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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Former employee?s claims of denial of administrative due process in a disciplinary hearing rejected by the Appellate Division

Former employee?s claims of denial of administrative due process in a disciplinary hearing rejected by the Appellate Division
Matter of Stodolka v Starpoint Cent. School Dist., 2010 NY Slip Op 03698, Decided on April 30, 2010, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

The Stodolka decision by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, is an interesting decision as it sets out, and answers, a number of procedural issues that may be encountered in an administrative disciplinary action.

Charles K. Stodolka was found guilty of disciplinary charges filed against him pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 and terminated from his position as director of school facilities and operations at the Starpoint Central School District.

In his appeal Stodolka raised a number of arguments in support of his claim that district?s decision should be annulled.

1. Stodolka argued that he was denied administrative due process because the §75 hearing officer ?refused to adjourn the hearing based on his alleged medical condition."

The Appellate Division rejected Stodolka?s claim, commenting that he had failed to respond in a timely manner to ?the Hearing Officer's reasonable request for medical documentation to support the adjournment.?

Further, said the court, the documentation that Stodolka ultimately presented to the hearing officer did not support his contention that he was physically unable to attend the hearing.*

2. Stodolka contended that the school district?s failure provide him with a "bill of particulars" as he demanded ?until after the commencement of the hearing? likewise denied him due process.

The court said that Stodolka did not request a bill of particulars from the school district until the day before the commencement of the disciplinary hearing and the school district, in response to his demand, served the bill of particulars on him before the second day of testimony, and prior to the cross-examination of any witnesses.**

3. Stodolka also complained that the school district failed to warn him that it might file disciplinary charges against him.

The Appellate Division, citing Leotta v Hasl, 134 AD2d 429, pointed out that the school district ?did not have a duty to warn [Stodolka] that his conduct was improper prior to bringing a proceeding against him" and, in any event, Stodolka was repeatedly warned via his annual performance evaluations that he was required to arrive to work on time as scheduled and that his repeated and unexcused tardiness was unacceptable.

In addition, the court said that the record indicated that the School District's superintendent wrote to Stodolka specifically warning him that "further action w[ould] be taken" if he continued to be late to work.

4. The court also rejected Stodolka?s argument that he was denied due process because ?a single witness testified at the hearing that [Stodolka] was tardy more frequently than was specified in the bill of particulars."

The Appellate Division said that the notice of charges, together with the bill of particulars, adequately apprised Stodolka of the nature of the charges against him, thereby enabling him to prepare and present a defense to the charges.

In this regard, the court, citing Matter of Fitzgerald v Libous, 44 NY2d 660, noted that Civil Service Law §75[2] in pertinent part, provides: ?A person against whom removal or other disciplinary action is proposed shall have written notice thereof and of the reasons therefor, shall be furnished a copy of the charges preferred against him and shall be allowed at least eight days for answering the same in writing.?***

The Appellate Division concluded that ?the determination insofar as it is challenged by [Stodolka] is supported by the requisite substantial evidence, i.e., ?such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact? ? and that, under the circumstances of this case, the penalty of termination of employment is not "so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness.'?

* The Appellate Division found that Stodolka was absent for only a portion of the direct examination of one witness and that he otherwise was present for the remaining 14 days of the disciplinary hearing, including the cross-examinations of all other witnesses.

** Sometimes an employee will demand "a bill of particulars" requiring the employer to set out the charges and specifications filed against the individual in greater detail. Although Education Law Section 3020-a 3 c(iii)(C) states that an administrator or teacher has the right to demand a "bill of particulars" concerning the charges and specifications filed against him or her, no similar provision is included in Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. In some instances the disciplinary grievance procedure set out in a collective bargaining agreement allows the employee to demand a "bill of particulars."

*** On this related issue, although Section 75 requires the appointing officer to allow the accused employee at least eight days to file his or her answer to disciplinary charges in writing, this simply requires that the employee be provided with at least eight days in which to prepare and submit an answer to the charges. As Section 75 is silent as to when the accused individual must file his or her answer, this suggests that the individual may remain mute -- i.e., decline to file an answer to the charges -- without jeopardizing any of his or her Section 75 rights to administrative due process.

[For information about PELP's The Discipline Book, available both as an e-book and in a softcover format, go to: http://booklocker.com/books/3449.html ]

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_03698.htm

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