Labor & Employment Law

Suspension without pay determined by ?pay days? rather than ?calendar days?

By Harvey Randall, Esq.

Suspension without pay determined by ?pay days? rather than ?calendar days?
Crandall v Voorheesville CSD, Supreme Court Albany County, #01-06-087882, Judge Thomas J. McNamara

Robert Crandall was served with disciplinary charges by the Voorheesville Central School District pursuant to Section 3020-a of the Education Law. The hearing officer found Crandall guilty of some of the charges and imposed a sixty-day suspension without pay as the penalty.

The school board advised Crandall that it would suspend him without pay for the period October 21, 2006 through January 29, 2007 ? which constituted sixty workdays of suspension without pay. Crandall objected, contending that his suspension without pay should be for sixty calendar days, not ?pay days.?

In reviewing the several issues presented in this action, Judge McNamara noted that Crandall ?is not seeking to vacate or modify the hearing officer?s determination.? Rather, said the court, Crandall contends that ?the penalty imposed by the Board, suspension without pay for 60 work days,? was not the penalty prescribed by the hearing officer.

In contrast, the Court said that the Board?s position was that its action was consistent with the determination ?read as a whole? as the suspension was to be without pay for sixty days and its educators were not paid for weekends, holidays and vacation periods.?

Judge McNamara ruled that the Board?s implementing the penalty to provide for a suspension of ?sixty working days? was neither arbitrary nor capricious and thus ?the determination of the Board to suspend [Crandall] for 60 working days was proper and on that basis [Crandall?s] petition is dismissed.?

In another case involving the duration of a disciplinary ?suspension without pay,? Manning v Warsaw CSD, CEd 14071, Manning became ?unavailable? to work following the disciplinary action because he had been incarcerated in a county jail.

The situation in Manning involved Manning appealing a Section 3020-a disciplinary decision. While his appeal was still pending, on July 19, 1994 Manning was incarcerated in the Wyoming County Jail. On November 22, 1994, former Commission of Education Sobol issued his decision and imposed a penalty of suspension without pay for two years. The decision was sustained by a State Supreme Court justice [Manning v Sobol, August 7, 1995, not officially reported].

Released from prison and claiming that his two-year suspension without pay commenced on November 22, 1994, the date of Commissioner Sobol?s decision, Manning advised the district that he intended to return to work on November 22, 1996. The District disagreed and told Manning that his two-year suspension without pay commenced on March 21, 1995, when he was released from prison and therefore he could not return to work earlier than March 21, 1997. Again, Manning appealed to the Commissioner of Education.

Commissioner of Education Richard P. Mills said that the two-year suspension imposed by former Commissioner Sobol commenced when Manning was released from incarceration since allowing the suspension to run concurrently with his incarceration ?nullifies a portion of the suspension, since [Manning] could not work during that period in any event.?

Commissioner Mills rejected Manning?s claim that he was entitled to back salary from November 22, 1996, holding that to do otherwise would abrogate the degree of discipline deemed appropriate by former Commissioner Sobol.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on April 17, 2008 (boomark / email).