Removal of volunteer officers and volunteer members of a volunteer fire department

Removal of volunteer officers and volunteer members of a volunteer fire department
2014 NY Slip Op 03521, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Board of Fire Commissioners expelled a member of the Fire Department. The member sued and Supreme Court annulled the Board’s determination and remitting the matter for a hearing and a new determination.*  thereafter, and the petitioner cross-appeals from so much of the order as failed to grant the petition in its entirety.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, explaining that as the member was entitled to a hearing “upon due notice and upon stated charge” under General Municipal Law §209-l but was not afforded one, “the Supreme Court properly annulled the determination and remitted the matter for a hearing and a new determination thereafter.”

GML §209-l addresses the removal of volunteer officers and volunteer members of volunteer fire departments and, in pertinent part, provides:

1. The authorities having control of fire departments of cities, towns, villages and fire districts may make regulations governing the removal of volunteer officers and volunteer members of such departments and the companies thereof.

2. Such officers and members of such departments and companies shall not be removed from office, or membership, as the case may be, by such authorities or by any other officer or body, except for incompetence or misconduct.**

3. Removals on the ground of incompetence or misconduct, except for absenteeism at fires or meetings, shall be made only after a hearing upon due notice and upon stated charges and with the right to such officer or member to a review pursuant to article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules. Such charges shall be in writing and may be made by any such authority. The burden of proving incompetency or misconduct shall be upon the person alleging the same.

* On a procedural note, in this instance, “on the Court's own motion,” the notice of appeal and the notice of cross appeal from the [Supreme Court’s] order was deemed to be applications for leave to appeal, and cross-appeal, respectively, and leave to appeal and cross-appeal is granted

** N.B. §209-l, however, further provides that  “The    provisions of this section shall not affect the right of members of any fire company to remove a volunteer officer or voluntary member of such company for failure to comply with the constitution and by-laws of such company.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_03521.htm

 _____________________

The Discipline Book, - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in New York State set out in a 2100+ page e-book. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/books/5215.html

.

Discourtesy and failure to obey a lawful order

Discourtesy and failure to obey a lawful order

OATH Index No. 851/14

A computer aide was charged with discourtesy, refusal to obey orders, and inefficient performance.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis found that the aide was guilty of misconduct when she was rude and unhelpful to a day care provider who repeatedly called her for assistance and when she frequently failed to return that provider's telephone calls.

The ALJ also found the aide guilty of misconduct when she closed a door in a colleague's face after the colleague approached to say that a client was waiting to see her, and when she failed to obey orders to provide her supervisor with a case folder and to resubmit a form.

Judge Lewis, however, concluded that it was not misconduct for the aide to tell her colleagues she was on her lunch break and did not want to be bothered, as meal periods are not work time.

As the aide did not have any history of formal discipline, ALJ Lewis recommended that she be suspended without pay for 12 days.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/00_Cases/14-851.pdf
.

Acting beyond the scope of one's duties

Acting beyond the scope of one's duties

2014 NY Slip Op 03586, Appellate Division, First Department

The Police Commissioner of the City of New York terminated the employment of a New York City police officer [Plaintiff] based on substantial evidence Petitioner “unnecessarily acted outside his role as an undercover officer and discharged his firearm in violation of department guidelines.”

The Appellate Division sustained the Commissioner’s decision, commenting that under the circumstances “The penalty of termination is not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience,” citing Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_03586.htm

______________________

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - A 600+ page guide to penalties imposed on public employees in New York State found guilty of selected acts of misconduct. For more information, click on http://booklocker.com/books/7401.html

.

Home addresses of State employees and retirees may be excluded from disclosure in response to a FOIL request

Home addresses of State employees and retirees may be excluded from disclosure in response to a FOIL request

Empire Ctr. for N.Y. State Policy v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 2014 NY Slip Op 03193, Court of Appeals

In Empire Center for New York State Policy the Court of Appeals held that the Freedom of Information Law, commonly referred to as “FOIL,” permits the names, but not the addresses, of retirees who receive benefits from public employees' retirement systems to be disclosed in response to a FOIL request.

Empire Center submitted a FOIL with the New York State Teachers' Retirement System and the Teachers' Retirement System of the City of New York seeking the names of the retired members of the systems. When the retirement systems refused to provide the names, Empire Center filed CPLR Article 78 petitions to compel disclosure. Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, and the Appellate Division affirmed in each case.*

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ rulings, explaining that the controlling FOIL provision, Public Officers Law  §89(7), provides, in pertinent part, that:

"Nothing in this article [i.e., FOIL] shall require the disclosure of the home address of an officer or employee, former officer or employee, or of a retiree of a public employees' retirement system; nor shall anything in this article require the disclosure of the name or home address of a beneficiary of a public employees' retirement system ….”**

Thus the home address of a retiree – but not his or her name – fall within the available enumerated exceptions to disclosure set out in FOIL. In contrast, the court noted the name and, or, the home address of  "a beneficiary of a public employees' retirement system" – a person entitled to benefits upon the death of the retiree – may be excluded from disclosure in response to a FOIL request.

The release of some public records is limited by a statute such as Education Law, §1127 - Confidentiality of records or §33.13, Mental Hygiene Law - Clinical records; confidentiality. Otherwise, an individual is not required to submit a FOIL request as a condition precedent to obtaining public records where access is not barred by statute. A FOIL request is required only in the event the custodian of the public record[s] sought declines to “voluntarily” provide the information or record requested. In such cases the individual or organization is required to file a FOIL request to obtain the record. It should also be noted that there is no bar to providing information pursuant to a FOIL request, or otherwise, that falls within one or more of the exceptions that the custodian could rely upon in denying a FOIL request, in whole or in part, for the information or records demanded.

Addressing the retirement systems’ argument that disclosure should be denied as an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" within the meaning of Public Officers Law §87 [2] [b]), the court concluded that  “the idea that anyone's privacy will be invaded is speculative” but in the event a FOIL request that seems to have such a purpose is made, that would be the time to consider the effect of the privacy exemption, including the provision addressing the "sale or release of lists of names and addresses if such lists would be used for solicitation or fund-raising purposes."

* See Matter of Empire Ctr. for N.Y. State Policy v New York State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 103 AD3d 1009 [3d Dept 2013]; Matter of Empire Ctr. for N.Y. State Policy v Teachers' Retirement Sys. of the City of New York, 103 AD3d 593 [1st Dept 2013]

** The Freedom of Information Law does not bar an employee organization, certified or recognized for any collective negotiating unit of an employer pursuant to Article 14 of the Civil Service Law, “to obtain the name or home address of any officer, employee or retiree of such employer, if such name or home address is otherwise available under this article."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_03193.htm

.

A complaint asserting a claim under Labor Law §740.(2) -- the Whistle Blower Law -- need not identify the specific "law, rule or regulation" allegedly violated by the employer

A complaint asserting a claim under Labor Law §740.(2) -- the Whistle Blower Law -- need not identify the specific "law, rule or regulation" allegedly violated by the employer

Webb-Weber v Community Action for Human Servs., Inc., 2014 NY Slip Op 03428, Court of Appeals

Civil Service Law §75-b* and Labor Law §740(2)** are commonly referred to as "whistleblower statutes,” and prohibit the employer from taking retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body, an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation.

In Webb-Weber the “narrow issue” before the Court of Appeals was whether a complaint asserting a claim under §740(2) must identify the specific "law, rule or regulation" allegedly violated by the employer. 

The Court of Appeals concluded that there is no such requirement, holding that  “[t]he reasonable interpretation is that, in order to recover under a §740 claim, a plaintiff must show that [he or] she reported or threatened to report the employer's "activity, policy or practice." Quoting Richard A. Givens’ statement in Practice Commentaries,*** the Court of Appeals said that “the practice --- not the legal basis for finding it to be a violation — appears to be what must be reported."

Thus, for pleading purposes, the court ruled that the complaint need not specify the actual law, rule or regulation violated, although it must identify the particular activities, policies or practices in which the employer allegedly engaged, so that the complaint provides the employer with notice of the alleged complained-of conduct.

The Court of Appeals observed that in order to recover under a Labor Law §740 theory, the plaintiff has the burden of proving [1] that an actual violation occurred, in contrast to merely establishing that the plaintiff possessed a reasonable belief that a violation occurred, citing Bordell v General Elec. Co., 88 NY2d 869, and [2] that the violation must be of the kind that "creates a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety," citing Remba v Federation Empl. & Guidance Serv., 76 NY2d 801.

* Civil Service Law 75-b.2(a) provides as follows: A public employer shall not dismiss or take other disciplinary or other adverse personnel action against a public employee regarding the employee's employment because the employee discloses to a governmental body information: (i) regarding a violation of a law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety; or (ii) which the employee reasonably believes to be true and reasonably believes constitutes an improper governmental action. "Improper governmental action" shall mean any action by a public employer or employee, or an agent of such employer or employee, which is undertaken in the performance of such agent's official duties, whether or not such action is within the scope of his employment, and which is in violation of any federal, state or local law, rule or regulation.

** Labor Law §740(2) provides as follows: Prohibitions. An employer shall not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because such employee does any of the following: (a) discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or which constitutes health care fraud; (b) provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any such violation of a law, rule or regulation by such employer; or (c) objects to, or refuses to participate in any such activity, policy or practice in violation of a law, rule or regulation.

*** Givens, Practice Commentaries, McKinneys Cons Laws of NY, Book 30, Labor Law §740, at 549 [1988 ed].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_03428.htm
.

Dishonesty ruled incompatible with individual’s employment as a peace officer

Dishonesty ruled incompatible with individual’s employment as a peace officer

OATH Index No. 1186/14

Disciplinary charges were filed against an enforcement agent [Employee] alleging that he failed to report a missing chemical spray canister and other agency equipment, and making false statements about what happened to them.

The agency’s attorney contended that in view of Employee’s status with the agency as a peace officer, the appropriate penalty was termination because of Employee’s admitted dishonesty is incompatible with his law enforcement position.

Noting that Employee persistently refused to provide a truthful explanation for the loss of the equipment, Oath Administrative Law Judge John B. Spooner recommended termination of employment as "integrity is vital" to Employee's job duties as a peace officer, which include providing truthful and accurate testimony at hearings.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/oath/00_Cases/14-1186.pdf
.