Adjunct Law Prof Blog

An administrative determination made without a pre-determination hearing must have a "rational basis" and may not be "arbitrary and capricious”

The Court of Appeals decision in this case sets out the standard of review used by courts when considering appeals from administrative decisions made without first holding a hearing.

A fire lieutenant [Lieutenant] with the City of Long Beach Fire Department applied for accidental disability retirement benefits pursuant to Retirement and Social Security Law [RSSL] §363-c. The State Comptroller granted Lieutenant’s application.

Lieutenant than sought supplemental disability retirement benefits from the City pursuant to General Municipal Law §207-a.

GML §207-a provides that an individual subject to its provisions receiving a retirement allowance as the result of disability incurred in performance of duty pursuant to §363-c of the RSSL, or similar accidental disability pension provided by the retirement system of which he or she is a member,  “shall continue to receive from the municipality or fire district by which he [or she] is employed, until such time as he [or she] shall have attained the mandatory service retirement age applicable to him [or her] or shall have attained the age or performed the period of service specified by applicable law for the termination of his [or her] service, the difference between the amounts received under such allowance or pension and the amount of his [or her] regular salary or wages.”*

The Fire Commissioner denied Lieutenant’s request for a GML §207-a supplement without explanation, which determination was subsequently sustained by the City's Corporation Counsel. Lieutenant then filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging the City of Long Beach's decision.

Supreme Court annulled the City's determination and directed it to pay Lieutenant the GML §207-a supplemental benefit. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division’s ruling, explaining that in reviewing the City's determination, which was made without a hearing, the issue is whether the action taken by the administrative agency had a "rational basis" and was not "arbitrary and capricious." An action is arbitrary and capricious, said the court, if it is taken “without sound basis in reason or regard to the facts." In contrast, noted the court, if the administrative determination has a rational basis, it will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable.

According to the Court of Appeals’ decision the City's denial of the GML §207-a supplement was based on statements made by Lieutenant's estranged wife in the midst of a divorce and the Corporation Counsel's personal observations of Lieutenant.

As Lieutenant not given any notice of the allegations nor an opportunity to respond to them,** despite the substantial contrary record evidence, including medical findings, that led to the approval of Lieutenant's application for disability benefits by the State Employees’ Retirement System, the Court of Appeals said that it agreed with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the City's justification for its denial of payment of the benefits to be provided in accordance with GML §207-a “lacks the requisite rational basis and was, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.”

* N.B. This supplementation of a disability retirement benefit is unique to individuals within the ambit of GML §207-a. GML §207-c, which is applicable to law enforcement personnel disabled in the line of duty and who are subsequently granted an accidental disability or similar retirement benefit are not eligible to received a GML §207-a type “supplementation” to their disability related retirement allowance pursuant to GML §207-c except in certain situations such as the one considered by the court in Matter of the Arbitration between the City of Plattsburgh and Plattsburgh Police Officers, 250 AD2d 327.

** Although as a general rule the payment of the supplement authorized by GML §207-a is a function of the individual's receiving a disability retirement allowance, GML §207-a.6 provides for the forfeiture of the supplement under certain conditions. In view of this decision, prudence suggests that such forfeiture of the supplement pursuant to GML §207-a.6 should be effected only after notice and hearing.  

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_00954.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Employee found guilty of uploading confidential medical information viewed while at work on Facebook terminated

The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of an Emergency Medical Services Supervisor by the Commissioner of the New York City Fire Department for misconduct, ruling that the Commissioner’s determination that the Supervisor was guilty of violating departmental regulations was supported by substantial evidence.

The EMS Supervisor had admitted photographing a computer terminal’s screen showing confidential and privileged information received during a 911 call concerning a medical emergency, as well as the 911 caller's name, address and telephone number, and then uploading the image to his Facebook account, with the caption "[c]an't make this up."

The decision states that approximately 460 of the Supervior’s Facebook "friends" had access to the posting.

Further, said the Appellate Division, at the time of the posting the EMS Supervisor understood that divulging such patient information was in violation of departmental rules, as well as a serious breach of trust.

Considering the “serious nature” of the Supervisor’s misconduct, the court said that the penalty imposed, dismissal,  did not shock its sense of fairness, citing Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32 and  Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_00437.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell Rubinstein

Members of the State's Security Guard Advisory Council are State officers or employees for the purposes of Public Officers Law §17

Opinions of the Attorney General, Formal Opinion 2012- F2

Public Officers Law §17 provides for the defense and indemnification of State officers and employees sued in a civil action or proceeding in any state or federal court for acts or omissions involving the performance of their official duties.

The Attorney General has advised Gina L. Bianchi, Esq., Deputy Commissioner and Counsel, New York State’s Division of Criminal Justice Services, that members of the Security Guard Advisory Council are State officers or employees for the purposes of Public Officers Law §17.

Presumably the same would be true with respect to the provisions of Public Officers Law §19's applicability  to such Council members. 

Public Officers Law §19 provides, in pertinent part, that it is “the duty of the state to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses incurred by or on behalf of an employee in his or her defense of a criminal proceeding in a state or federal court arising out of any act which occurred while such employee was acting within the scope of his* public employment or duties upon his acquittal or upon the dismissal of the criminal charges against him.”

With respect to political subdivisions of the State, Public Officers Law §18 authorizes such entities, “by the adoption of local law, by-law, resolution, rule or regulation,” to provide for the defense and indemnification of its officers and employees in the event any such persons are sued in federal or state courts in a civil matter related to the performance of their official duties.

* §22 of the General Construction Law, in pertinent part, provides that “Whenever words of the masculine or feminine gender appear in any law, rule or regulation, unless the sense of the sentence indicates otherwise, they shall be deemed to refer to both male or female persons.”

The Attorney General's Opinion 2012-F2 is posted on the Internet as a PDF file at:

http://www.ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinion/2012-f2pw.pdf

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings and, if sufficiently relevant and probative, may constitute substantial evidence

Szczepaniak v City of Rochester, 2012 NY Slip Op 08896, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The City of Rochester determined that one of its employees was guilty of the disciplinary charges filed against him and terminating him from his employment. Supreme court dismissed the individual's Article 78 petition challenging his dismissal and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

One of the arguments advanced by the individual in his petition was that “the determination is not supported by substantial evidence because the evidence presented was hearsay.“*

The Appellate Division, noting that the hearsay evidence admitted at the administrative hearing consisted of attendance records about individual’s outside employment, ruled that the evidence was relevant and probative on the charges that the individual had worked at that outside employment while he was on sick leave, or other leave from his employment with the City, and receiving certain benefits.

The court explained that hearsay is admissible in administrative proceedings "and if sufficiently relevant and probative may constitute substantial evidence." Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, there is no merit to the individual's contention that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence because the evidence presented was hearsay.

Citing Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, the Appellate Division said that it found that the appointing authorities determination as to the employees guilt was “supported by substantial evidence, i.e., "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact."

As to the penalty imposed, dismissal, the court said that it concluded that “the penalty of termination from petitioner's employment is not ‘so disproportionate to the offense[s] as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,’ and thus does not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law,” citing Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32.

* Essentially hearsay evidence is testimony given by an individual who testifies about what he or she has heard from others rather than testifies about that which he or she personally heard, knows or observed concerning a conversation, an event or a situation.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_08896.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

A letter placed in an employee file indicating “serious misconduct” that could negatively impact his or her eligibility for future promotion goes beyond “constructive criticism

D'Angelo v Scoppetta, 2012 NY Slip Op 06989, Court of Appeals

May a letter from the Assistant Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of New York (Department) to a firefighter advising him that he violated the Department's Code of Conduct and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Policy could adversely affect his eligibility for promotion in the future be made part of firefighter's permanent “EEO file” without first providing him an opportunity for a hearing pursuant to §15-113 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York?

Supreme Court had concluded that "the letter [was] a disciplinary reprimand and not a critical evaluation" and, therefore, the firefighter had the right to a formal hearing and other due process safeguards. * The Appellate Division agreed with the lower court’s ruling.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, holding that the firefighter was entitled to a due process hearing before the Department may place such a letter in his permanent file.

The Department conceded that the Administrative Code §15-113 required a hearing before its employees could be subject to punishment by reprimand but contended that a hearing was not necessary in this instance because the letter it placed in firefighter's permanent EEO file was not a formal reprimand but merely a critical evaluation not subject to the same due process protections. The Court of Appeals, as did the lower courts, disagreed.

Citing Holt v Board of Educ. of Webutuck Cent. School Dist. (52 NY2d 625, the Court of Appeals contrasted the Department’s action with school administrators placing letters in the permanent files of teachers critical of their performance without conducting §3020-a disciplinary hearings.

In one instance, the teacher was admonished for failing to maintain an orderly classroom after he had been directed to do so and for interrupting the class of another teacher. The letters characterized the teacher as incompetent and insubordinate. A second teacher had been sent a letter warning him that his regular absences from his assigned duties violated school policy. The court said it had concluded these letters did not trigger the due process protections of Education Law §3020-a because they were simply "critical evaluations" and not "formal reprimand[s]."

Although the letters sent to the teachers were "sharply critical," the Court of Appeals said that the fundamental purpose of the communications was not to punish but to identify "a relatively minor breach of school policy and to encourage compliance with that policy in the future."

The facts in the firefighter’s case, said the court, “are readily distinguishable from the facts in Holt.” 

While the teachers had received a letter from an immediate supervisor criticizing their performance, the firefighter was the subject of a formal investigation conducted by the Department's EEO office over a two-year period in response to the complaint alleging that he had used “racially offensive language” that had involved the interviewing of several “eyewitnesses” as well as the firefighter.

Significantly, the court noted that ultimately the EEO office determined that the evidence it had collected substantiated the complaint and it supplied a detailed report to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner then reviewed the EEO office's findings and then “conferred with the Commissioner himself who ultimately approved the EEO office's determination.” This said the court “stands in contrast to the letters in Holt, which only reflect the views of a particular supervisor.”

Further, said the court, the letter to the firefighter noted that the document "serve[d] as a formal Notice of Disposition of the filed Complaint" and “in no uncertain terms,” informed the firefighter that “a thorough investigation revealed that he ‘exercised unprofessional conduct’ and ‘made an offensive racial statement’ [and] as a consequence of his misconduct, he was required to review and sign an EEO Advisory Memorandum and participate in further EEO training.”

The Court of Appeals said that it agreed with the firefighter that “the requirement to participate in additional EEO training is a form of discipline and not, as the Department contends, mere encouragement to comply with EEO policy.”

In addition, the decision notes that the Department conceded at oral argument that the EEO's finding that [the firefighter] was in breach of its racial discrimination policy is serious misconduct that could negatively impact his eligibility for future promotion.

Concluding that the letter sent to the firefighter constituted a “formal reprimand under Administrative Code §15-11,” the court ruled that the Department had denied the firefighter his right to administrative due process by placing the letter in his file without first conducting a hearing. Affirming the Appellate Division’s ruling, Justice Smith dissenting, the majority of the court ruled that the letter to which the firefighter had objected was properly expunged from his permanent EEO file.

* Supreme Court noted that it could not order a hearing because, as the parties conceded, the applicable statute of limitations for conducting such a hearing had expired.

COMMENT: As the Court of Appeals indicated in Holt, a “counseling memorandum” that is given to an employee and placed in his or her personnel file concerning unacceptable performance and the actions that should be taken by the individual to improve his or her work constitutes a lawful means of instructing the employee. 

In Matter of Fusco, Comm. of Ed. Decision 14,396 and Matter of Irving, Comm. of Ed. Decision 14,373, the Commissioner of Education found that the alleged "critical comment" exceeded the parameters circumscribing "lawful instruction" concerning unacceptable performance. 

In Fusco’s case, the Commissioner said that “contents of the [counseling] memorandum” did not fall within the parameters of a “permissible evaluation” despite the school board’s claim that the memorandum was "intended to encourage positive change" in Fusco’s performance. The Commissioner noted that the memorandum "'contains no constructive criticism or a single suggestion for improvement." Rather, said the Commissioner, the memorandum focused on "castigating [Fusco] for prior alleged misconduct."

In Irving’s case, a school principal was given a letter critical of her performance and the next day reassigned to another school where she was to serve as an assistant principal. The Commissioner ruled that these two actions, when considered as a single event, constituted disciplinary action within the meaning of Section 3020-a of the Education Law." .

The D'Angelo decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06989.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Vacating a finding of being guilty of two of five disciplinary charges requires remanding the matter for reconsideration of the appropriate penalty to be imposed

The appointing authority adopted the findings and recommendation of a hearing officer that the employee was guilty of five charges of misconduct and terminated the individual’s employment.

Supreme Court dismissed the former employee’s petition challenging the appointing authority’s action.

The Appellate Division disagreed with this result, explaining that upon its review of the record it found that  the hearing officer's finding the individual guilty of two of the five charges had to be annulled and those two charges dismissed. In the opinion of the court, there was a lack of substantial evidence to support a finding that the employee was guilty of these two charges.

As the appointing authority had imposed a penalty based on the hearing officer’s finding that the individual was guilty of all five charges, the court said that the penalty imposed had to be vacated and the matter remit to the appointing authority to permit it to consider the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon the individual based on the individual having been found guilty of the three surviving charges

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06608.htm

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Proving Disciplinary Charges

An employee was found guilty of some of the thirty specifications of misconduct and incompetence filed against her. The hearing officer found the employee guilty of seventeen of these thirty specifications and recommended that she be dismissed from her position.

Specifications of misconduct and incompetence filed against the employee included allegations of excessive lateness, failure to properly carry out assigned duties, and actions in contradiction of established employer procedure. The hearing officer's findings and recommendations were adopted by the appointing authority and the individual was dismissed from her position. In sustaining the determination, the Appellate Division, Third Department noted that: the findings of a Hearing Examiner will be confirmed if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record even where conflicting evidence may have supported a different determination.

What constitutes "substantial evidence" is the significant issue in such cases. The decision illustrates some of the factors that courts weigh in determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the hearing officer.

The hearing officer found the employee guilty of seven of the 12 specifications concerning her alleged failure to perform assigned clerical tasks properly. The court, however, concluded that "only six of the seven specifications should be confirmed based upon the testimony proffered by petitioner's supervisor." Why? Because, explained the court, testimony that employee had typed the incorrect labels because the witness recognized the font from the individual’s typewriter was insufficient as there was testimony establishing that there were several typewriters in that office using that particular font. As the witness could not testify that she witnessed the employee preparing these folders and the employee denied that the error was hers, the court said it could not conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support this allegation.

The hearing officer also found the employee guilty of six of thirteen specifications alleging that she improperly performing her duties by exceeding her authority or violating the employer’s policy. In this instance the court held that the record supported the hearing officer's findings, noting that the employee was advised of these problems in her performance in various performance evaluation, together with the need for her to improve in these areas.

With respect to disciplinary specifications focusing on the employee's use of the workplace to conduct personal business and engage in lengthy personal telephone calls, the Appellate Division ruled that the testimony of her superiors, confirmed by a co-worker, was sufficient to prove the allegations.

The court also said that it did not find any error in the hearing officer finding the employee guilty of 36 of the 48 allegations that she had arrived late for work on specified dates. These allegations, said the court, were supported either by the employee's time sheets or by testimony from her superior or co-workers.

The Appellate Division remanded the matter to the employer for its consideration of the appropriate penalty to be imposed in view of its finding the employee not guilty of certain charges and specifications. The court also said that it noted that the employee had been given numerous oral admonitions and counseling memoranda warning her of "further disciplinary action," but held that such actions did not constitute "punishment" such that the present disciplinary proceeding could be deemed duplicative.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cfid=1&cnt=DOC&db=NY-ORCS-WEB&eq=search&fmqv=c&fn=_top&method=TNC&mt=Westlaw&n=2&origin=Search&query=%22FERGUSON+V+TRAFICANTI%2C%22&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT6335626910110&rltdb=CLID_DB219026910110&rlti=1&rp=%2Fsearch%2Fdefault.wl&rs=NYOFF1.0&service=Search&sp=NYOFF-1000&srch=TRUE&ss=CNT&sskey=CLID_SSSA889026910110&sv=Split&tempinfo=word&vr=2.0

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

School district may be held liable for the negligent hiring and retention of its employees

In an action alleging that a school employee sexually abused a student, Supreme Court denied the school’s and the school district’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling, explaining that::

1. The school and the school district failed to make a prima facieshowing that they were not negligent with respect to the hiring and retention of the school district employee who allegedly sexually abused the student; and

2. The school and the school district failed “to establish, prima facie, that they discharged their duty to provide adequate supervision of the infant plaintiff.”

The Appellate Division noted that although “an employer cannot be held vicariously liable ‘for torts committed by an employee who is acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer's business,’ the employer may be held liable for the negligent hiring and retention of the employee.”

Further, said the court, “a school district has a duty to exercise the same degree of care toward its students as would a reasonably prudent parent, and will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision,” citing Mirand v City of New York, 84 NY2d 44

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06289.htm

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

Statute of limitations for challenging a personnel decision begins running when the individual is notified of the “determination” becomes final and binding

McCarry v Purchase Coll., State Univ. of N.Y., 2012 NY Slip Op 06026, Appellate Division, Second Department 

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78 challenging the decision of the President of the State University of New York College at Purchase not to reappoint an assistant professor to the Purchase faculty, Supreme Court annulled the President’s determination and remitted the matter to for a de novo review and a new determination. Supreme Court also directed the retroactive reinstatement of the faculty member with full compensation and benefits pending the de novo review.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s rulings “on the law."

Pointing out that the assistant professor’s challenge to the President’s decision was time-barred by the four-month statute of limitations, the court explained that the statute of limitations set forth in CPLR §217(1) began to run on the date that the challenged determination became final and binding.*

Citing Matter of Village of Westbury v Department of Transp. of State of N.Y., 75 NY2d 62, the Appellate Division said that "A determination generally becomes binding when … the agency has reached a definitive position that inflicts concrete injury to the aggrieved party that cannot be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action” and the individual has been advised of that determination.

In this instance it was undisputed that the assistant professor commenced his Article 78 action more than four months after receiving notice that he had not been reappointed to his teaching position.

Significantly, the court said that the limitations period did not run from the date upon which the assistant professor's fixed-duration employment contract automatically ended but rather commenced to run when he received notice of the “final determination” that he would not be reappointed to the college faculty.

Further, said the court, even had the faculty member Article 78 action “been timely commenced, the record demonstrates that the [College President] substantially complied with the internal rules of Purchase College, State University of New York and the determination was not arbitrary and capricious."

* N.B. A request to “reconsider” a final and binding administrative determination does not toll the running of the Statute of Limitations [Lavin v Lawrence, 54 AD3d 412].

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_06026.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

National security trumps federal employee’s civil service protection

Various media reports

Newspapers and others have published articles about a United States Circuit Court decision that concluded that the federal Merit Systems Protective Board cannot consider appeals from federal workers demoted or terminated from their position based on their lack of  “security clearance.”

The Circuit Court held that ”the Board cannot review the merits of Executive Branch agencies’ national security determinations concerning eligibility of an employee to occupy a sensitive position that implicates national security.”

In response to a number of inquiries seeking a copy of the decision, the case is Berry [as Director, Office of Personnel Management] v Conyers and Northover and the Merit Systems Protective Board, # 2011-3207, Petition for Review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in Consolidated Case Nos. CH0752090925-R-1 and AT0752100184-R-1, US Circuit Court of Appeal, Federal Circuit.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-3207.pdf

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Employee’s termination based on the findings and recommendation of the disciplinary hearing officer

 

Snead v Village of Spring Valley, 2012 NY Slip Op 05749, Appellate Division, Second Department

Supreme Court dismissed a petition filed pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules challenging the determination of the Village of Spring Valley Justice Court dismissing the individual from her position, noting that the Justice Court had adopted the findings and recommendation of the disciplinary hearing officer.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Justice Court’s action, noting that the alleged misconduct, falsification of public records, and insubordination, was supported by “substantial evidence adduced at the administrative hearing.”

In addition, the court held that “in light of the charges and the [employee’s] duties, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be "shocking to one's sense of fairness," thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law, citing Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_05749.htm

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Using employer’s computer to store sexually explicit results in recommendation the employee be terminated

 

Human Resources Admin. v. Vila, OATH Index No. 1578/08

OATH Administrative Law Judge Julio Rodriguez recommended termination for a paralegal aide who used the agency computer to store thousands of unauthorized images and video clips, many of which were sexually explicit, as well as other programs and files.

The evidence also showed that the individual was insubordinate and committed multiple time and leave violations.

 

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Judicial review of disciplinary determination of guilt is limited to considering whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence

 

Barthel v Town of Huntington, 2012 NY Slip Op 05738, Appellate Division, Second Department

The Director of the Department of Human Services of the Town of Huntington adopted the findings of a hearing officer, made after a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75, which the employee guilty of certain disciplinary charges and terminated the individual's employment with the Town.

The Appellate Division dismissed the individual’s appeal on the merits, explaining that the standard of judicial review of an administrative determination made after a trial-type hearing required by law, at which evidence is taken, “is limited to considering whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence.”

In this instance, said the court, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that the individual was guilty of the subject disciplinary charges.

As to the penalty imposed, termination, the Appellate Division found that dismissal “was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,” citing Ellis v Mahon, 11 NY3d 754; Rutkunas v Stout, 8 NY3d 897, Waldren v Town of Islip, 6 NY3d 735 and Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_05738.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

The Civil Service Law – an 1888 perspective

 

In 1888 William Harrison Clark wrote a book, The Civil Service Law – A defense of its principles, with corroborative evidence from the works of many eminent American statesmen. It addresses a variety of topics, some of which are still relevant in today’s public personnel law arena.

The text of this historical volume is posted on the Internet at:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=byoUAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22civil+service+law%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=MJrGimrom1&sig=3lluAl_cK1D1eryLOpKdBv37Kl4#PPP7,M1

 

Reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

A factual demonstration to support allegations that an individual was denied a fair hearing by an administrative tribunal is critical to rebutting the presumption of honesty and integrity accorded to administrative bodies

 

Dutrow v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 2012 NY Slip Op 05699, Appellate Division, Third Department

One of the issues in this appeal challenging a disciplinary action taken against an individual by the New York State Racing & Wagering Board was a claim that the target of a disciplinary action by the Board was deprived of a fair hearing as a result of the refusal of Board’s chair, John Sabini, to recuse himself from the proceeding.

Sabini, in addition to serving as the Board’s chair, was an unpaid officer of the Association of Racing Commissioners International, an organization devoted to maintaining a multi-jurisdictional database of licensed horse racing professionals' disciplinary histories.Sabini, however, had no prior official involvement with, and made no appearance in, this case stemming from his position with the Association. 

The Association’s president, however, had informed Sabini that a United States Senator's office had inquired about the case. The Association's president also had publicly urged the Board to assess individual’s "suitability to continue his participation in racing." The court, however, observed that [1] Sabini was not bound to follow any suggestions made by the Association or its president and [2] there was nothing in the record indicating that Sabini took any action based upon these communications or otherwise "gave the impression that [he] had prejudged the facts."

The Appellate Division said that such a “bare allegation” that these communications led to bias is insufficient absent "a factual demonstration to support the allegation . . . and proof that the [adverse] outcome flowed from it."

As the accused individual had failed, in the words of the court, "to rebut the presumption of honesty and integrity accorded to administrative bodies," the Appellate Division held “it cannot be said that he was denied a fair hearing.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_05699.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Courts will defer to an administrative decision made by an agency pursuant to its authority if it acted rationally within its area of expertise

 

Roberts v Gavin, 2012 NY Slip Op 05239, Appellate Division, First Department

Lillian Roberts, Executive Director of District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO [DC 37], petitioned Supreme Court seeking an order annulling the Personnel Review Board of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation [PRB] determination the Health and Hospitals Corporation [HHC] decision to restructure its layoff units in response to a recent financial crisis.

Supreme Court dismissed DC 37’s petition; the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

HHC, which initially had a single corporation-wide layoff unit that included all of its facilities throughout New York City, subsequently created smaller layoff units based on individual hospitals and health care facilities within HHC. In 2009, in response to financial pressures faced by the City, HHC again restructured its layoff units by creating eighteen additional, smaller, layoff units within the existing hospital and medical centers that had previously been designated as the layoff units. HHC then announced plans to either close or reduce staff at the clinics and programs designated as the new layoff unit, which would affect about 87 HHC employees.

After noting that Supreme Court “should not have dismissed the proceeding as time-barred,” the Appellate Division considered the merits of DC 37’s petition.

DC 37’s contended that PRB’s action was arbitrary and capricious. 

The Appellate Division said that an administrative body’s act or omission is arbitrary if it "is without sound basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts," citing Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist., 34 NY2d 222. In contrast, said the court, “Where a rational basis exists for an agency's action, a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency, and the agency's determination, acting pursuant to legal authority and within its area of expertise, is entitled to deference.”

The Appellate Division said that DC 37 failed to show that PRB's upholding HHC's creation of additional layoff units was arbitrary or capricious, or affected by an error of law, pointing out that HHC acted consistent with its past practice of designating hospital programs as layoff units.

Citing the relevant HHC Rules, which, in pertinent part, sets out HHC’s the authority to amend its own rules and regulations and which, in particular, provides that HHC "may by rule designate an individual facility or division of any facility of [HHC] as separate units for layoff or demotion under this rule," the court concluded that the HHC Rules explicitly grant HHC the discretion to designate programs and clinics of HHC facilities as layoff units. 

At the hearing, HHC explained that the closing of the clinic and hospital-based programs was necessary to provide continuity of patient care in light of the budget deficit crisis facing the City. And in its decision, PRB found that HHC's actions were predicated on budgetary deficits that required closure and/or consolidation of programs and clinics in order to minimize the impact on patient care. PRB's decision was consistent with its previous precedent that "a presumption of regularity exists in the establishment of separate layoff units, until it is demonstrated that the layoffs were not done in accordance with a rational plan" (PRB Decision No. 682 [May 27, 1992] [emphasis in original]).

Noting that "A public employer may abolish civil service positions for the purpose of economy or efficiency," the court rejected DC 37’s claim that the creation of the new layoff units violated the seniority and displacement rights of certain employees, commenting  “although some longtime employees may lose their jobs, and newer employees may not,” in the absence of any nonconclusory showing of bad faith, it declined to disturb HHC's determination establishing the additional layoff unit.

Recognizing that there may have been a different way for HHC to structure its layoff plan, the Appellate Division said that it could not say that the agency acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner as "a court's opinion that a particular outcome is not fair or is not in the interests of justice is not sufficient to overcome the deference to be afforded an agency acting rationally within its area of expertise" and declined to substitute its judgment as to how HHC “should implement personnel decisions when determining how best to provide health care to the people of New York City” as to do so “would be an unwarranted intrusion into the managerial prerogative of HHC, which acted within its rule-making authority.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_05239.htm

 

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Continuation on leave of absence from a teaching position upon permanent appointment to a classified service position critical to educator’s right to reinstatement to the teaching position

 

Fehlhaber v Board of Educ. of Utica City School Dist., 2012 NY Slip Op 04904, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Craig S. Fehlhaber was initially employed by the Utica City School District as a tenured teacher. In 1997 the district appointed Fehlhaber as "Clerk of the Works" and later as Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds.

In 2010 the Board abolished the position of Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds and Fehlhaber asked to be "bump" vertically into the position of Maintenance Foreman or, in the alternative, to resume a teaching position. The Board denied both of these requests and Fehlhaber filed an Article 78 petition seeking a court order directing the Board to place him in one of those positions. Supreme Court dismissed his petition and Fehlhaber appealed..

Initially the Appellate Division resolved a procedural issue.

Supreme Court had ruled that Fehlhaber had failed to file a timely notice of claim. However, the Appellate Division agreed with Fehlhaber that “no notice of claim was required” in this instance.

Although, said the court, Education Law §3813(1) mandates that a notice of claim be filed when a claim is asserted against a board of education, "the notice of claim requirement is inapplicable to cases which seek to vindicate tenure rights which are legal rights guaranteed by State law and in the public interest," citing Cowan v Board of Educ. of Brentwood Union Free School Dist., 99 AD2d 831 and other decisions.

That said, the Appellate Division held that Supreme Court had properly dismissed the petition on the merits. Although Fehlhabercontended that he was entitled to a vertical "bump" into the position of Maintenance Foreman pursuant to Civil Service Law §80(6), the court noted that the record established that the Utica Municipal Civil Service Commission, after consulting with the New York State Civil Service Commission, said that "[i]n order for the rights of bumping' to exist, the [Fehlhaber] would have to demonstrate a legal entitlement to that bumping right.”

The Utica Commission, however, determined that Fehlhaber did not have any such bumping right. 

Here, said the court, in a case concerning an employee's bumping rights under the Civil Service Law, Matter of Hughes v Doherty, 5 NY3d 100, the Court of Appeals ruled that "judicial review of [the Commission's] classification system and determinations are limited to whether there was a rational basis for the agency's conclusion.... Unless the [Commission's] determinations were arbitrary or capricious, a court should not undermine its actions."

As the Appellate Division found that Fehlhaber failed to establish that the Commission's determination was arbitrary or capricious, or that there was no rational basis for its determination, it sustained the Supreme Court’s dismissal of his Article 78 petition on the merits.

Fehlhaber had raised an alternative theory  -- that he is merely on a leave of absence* from his tenured teaching position and was thus entitled to be reinstated to that position. The Appellate Division said that it agreed with Supreme Court that “[Fehlhaber] voluntarily abandoned his teaching position and thereby relinquished his tenure rights, at the latest, upon leaving the position for which the leave of absence was approved.”

Although it is well settled that "[t]he burden of proving abandonment is upon the [Board] and must be established by clear and convincing evidence that the [educator], by a voluntary and deliberate act, intended to relinquish [his or] her teaching position and forfeit [his or] her tenure rights," in this instance the Board granted Fehlhaber a leave of absence in 1997 "[t]o assume duties as Clerk of the Works."

When Fehlhaber left the Clerk of the Works position in 2002, he received a permanent appointment to the position of Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, a position in the classified service, and he failed to seek reinstatement as a teacher or an extension of his leave of absence when he received that permanent appointment.

* 4 NYCRR 5.2, Leaves of Absence applies to classified service employees of the State in the service as the employer. Subdivision (c) provides as follows: (c) Successive leaves of absence. Where a leave of absence without pay has been granted for a period which aggregates two years, or more if extended pursuant to subdivision (b) of this section, a further leave of absence without pay shall not be granted unless the employee returns to his position and serves continuously therein for six months immediately preceding the subsequent leave of absence. Many local civil service commissions have adopted a similar rule.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_04904.htm

Reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

 

Failure to designate the §75 disciplinary action hearing officer in writing is a fatal procedural defect

 

Arthur v  Soares,  2012 NY Slip Op 04255, Appellate Division, 3^rd Dept.

The Albany County District Attorney, P. David Soares,  filed disciplinary charges pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law against one of his subordinates, D. Richard Arthur, then serving as the office’s Director of Administration.

The Hearing Officer found Arthur guilty of the charges and recommended that he be terminated from his position. Soares adopted the hearing officer’s findings and recommendation and dismissed Arthur from his position. Arthur file a petition pursuant to Article 78 seeking a court order vacating Soares' action.

The Appellate Division annulled Soares' decision, finding “the record evinces that the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction.” and directed that Arthur be reinstated to his former position with back pay and benefits.*

The court noted that Civil Service Law §75(2), provides that a hearing on employee disciplinary charges "shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove the person against whom such charges are preferred, or by a . . . person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose" [emphasis supplied].

It is well settled, said the Appellate Division, that absent "a written delegation authorizing a deputy or other person to conduct the hearing," the hearing officer did not have jurisdiction to conduct the §75 disciplinary hearing,  citing Wiggins v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 385, among other decisions.

Significantly, the Appellate Division, Third Department had earlier ruled that the requirements of Civil Service Law §75(2) could be satisfied by a written record of such designation such as the minutes of a board meeting at which a resolution was adopted appointing the hearing officer or a letter to the hearing officer advising him or her that the official designation has taken place. In contrast, the court observed that “correspondence to the hearing officer that does not reference the official designation is insufficient, as is written notice to the [accused] of the hearing officer's identity.”

The Appellate Division found that there was no evidence in the record on appeal that the appointing authority had ever designated the Hearing Officer in a writing sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement. The court specifically noted that reference to the designation of the hearing officer in the notice of charges sent to Arthur is not sufficient in the absence of any evidence of the written designation itself.”**

In addition, the employee’s failure to object to the absence of such written designation “is of no moment, inasmuch as this jurisdictional defect cannot be waived,” said the court, citing Gardner v Coxsackie-Athens Cent. School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 92 AD3d at 1095. This clearly implies that the individual being disciplined has no duty to inform the appointing authority of this procedural defect.

As the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction to conduct the hearing, his determination and Soares’ adoption thereof are nullities and Arthur, said the court, “must be restored to his former position with back pay and benefits.”

The court also noted that while courts employ the substantial evidence standard of review in resolving challenges to Civil Service Law §75 determinations, the disciplinary hearing officer does not review an employer's disciplinary actions taken against a public employee "to determine whether those actions were undertaken based upon substantial evidence," as occurred in Arthur's disciplinary proceeding; rather," it remains the responsibility of the hearing officer to weigh the evidence and resolve credibility determinations."

Further, said the court, "administrative findings of fact must be made in such a manner that the parties may be assured that the decision is based on the evidence in the record, uninfluenced by extralegal considerations, so as to permit intelligent challenge by an aggrieved party and adequate judicial review."

* The Appellate Division also held that the hearing officer “did not properly weigh the evidence, and failed to adequately detail the specific factual findings and hearing evidence relied upon.”

** Such notice to the accused has been deemed to satisfy the statutory mandate when the appointing authority separately issues a written resolution incorporating the notice by reference (Scharf v Levittown Union Free School Dist., 294 AD2d 508, lv denied 98 NY2d 613).

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_04255.htm

 

Town Law’s shorter statute of limitation to bring an Article 78 action challenging an adverse disciplinary determination trumps longer Civil Service Law’s statute of limitations

 

Robida v Ziemba, 2012 NY Slip Op 01041, Appellate Division, Fourth Department 

Town of Cheektowaga police officer David K. Robida was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to both Civil Service Law §75 and Town Law §155. A hearing was held in accordance with those statutes.

Ultimately the Town Board adopted a resolution that terminated Robida pursuant to Town Law §155.

Town Law §155 specifically provides that a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to review a determination pursuant to the statute must be commenced within 30 days of the determination; §75 of the Civil Service Law provides that such a proceeding must be commenced within four months after the determination becomes final. *

The Appellate Division said that it was undisputed that Robida commenced his action more than 30 days after the Town Board's determination. Accordingly, said the court, “it is time-barred.”

The court rejected Robida’s argument that the time limits set out in §75 controlled and thus his petition was timely, ruling that “the 30-day limitations period set forth in Town Law §155 is not limited to those disciplinary proceedings that were brought solely pursuant thereto.”

The Appellate Division explained that the statute of limitations for a CPLR Article 78 proceeding pursuant to which Robida sought to annul th Board's determination is governed by CPLR §217(1), which provides that, "u]nless a shorter time is provided in the law authorizing the proceeding," the proceeding must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final.

As in this instance the "shorter time" was set out in Town Law §155, which authorized the disciplinary proceeding, Robida was required to file his petition challenging the Town’s determination within 30 days of the Board's decision becoming final.

* §76.1 of the Civil Service Law provides that an appeal from an adverse disciplinary decision made pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law may be made to the civil service commission having jurisdiction within twenty days after service of written notice of the determination to be reviewed or in accordance with the provisions of Article 78 of the CPLR. An even shorter statute of limitations is set out in §3020-a.5 of the Education Law for appealing a disciplinary arbitration decision pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR – 10 days. 

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_01041.htm

reprinted by permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

An appointing authority has broad discretion in determining if an omission in the probationer’s application form is material to his or her qualifications for the position

 

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed a Supreme Court ruling that dismissed a probationary police officer’s challenge to his termination during his probationary period.

The court said that the appointing authority was “entitled to discharge a probationary police officer ‘for almost any reason, or for no reason at all' as long as it is not in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason," citing Duncan v Kelly, 9 NY3d 1024.

The probationer alleged that he was terminated because of his “inadvertent” failure to disclose the psychological treatment he underwent at the age of six. The Appellate Division held that even if the probationer was "ignorant or unaware of or oblivious to his personal history,” the appointing authority was entitled, given the broad discretion vested in it, to deem "such omissions a[s] material to his qualifications."

Citing Talamo v Murphy, 38 NY2d 637, the decision notes that even assuming the truth of the probationer's allegations, his petition failed to allege any facts that would, if proven to be true, constituted a violation of "statute or policies established by decisional law."

As the probationer failed to allege facts supporting a conclusion that his termination was in bad faith, the Appellate Division ruled that “Given this failure, a hearing to resolve the truth of the facts alleged is unnecessary.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

 

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_03516.htm

reprinted with permission New York Public Personnel Law

Mitchell H. Rubinstein