale Union Free School District appointed Vincenza Mennella as its Dean of Students effective September 1, 1998. The appointment was subject to a three-year probationary period.

In January 1999, Mennella was evaluated and rated unsatisfactory or “in need of improvement” in four categories. In March 1999, the superintendent advised Mennella that she would recommend that the board terminate Mennella’s employment. When asked for the reasons for this, the superintendent told Mennella that her recommendation was based on Mennella’s:

1. Working relationships with other administrators;

2. Failure to complete classroom evaluations of first year teachers in her department in a timely manner; and

3. “Resistance to District protocol.”

The board terminated Mennella effective June 30, 1999 and she appealed to the Commissioner contending that her dismissal was arbitrary and capricious. The district raised a number of procedural objections, the most significant one being that Mennella had filed two grievances concerning the matter with the district.

After addressing the “technical” procedural objections, the Commissioner considered the district’s “jurisdiction argument” -- i.e., the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because of the pending grievances filed by Mennella.

The Commissioner responded to the district’s challenge to his jurisdiction to consider the appeal by noting that “[i]t is well established that a school employee who elects to submit an issue for resolution through a contractual grievance procedure may not elect to bring an appeal to the Commissioner of Education for review of the same matter,” citing Commack Union Free School District v Ambach, 70 NY2d 501.

The Commissioner then decided that Mennella’s grievances had not raised the same issues she raised in her appeal. Accordingly, he concluded that he had jurisdiction to consider Mennella’s appeal.

This proved to be a Pyrrhic victory, however.

Considering the merits of Mennella’s appeal, the Commissioner first pointed out that a board of education has “an unfettered right to terminate the employment of a teacher or administrator during his or her probationary period....” Such a termination will not be set aside “unless the employee establishes that a board terminated service for a constitutionally impermissible reason or in violation of a statutory proscription.”

Pointing out the Mennella had the burden of proof in this instance, the Commissioner ruled that she failed to show the board’s action was for a constitutionally impermissible reason or in violation of a statutory proscription and thus failed to meet her burden. The Commissioner dismissed her appeal.

The decision notes that the superintendent had given Mennella timely notice of her proposed recommendation and her reasons for doing so, together with an opportunity to respond to this action, thus complying with the mandates set out in Section 3031 of the Education Law. Significantly, the Commissioner indicated that he had noted “numerous memoranda in the record” sent to Mennella that “amply demonstrate [the district’s] concern over [Mennella’s] relationships with her colleagues.”

This illustrates the importance of documenting the appointing authority’s efforts to advise an employee of its expectations, and how the employee may meet these expectations, when an individual is not performing to its satisfaction. Although this case involved a probationary employee, having the same type of documentation in the record will often prove important in a disciplinary action involving a tenured individual.

Sometimes a district’s decision to terminate a probationer will trigger claims that the probationer’s rights under a collective bargaining agreement have been violated. Typically, such provisions in the negotiated agreement set out the procedures to be followed with respect to the evaluation of probationary employees and the steps to be taken in terminating the services of a probationer.

In Hempstead UFSD v Hempstead Classroom Teachers Association, of behalf of James Lacey, decided by the Appellate Division, Second Department, 267 AD2d 309, the court commented that a motion by the district to stay arbitration in a “second grievance” involving the same parties was rendered moot because a Supreme Court earlier had confirmed an arbitrator’s award in a prior grievance arbitration proceeding directing the reinstatement Lacey, a probationary teacher.

Determining if a §3014-b “takeover of an education program” occurred

Determining if a §3014-b “takeover of an education program” occurred

In the Matter of Elizabeth G. Quattrone v NYS Department of Education, 37 A.D.3d 939

Elizabeth G. Quattrone, a tenured teacher employed by Erie 2 Chautauqua-Cattaraugus Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES), was assigned to teach gifted and talented students at various component school districts.

Quattrone was told that her position was being “excessed due to lack of interest in the gifted and talented program” after the Chautauqua Lake Central School District and Dunkirk City School District cancelled their BOCES contracts for gifted and talented services. Quattrone’s name was placed on a preferred eligible list for reinstatement to appropriate vacancies at both Chautauqua Lake and Dunkirk but she was never thereafter contacted by either for employment.

Alleging that, in fact, both school districts “took-over” the functions formerly performed by her and assigned the work to other teachers without offering her such available employment, Quattrone appealed “her non-selection for the position” to the Commissioner of Education.

Quattrone contended that she had a legal right to employment with the school districts pursuant to Education Law §3014-b upon their “taking-over” the former BOCES program.

Finding that there was no “take-over” that would trigger the provisions of §3014-b, the Commissioner dismissed Quattrone’s appeal.

The Appellate Division sustained the Commissioner’s determination, stating “Upon our examination of these factors, we conclude that petitioner failed to establish that a takeover occurred by either Chautauqua Lake or Dunkirk City.” Among the reasons given for its decision, the Appellate Division noted that:

1. Chautauqua Lake, while it did develop an enrichment program following its discontinuance of the BOCES gifted and talented program, “the two programs were simply not equivalent.” Unlike the BOCES program, the enrichment program paralleled general classroom instruction and featured field trips and classroom presentation components.

2. Dunkirk City, following its discontinuance of the BOCES gifted and talented program, it had no program whatsoever earmarked for gifted and talented education but rather embedded such education into their general curriculum and within the regular classroom setting.

3. Neither school district hired a new teacher to replace petitioner following discontinuance of their BOCES contracts.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://nypublicpersonnellawarchives.blogspot.com/2007/02/determining-if-takeover-of-education.html

=========================
The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page e-book reviewing the relevant laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions is available from the Public Employment Law Press. Click On http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/ for additional information about this electronic reference manual.
 =========================

Zero tolerance drug policy

Zero tolerance drug policy

Dept. of Corrections v Robbins, OATH 2030/99

Many employers have initiated “zero tolerance” policies requiring the automatic dismissal of individuals found to have violated the policy. These “zero tolerance” policies address a number of situations that the employer views as disruptive or dangerous, the most common involving the use of drugs by employees, on or off the job.

The New York City Department of Corrections had established a “zero tolerance” drug policy providing for the termination of any employee, uniformed (i.e., correction officers), or civilian, who violated the policy. Its justification: the policy serves important functions by acting as a deterrent against drug traffic in its facilities and ensured that “the security of penal institutions is not breached.”

Was dismissal the appropriate penalty in a case involving a civilian employee -- a dietary aide -- found to have smoked one marijuana cigarette, off-duty, almost two years before being charged with violating the policy? The administrative law judge did not believe it was, concluding that there are instances, particularly where a civilian employee is involved, when the “automatic penalty” under the department’s zero tolerance drug policy should not be applied.

The employee, Anthony Robbins, admitted he was guilty of the charge of using marijuana while off-duty. Although the department wanted him terminated for violating its “zero tolerance” drug policy, the hearing officer recommended that a lesser penalty be imposed. The mitigating circumstances set out by the hearing officer justifying the deviation from the policy included the following:

1. Since the time of the incident, Robbins had been in counseling, had undergone drug testing, and laboratory reports indicated that he tested negative for drugs.

2. The employee has continued in counseling and still undergoes, as part of counseling, drug screening.

3. The risk of Robbins’ being involved in drug smuggling at the facility is so negligible as to be speculative and therefore cannot justify termination.

4. In previous cases involving violations of the “zero tolerance” policy by civilian workers, the individuals were not terminated and lesser penalties were imposed by the department.

5. The department did not subject civilian workers to random drug testing procedures although it required uniformed employees to submit to random drug tests.

6. In one instance the department “converted a penalty of termination into a lengthy suspension with random drug testing against a correction officer found to have tested positive for marijuana.”

The hearing officer concluded these “mitigating circumstances” justified a departure from the “zero tolerance” policy’s “automatic termination” provision.