ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Participation of the appointing authority in a disciplinary action

ADVERTISEMENTS
Participation of the appointing authority in a disciplinary action
Faga v Board of Educ. of Harrison Cent. School Dist., 2008 NY Slip Op 09078, Decided on November 18, 2008, Appellate Division, Second Department

Vito Faga was terminated from his position of head custodian at the Harrison Central School District.

Faga challenged the District?s action, contending that his due process rights were violated the Board of Education had ?received ex parte information about the charges from the District's attorneys and the Superintendent of Schools.?

Faga also alleged that his right to due process was violated because the Superintendent submitted a statement to members of the Board before the charges were brought that he believed that charges could be sustained.

The Appellate Division found that the District established that the Board did not prejudge the matter nor did it rely on any improperly-obtained information in making its determination to dismiss Faga from his position.

In contrast, where the court finds that the rights of the accused were prejudiced because of some activity of the appointing authority, it will typically vacate the determination. For example, in Ernst v Saratoga County, 234 AD2d 764, the Appellate Division annulled the dismissal of an individual found guilty of disciplinary charges because the chairman of the county Board of Supervisors (a) met with the county?s attorneys ?to discuss the pending investigation,? (b) met with the employees involved to, as the chairman phrased it, ?relieve their fears;? (c) signed the notice of the charges against the individual, (d) voted to bring charges against the employee, (e) served as a witness at the disciplinary hearing and (f) voted to accept a hearing officer?s findings of guilt and impose the recommended penalty. These actions, said the court, denied the employee a fair and impartial tribunal.

The full text of the Faga decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_09078.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on November 28, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.021 secs (new cache)