Labor & Employment Law

An ambiguity in a settlement agreement resolved against the drafter of the agreement

An ambiguity in a settlement agreement resolved against the drafter of the agreement
Coker v City of New York Dept. of Probation, 2008 NY Slip Op 04195, Decided on May 6, 2008, Decided on May 6, 2008

Showole Coker had been directed to complete a Partner Abuse Counseling (PAC) program as a requirement of his conditional discharge by the criminal court following a domestic violence incident. In addition, Coker had been placed on disciplinary probation pursuant to a stipulation with his employer, the New York City Department of Probation [DOP].

The stipulation required Coker to "strictly adhere" to the PAC program's counseling plan and required a monthly report from PAC indicating that he had "attended" all counseling sessions and similar events for the preceding month. Coker?s failure to "report" for all such events would be deemed insufficient to satisfy PAC requirements. Any violation by Coker of the requirements of the stipulation would cause DOP to terminate him. In addition, the stipulation also provided that "[a]ny action taken by [DOP] . . . shall not be arbitrary or capricious."

PAC reported that Coker not been permitted to attend one session. Coker explained that he had arrived on time but had to leave to get a money order to pay for the session. He was not permitted to participate because he was ?too late? when he returned with the money order. Although Coker made up the missed session and ultimately completed the PAC program, DOP terminated him "[p]ursuant to the terms of the Stipulation."

The Appellate Division said that Supreme Court ?correctly found that [Coker] did not violate the requirements of the stipulation.? Coker made up the missing session and, as required by the stipulation, he did "strictly adhere" to PAC's counseling plan, as evidenced by the fact that he completed the PAC program.

As the court viewed it, the issue was whether or not Coker satisfied the requirements of the stipulation since he did ?attended? and did ?report? for as required, but then left to get a money order to pay for the session, only to be barred from actually participating in the session because he returned too late with the required payment. In such cases any ambiguity with respect to whether the terms of the settlement agreement have been satisfied will be resolved against the drafter of the stipulation ? in this instance DOP.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on May 07, 2008 (boomark / email).