Amendment to Title 22 NYCRR codifying the practice that a witness may have counsel present during a Commission hearing

State Commission on Judicial Conduct

PROPOSED RULE MAKING - NO HEARING(S) SCHEDULED

Counsel for Witnesses at Hearings

Source: New York State Register, item I.D. No. JDC-08-19-00006-P

PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE

State Administrative Procedure Act,

NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule:

Proposed Action: Addition of §7000.6(i)(3) to Title 22 NYCRR. Statutory authority: Judiciary Law, §42(5)

Subject: Counsel for witnesses at hearings.

Purpose: To codify the practice that a witness may have legal counsel present during a commission hearing. Text of proposed rule: A new paragraph of subdivision (i) of §7000.6 is added to read as follows: (3) At a hearing, counsel for a witness may be present while his or her client is testifying and may request permission of the referee to consult with the client, but may not object to questions, examine or cross-examine witnesses or otherwise participate in the proceedings.

Text of proposed rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from: Marisa E. Harrison, Commission on Judicial Conduct, Corning Tower, Suite 2301, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223, (518) 453-4600, email: harrison@cjc.ny.gov

Data, views or arguments may be submitted to Marisa E. Harrison at harrison@cjc.ny.gov

Public comment will be received until: 60 days after publication of this notice.

Regulatory Impact Statement

1. Statutory authority: Judiciary Law, §42(5).

2. Legislative objectives: The proposed change would clarify that counsel for a witness may be present while his or client is testifying at a Commission hearing, and may request permission of the referee to consult with the client, but may not object to questions, examine or cross-examine witnesses or otherwise participate in the proceedings.

3. Needs and benefits: The proposal seeks to clarify ambiguities and better reflect actual Commission practice that allows a witness to have counsel present during Commission hearings.

Workers' Compensation Leave is not an available to an employee who has suffered a permanent job related injury or disease

Workers' Compensation Leave is not an available to an employee who has suffered a permanent job related injury or disease

OATH Index No. 1774/18

The appointing authority served disciplinary charges against an employee pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law alleging "medical incompetence  based on the employee's  "excessive use of sick leave due to job-related injuries." The penalty sought: termination.

The employee argued that the disciplinary charges should be dismissed and that the matter  converted to a disability leave proceeding within the meaning of §71 of the Civil Service Law. §71 mandates that leaves of absence, typically referred to as Workers' Compensation Leave, is to be given to an individual absent from work as the result of the individual having suffered an occupational illness or disease for specified cumulative limited periods of time "unless his or her disability is of such a nature as to permanently incapacitate him or her for the performance of the duties of his or her position." [Emphasis supplied.]

Noting that the employee had filed for "permanent disability retirement" benefits, OATH Administrative Law Judge Faye Lewis concluded that §71 leave was not an available option under the circumstances and that the appointing authority could proceed with disciplinary action.*

As the evidence in the record indicated that the employee had been absent for almost "300 sick days over a 21 month period," which Judge Lewis found was  sufficient to establish an excessive use of sick leave, the ALJ found the employee guilty of the charges and specifications and recommended that the penalty of dismissal be imposed by the appointing authority.

* In Dickinson v New York State Unified Court System, 99 AD3d 569, the Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the termination of an employee found guilty of “certain disciplinary charges” that alleged, among other things, incompetency due to excessive absenteeism and lateness. As to the penalty imposed, dismissal, the court said that the penalty did not shock its sense of fairness as “[b]eing present at work is an essential job function.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/18_cases/18-1774.pdf

NYC Commission on Human Rights adopts new rules addressing transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming individuals discrimination

NYC Commission on Human Rights adopts new rules addressing transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming individuals discrimination

Source: Amanda M. Gomez, Esq., Employment, Labor & Workforce Management at the  New York office of Epstein Becker Green. 

The New York City Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission”) has adopted new rules (“Rules”) which establish broad protections for transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming individuals. The Rules, which define various terms related to gender identity and expression, re-enforce recent statutory changes to the definition of the term “gender,” and clarify the scope of protections afforded gender identity status under the New York City Human Rights Law. New York Statealso just added gender identity and expression as protected classifications under the state Human Rights Law, following the adoption of the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act.

The text of Ms.Gomez's article is posted on the Internet at"

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/nyc-commission-human-rights-adopts-rules-establishing-broad-interpretation-laws?utm_content=21dff93cbf4b8883f6a723f068dbc0fa&utm_campaign=Labor%20and%20Employment%20News2-21-2019&utm_source=Robly.com&utm_medium=email

Challenging the credibility of the witness

Challenging the credibility of the witness

Ghastin v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2019 NY Slip Op 01152, Appellate Division, First Department

The Plaintiff in this action asked Supreme Court to vacate an Education Law §3020-a arbitrator's award that found the individual guilty of certain disciplinary charges and imposed a penalty of suspension without pay for four weeks. Supreme Court granted the New York City Department of Education's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition and Plaintiff appealed. 

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court's ruling.

Plaintiff had objected to the hearing officer's "credibility determinations" with respect to the testimony of the Department's witnesses at the hearing. The Appellate Division said that the fact that the hearing officer found the testimony of the Department's witnesses more credible than Plaintiff's testimony does not serve to demonstrate that the hearing officer's determination was arbitrary and capricious.*

As to the penalty imposed by the hearing officer, the court observed that Plaintiff  failed to demonstrate how a four-week suspension without pay is so shockingly disproportionate to the offenses involved that it constitutes an abuse of discretion "given her proven misconduct which could have resulted in violence."

Noting that the Plaintiff had some 19 years of service at the time of the hearing with no known disciplinary record before the incident, the Appellate Division said that the record shows that Plaintiff failed to acknowledge the gravity of her misconduct, continued to deny any wrongdoing and showed a lack of remorse for her actions.

Another issue raised by Plaintiff: Did the hearing officer have jurisdiction to decide the matter. However, Plaintiff first raised this issue in the petition filed in Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, citing Matter of DeMartino v New York City Department of Transportation, 67 AD3d 479 said that raising the question of the jurisdiction of the hearing officer was of "no moment" as Petitioner is deemed to have "waived the issue" when it was not raised in the course of the arbitration.

* The Appellate Division described the testimony of the Department's witnesses as "interlocking and closely corroborating".

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_01152.htm