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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Authority to initiate disciplinary action against an employee

Authority to initiate disciplinary action against an employee
Matter of Stafford v Board of Educ. of Mohonasen Cent. School Dist., 61 AD3d 1259

Joel Stafford was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law. Found guilty of various charges of misconduct and incompetence, Stafford was dismissed from his position as a school custodian.

He appealed, contending that the disciplinary determination must be annulled because (1) the record did not include the written delegation authorizing the Hearing Officer to conduct his disciplinary hearing as mandated by Civil Service Law §75[2]* and (2) the charges against him were preferred by school superintendent and not by school board itself. Supreme Court disagreed and dismissed Stafford?s Article 78 petition seeking to vacate the disciplinary determination and the penalty imposed.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Courts ruling, said that it found ?no merit to either contention.?

The court noted that the record included a letter addressed to the Hearing Officer on school district letterhead that was ?jointly? submitted by the parties indicating that the school board had designated the hearing officer at its meeting on December 4, 2006.

Although the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Wiggins v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 385, said that "[i]n the absence of a written delegation authorizing a deputy or other person to conduct [a] hearing, the removing board or officer has no jurisdiction to discipline an employee" it decided that ?this jointly-admitted letter was sufficient evidence of a written delegation by [school district] prior to the hearing authorizing the subject Hearing Officer to conduct it such that the mandates of Civil Service Law § 75(2) were satisfied.?

As to Stafford?s argument that the school superintendent was not ?an authorized officer? for the purpose of preferring disciplinary charges against him, the Appellate Division said that preferring disciplinary charges against a school district employee is entirely consistent with the powers and duties of a school superintendent, citing Education Law §1711[2](e).

A related issue concerns acting on complaints of misconduct that do not originate within the organizations. Is an employer required to file disciplinary charges against an employee after receiving a report of alleged misconduct from an outside source? Not necessarily.

In Matter of Covino, Decisions of the Commissioner of Education Number 11227, the Commissioner of Education said that a school board is not required to serve disciplinary charges against an individual simply because it is advised of "wrongdoing" allegedly committed by the employee.

The Covino case involved a complaint filed by a parent that Covino, a teacher-coach, had been involved in the hazing of a student by other students. The parent wanted the school board to dismiss Covino and a school bus driver who was alleged to have been present during the incident. The board's response to the parent's complaint was to suspend the teacher from his coaching duties. It did not initiate formal disciplinary action against either the teacher or the driver.

The relevant test in such a situation, said the Commissioner, is whether the board of education had a reasonable basis for its decision whether or not to proceed with the disciplinary action. In this instance the Commissioner ruled that the board's investigation of the incident, followed by its relieving the teacher of his coaching duties was sufficient under the circumstances.

The Commissioner concluded that the board had a reasonable basis for the action it took and its decision not to pursue further disciplinary action against either the teacher or the school bus driver was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The test set out in Covino: did the board investigate the allegations and then make a reasonable determination whether or not to take further action based on its findings?

Essentially, once having completed its investigation, the board may:

1. decide that filing disciplinary charges or taking other administrative action against the individual is unwarranted;

2. decide that there is insufficient evidence to justify the filing of disciplinary charges but that some other administrative action, such as "counseling the individual," is appropriate; or

3. decide that filing disciplinary charges against the individual is appropriate under the circumstances.

* Section 75.2, in pertinent part, provides: The hearing upon such 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 deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose [emphasis supplied].

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 04, 2010 (boomark / email).