Employees terminated following their "double billing" for car expense

Employees terminated following their "double billing" for car expense 

OATH Index Nos. 1125/12 & 1126/12

The New York City Department of Finance brought charges against a tax assessor and a supervisor. The Department alleged that the two workers, who were sisters, fraudulently double-billed the Department for travel expenses at times when they traveled together in the same car.

The two employees contended that their conduct was permitted by Department rules and that they were both entitled to receive reimbursements because they jointly owned two vehicles.

However, evidence showed they had repeatedly submitted false odometer readings and although the Department did not have a specific rule against sharing cars and double-billing, the sisters had been told they could not both submit an expense report when traveling together for “a car allowance.”

OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin A. Casey found that fraud could be the basis of discipline without a specific rule, and the charges were sustained. ALJ Casey recommended termination of their employment. The appointing authority adopted the ALJ’s recommendation.

The decision is posted on the Internet at

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/12_Cases/12-1125.pdf

Procedural errors and omissions require the remanding the decision terminating plaintiff employees for further consideration

Procedural errors and omissions require the remanding the decision terminating plaintiff employees for further consideration

Four former employees of the City challenged the City’s terminating their employment.

Supreme Court referred the issues of the employees' "employment status at the time of their termination and . ... whether any of them were required to exhaust any administrative remedies under the Civil Service Law prior to commencing this Article 78 proceeding" to a Judicial Hearing Officer (JHO).

The JHO issued a determination holding that “none of the employees had a right to a post-termination [sic] hearing under the Civil Service Law.” Accordingly, said the JHO, none of the employees had any duty to exhaust administrative remedies. The JHO also found that none of the employees was a policymaking employee and, thus, that they could not be fired merely for political reasons and further ruled that all four had been dismissed from their positions with the City for political reasons.

The City filed "objections" to the JHO's determination. 

Specifically, the City objected to the JHO's determination that none of the employees was a policymaking employee. Additionally, the City asserted that the JHO went beyond the scope of the order of reference by determining that the employees were fired for political reasons.

The Appellate Division remitted the employees' petition to Supreme Court, explaining:

1. The challenged determinations, relating to the termination of the employees' employment, were not "made as a result of a hearing."

2. The administrative record was not sufficient for it to decide the entire proceeding on the merits in the interest of judicial economy.

3. Any motion for reconsideration of the substantive issues decided by the JHO must be directed to the JHO for resolution.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06953.htm

Reimbursing a school board member's legal expenses incurred in litigation

Reimbursing a school board member's legal expenses incurred in litigation  

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 16,422

The Commissioner of Education, after denying the application of the school board seeking to remove one of its members for allegedly “disclosing confidential information to a third party,” considered one additional administrative matter. The board member that the board sought to have removed from the board asked the Commissioner to grant her a certificate of good faith pursuant to Education Law §3811(1). Such a certificate  would required the school district to reimburse her the “reasonable legal expenses” she incurred in the proceeding.

§3811(1), in pertinent part, provides for the reimbursement of reasonable legal expenses incurred by a board member when “the trustees or board of education of any school district … have been or shall be instructed by a resolution adopted at a district meeting to defend any action brought against them, or to bring or defend an action or proceeding touching any district property or claim of the district … as well as all costs and damages adjudged against them…."

The Commissioner rejected the board member’s request, explaining that Education Law §3811(1) does not provide for the reimbursement of legal expenses incurred by a board member in defending “a criminal prosecution or an action or proceeding” brought against a board member by a school district, including proceedings before the Commissioner of Education.

Accordingly, said the Commissioner, the board member was not entitled to a certificate of good faith because the application seeking the removal of the board member was brought by the school district of which the board member was an officer 

The Commissioner’s decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume52/d16422.html

Found guilty of charges of AWOL, incompetent performance and being disrespectful to the superior, employee terminated

Found guilty of charges of AWOL, incompetent performance and being disrespectful to the superior, employee terminated

The Department of Environmental Protection charged that a sewage treatment worker was incompetent due to excessive absence and AWOL.  The employee was also charged with being disrespectful to a supervisor. 

Supervising Administrative Law Judge Joan R. Salzman found that the uncontested proof that employee was absent on 287 of 391 work days during an 18-month period, an absence rate of 73%, established the incompetence charge.  Judge Salzman also found that agency proved the AWOL and disrespect charges.  

Noting respondent’s “abysmal attendance record (exacerbated by his use of profanity to his supervisor),” Judge Salzman found the AWOLs and the incompetence due to excessive absence to be independent bases for termination, and recommended termination of the individual’s employment. Her recommendation was adopted by the appointing authority.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/12_Cases/12-1420.pdf

In hybrid Article 78/42 USC 1983, a timely 42 USC 1983 action will survive notwithstanding the fact that the Article 78 action was untimely

In hybrid Article 78/42 USC 1983, a timely 42 USC 1983 action will survive notwithstanding the fact that the Article 78 action was untimely

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition filed by a tenured educator alleging that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) improperly terminated her in violation of her rights to procedural due process under both the State and Federal Constitutions.

The teacher had filed an Article 78 petition, which must be filed within four [4] months of the act or omission complained of to be timely and, in addition, raised essentially the same claims in her complaint under 42 USC §1983, which has a three-year statute of limitations. Supreme Court had ruled that the teacher’s Article 78 petition was untimely and dismissed the action notwithstanding the fact that her 42 USC §1983 had been timely filed within her Article 78 petition.

The Appellate Division disagreed with Supreme Court’s action, noting that the teacher had filed a “hybrid article 78 proceeding/42 USC §1983 action.” The Appellate Division explained that as federal and state courts possess concurrent jurisdiction over 42 USC §1983 actions, to hold that the teacher could not bring her 42 USC §1983 claims solely because she asserted them in the same action in which she seeks Article 78 relief due to the latter's much shorter statute of limitations would impermissibly conflict with 42 USC §1983's broad remedial purpose and result in different outcomes based solely on whether the federal claims are brought in state or federal court.

The court concluded that the teacher’s petition properly raised claims under 42 USC §1983 and thus her petition could be maintained as a hybrid action, citing Bistrisky v NYS Department of Correctional Services, 23 AD3d 866

Holding that the teacher’s action should be reinstated, the matter was remanded to Supreme Court.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06851.htm