Additional judicial scrutiny required in reviewing a compulsory arbitration proceeding

Additional judicial scrutiny required in reviewing a compulsory arbitration proceeding

Hamilton v Alley, 2016 NY Slip Op 01928, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

William E. Hamilton, a tenured administrator  employed by Jordan-Elbridge Central School District [District], was terminated from his position following a disciplinary hearing conducted pursuant to Education Law §3020-a(5). Hamilton initiated an Article 75 action challenging his dismissal by the District, seeking a court order directing his reinstatement to his former position with the District.*

With respect to Thomas’ contention that Supreme Court “failed to apply the correct standard of review,” the Appellate Division said that in its view the lower court “properly identified and applied the ‘additional layer of judicial scrutiny’ applicable to a compulsory arbitration proceeding,** and it recognized and appropriately decided the matter on the basis that the arbitrator's decision had evidentiary support and was not arbitrary and capricious.”

As the court held in City School District of New York v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, such “additional layer of judicial scrutiny” involves the court finding that the award has “evidentiary support” and “neither being arbitrary nor capricious.”

Although the Appellate Division concluded that “there was no rational basis for the Hearing Officer to apply the crime exception with respect to amended charges Nos. 7 and 8” and modified the order accordingly, this did not affect the penalty imposed on Thomas, termination.

Although Thomas contended that the Hearing Officer had imposed an inappropriate penalty, termination,” the Appellate Division opined that "[i]n light of the litany of specifications proven against [Thomas], the penalty of dismissal does not shock the conscience."

* The Appellate Division noted that Supreme Court erred in determining that Thomas’ special proceeding was not timely commenced and that his supporting papers and amended petition were not timely served. However, said the court, in any event Supreme Court addressed the merits of Thomas’ amended petition.

** See Powell v Board of Educ. of Westbury Union Free School Dist., 91 AD3d 955, summarized at http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2012/02/where-arbitration-is-statutorily.html

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_01928.htm

______________________ 

The Discipline Book - A 458 page guide focusing on New York State laws, rules, regulations, disciplinary grievances procedures set out in collective bargaining agreements and selected court and administrative decisions concerning disciplinary actions involving state and municipal public officers and employees. For more information click on http://booklocker.com/5215.html

______________________

Failing to provide a fair hearing requires the voiding a Civil Service Commission’s decision sustaining the termination of an employee by the appointing authority

Failing to provide a fair hearing requires the voiding a Civil Service Commission’s decision sustaining the termination of an employee by the appointing authority

Pinheiro v. Civil Service Comm. for the Cnty. of Fresno, California Court of Appeal, Docket F070473

John Pinheiro was dismissed from his position as the County of Fresno’s labor relations manager. The County of Fresno Civil Service Commission sustained Pinheiro termination and he filed a “writ of mandate” seeking a court order vacating the Commission’s decision.

Pinheiro contended that his right to a fair trial* was violated because the Commission:

(1) relied on evidence obtained outside the Commission hearing;

(2) used law enforcement records as a factor in sustaining his termination;

(3) relied on acts of alleged misconduct more than three years old;

(4) relied on evidence that was not admitted and excluding evidence relevant to his defenses; and

(5) relied on evidence of contact with another individual prior to any directive prohibiting such contact.

The trial court sustained the Commission’s action. However, the California Court of Appeals vacated the lower court’s ruling, explaining that Pinheiro had not been given a fair trial because the Commission considered and relied on information taken outside the hearing in reaching its decision.

Citing La Prade v. Department of Water & Power, 27 Cal.2d 47, the court said “The decision … should be based on the record and not on off-the-record discussions from which the parties are excluded,” indicating that administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers which are required to make a determination after a hearing cannot act on their own information and nothing may be treated as evidence which has not been introduced as such, inasmuch “as a hearing requires that the party be apprised of the evidence against him in order that he [or she] may refute, test and explain it.”

As Pinheiro had no opportunity to refute or explain such information, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the matter to the Commission for a new hearing as “Pinheiro was denied a fair hearing” by the Commission.

* The court said that the “fair trial” requirement of California’s Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5 is not synonymous with constitutional due process and does not mandate “a formal hearing under the due process clause,” [see Pomona College v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.4^th1716]. What is required, said the court is simply a “fair administrative hearing,” that affords the individual a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2016-f070473.pdf?ts=1459283424

An individual or organization must have “standing” in order to maintain an Article 78 action challenging an administrative decision

An individual or organization must have “standing” in order to maintain an Article 78 action challenging an administrative decision

Thomas v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2016 NY Slip Op 02154, Appellate Division, First Department

Michael P. Thomas, then a public school teacher, employed by the Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics (MCSM), filed allegations with the New York City Department of Education [DOE’ that the court characterized as involving “a misappropriation of federal funds received by MCSM under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Action of 1965, reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001.”

DOE, following an administrative investigation, determined that Thomas’ allegations of misappropriation of Title I funds were unsubstantiated. Thomas then initiated the Article 78 action challenging DOE’s determination. Supreme Court dismissed Thomas’s petition; the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court’s decision.

The Appellate Division ruled that Thomas, although a member of MCSM's School Leadership Team lacks standing to challenge the results of DOE's investigation of his allegations he had brought pursuant to "No Child Left Behind Written Complaint and Appeal Procedures" adopted by the New York State Education Department.

The court explained that Thomas’ status as a complainant who initiated an administrative investigation did not give him standing to maintain “a private right of action to challenge the agency's determination” unless he could demonstrate that he had suffered an actual injury as a result of DOE’s decision. The court concluded that Thomas had failed to demonstrate that he had “suffered and actual injury” as a result of DOE’s administrative determination.

Another obstacle to Thomas' ability to maintain the action, said the Appellate Division, was that Thomas did not "fall within the zone of interests . . . sought to be promoted or protected" by Education Law §2590-h or the NCLB”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2016/2016_02154.htm