Individual disciplined for off-duty misconduct

Individual disciplined for off-duty misconduct
Mahadio v Kerik, 298 A.D.2d 305

New York City police officer was served with disciplinary charges that alleged that while he was off-duty, he "wrongfully and without just cause displayed his weapon while making a threatening remark to a civilian" ... and that he addressed persons ... in an ethnically offensive manner.

Found guilty, Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik imposed the penalty of a forfeiture of 25 vacation days. The officer appealed, only to have the Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the Commissioner's determination.

The court said that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner's decision and that there was no basis to disturb his determination concerning the credibility of the witnesses testifying. As to the penalty imposed, the Appellate Division said that the forfeiture of 25 days of leave did not shock its sense of fairness, citing Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32.

Determining member service credit for retirement

Determining member service credit for retirement
Panigrosso v McCall, 298 A.D.2d 797

The Panigrosso case concerned determining the eligibility of a disabled individual for ordinary disability retirement benefits.

Vincent A. Panigrosso, Jr., was employed in the Putnam County Highway Department as a mechanic's helper. In November 1996, while attempting to remove a tire, another tire, which had been leaning against a wall, began to fall toward him. Panigrosso attempted to catch the falling tire and in so doing he injured his back to the extent that he required surgery.

On June 24, 1997, while again attempting to remove a tire from its rim, Panigrosso experienced pain in his back, left work and never returned. He filed an application for accidental disability retirement benefits contending that he was permanently disabled as a result of his November 1996 and June 1997 "accidents."

Panigrosso subsequently filed a second application, this time seeking ordinary disability retirement [ODR] benefits. He claimed eligibility for ODR benefits because he said that he had completed 10 years of service credit and thus was not required to show that he was disabled as the result of a job-related accident.

Ultimately both applications were rejected. The Retirement System decided that:

1. Both of Panigrosso injuries occurred while he was performing the customary duties of his employment and, hence, the underlying incidents could not be deemed "accidents" within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law Section 605(b)(3); and

2. Panigrosso had not accumulated the required ten years of member service credits to be eligible for ordinary disability retirement. [Also, it should be noted that Panigrosso was not actually "in service" at the time he applied for ODR benefits.]

As to Panigrosso's accidental disability claim, the Appellate Division ruled that the November 1996 and June 1997 incidents did not constitute "accidents" within the meaning of Section 605(b)(3). In the words of the court:

An "accident" is a sudden, fortuitous, out of the ordinary and unexpected event that does not result from an activity undertaken in the performance of ordinary employment duties. Here, the record reveals that ... both incidents in question occurred while [Panigrosso] was performing his usual employment duties.

As to Panigrosso's eligibility for ODR claim, the court said that the record clearly indicated that Panigrosso did not accumulate 10 years of service credit with the Retirement System.

Panigrosso had begun his employment with Putnam County in January 1990 and was removed from the payroll in August 1997. Once petitioner was off the payroll, he stopped accumulating service credit. Not having at least 10 years of member service credit, the Appellate Division ruled that he was clearly ineligible for an ordinary disability retirement allowance.

Union animus

Union animus
CSEA Local 1000 and Town of North Hempstead, 35 PERB 3027

PERB rejected its Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the Town of North Hempstead was guilty of union animus based on a finding that "but for" the union's president using "union business" release time, he would not have been involuntarily transferred to another unit because the Town's explanation for the transfer -- the need to reorganize a department -- was "largely unrebutted by the Union" and thus there was no basis to hold that the transfer was the result of improper motivation on the part of the Town. 

Basis for workers' compensation award

Basis for workers' compensation award
Scofield v City of Beacon Police Dept., 290 A.D.2d 845

A police officer is awarded a "scheduled loss" by the Workers' Compensation Board. As the Scofield decision demonstrates, under certain circumstances the employer may be entitled receive all or a portion of the award granted to the police officer in consideration of the salary payments it made to the officer as a result of his or her injury.

City of Beacon police officer Glenn Scofield suffered a work-related injury to his left knee. A year later he injured the same knee at work. In both instances he was "paid his regular wages pursuant to Section 207-c of the General Municipal Law" [GML].

The two relevant statutes in Schofield's case: GML Section 207-c and Section 30 of the Workers' Compensation Law [WCL].

GML Section 207-c provides for the continuation of a police officer who is injured in the line of duty on the payroll at full salary. WCL Section 30 provides that "(3) ... any salary or wages paid to, or the cost of any medical treatment or hospital care provided ... pursuant to [GML Section 207-c] shall be credited against any award of compensation ... under this chapter."

This provision, said the court, was added to the WCL to avoid any duplication of benefits paid to an injured police officer, as the combined total of GML and WCB benefits might exceed the salary the officer would have received for the period had the injury not occurred.

Following the second injury, the Workers' Compensation Board granted Schofield a 15% schedule "loss of use award" for the injury to his left leg. Beacon, citing WCL Section 30, asked for reimbursement from Schofield's schedule award for the compensation it had paid to Schofield after both injuries.

Although the award was based on Schofield's physician's opinion that his second injury "was caused entirely by the first injury," Schofield argued that Beacon's right to reimbursement from the award was limited solely to the wages Beacon paid to him prior to his second injury.

The Workers' Compensation Board disagreed. It said that the second injury was a consequence of the initial injury, not a new injury, and therefore, the two files should be combined. As a result, Beacon was held entitled to Section 30 reimbursement for all the wages it paid to Schofield "on the combined files."

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination since "[w]hether a second injury is a consequence of an earlier one is a factual issue for the Board to resolve."

The court said that while a finding of consequentiality does not necessarily resolve the issue of reimbursability, "where, as here, both injuries were directly related to the impairment upon which the schedule award was based, full reimbursement is appropriate."

Random drug test administered pursuant to a settlement agreement of a disciplinary action

Random drug test administered pursuant to a settlement agreement of a disciplinary action
Gluck v Suffolk County Community College, Supreme Court, Ia Part 26 [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

An individual was terminated from his position of laborer by the Suffolk Community College [SCCC]. He sued, seeking reinstatement with full back pay and benefits.

The court noted that in connection with an unrelated matter, and the individual and SCCC entered into a stipulation in lieu of a disciplinary proceeding that provided as follows:

The employee will receive a (12) twelve month period of probation beginning upon the full execution of this agreement. During the period of probation the employee shall be subject to random drug and alcohol testing, wherein should the employee test positive on a drug/alcohol test, he shall be immediately terminated without the benefit of a hearing or any other protection afforded under Civil Service law or the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The settlement agreement also provided that the employee's probationary period would begin upon his return to work in a full duty capacity. The employee reported for work on April 3, and was asked to submit to a drug and alcohol test. According to the ruling, the employee's urine specimen registered a temperature that was "out of range." He was asked to provide another urine sample for testing.

The employee was told that his refusal to take the test would be considered an automatic positive test result, which in turn would bring about his immediate suspension without pay. He agreed to provide a second urine specimen. However, he did not allow his supervisor to witness his providing the sample. The second sample was also "out of range" and the employee left the laboratory.

SCCC argued that the employee's failure to provide a witness-validated urine sample constituted a failure to cooperate with the sample collection procedure. This, SCCC said, was tantamount to the employee's refusal to submit to the test and the employee had been warned that his refusal to submit to the test would be deemed a positive test and would result in his immediate suspension without pay. Ultimately SCCC terminated the employee.

The employee sued, contending that he willingly gave both samples and was told by laboratory personnel that he was free to leave. He claimed that he had "no qualms about giving the samples because he had no history of drug use and does not abuse alcohol" and thus SCCC's decision to terminate him was arbitrary and capricious.

The court decided that “the record here, which must include the federal guidelines that apply to drug testing in the workplace,” demonstrates that SCCC's decision to terminate the employee was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

The employee, said the court, had agreed, as part of the disciplinary settlement stipulation he signed in February, to submit to random drug and alcohol testing. What happened on April 3, under the guidelines utilized by the laboratory facility conducting the test, was tantamount to a refusal to submit to such testing. As the employee was told what would happen under the circumstances, his conduct violated the terms of the stipulation.

The court's conclusion: there was a rational basis for SCCC's terminating the employee and his petition had to be dismissed.