Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Labor & Employment Law
: New York Public Personnel LawDisciplinary actions in absentia
Clarke v NYC Board of Education, App. Div., 251 A.D.2d 403
No one gave Fernando A. Clarke, a purchasing agent employed by the New York City Board of Education, permission to be absent from his job on February 14, 1994. To make matters worse, he never returned to work and didn?t bother to appear for a scheduled disciplinary hearing.
Clarke was served with charges of AWOL pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Although Clarke did not appear at the scheduled disciplinary hearing, the hearing officer found him guilty of the charges filed against him. The board adopted the findings and recommendations of the disciplinary hearing officer and terminated Clarke from his position.
The Appellate Division dismissed Clarke?s appeal challenging his termination. The court pointed out that Clarke (1) was aware of the time and place of the Section 75 hearing; (2) failed to attend the hearing; or (3) offer any proof on his own behalf.
The decision notes that the only evidence in the disciplinary hearing record was that Clarke had been continuously absent from his position without approval since February 14, 1994 and that he had not provided any satisfactory explanation for this absence. This, said the Appellate Division, was sufficient to provide the substantial evidence needed to support the board?s determination.
This decision demonstrates the fact that an appointing authority may proceed with a disciplinary hearing notwithstanding the fact that the accused employee fails to appear at the proceeding. However, before making a final determination in cases where the Section 75 disciplinary hearing was conducted in absentia, the appointing authority should make certain that:
1. The employee was served with the disciplinary charges and that he or she was advised of the time and place of the hearing;
2. A diligent effort was made to contact the individual on the day of the hearing to determine if there was a reasonable explanation for his or her failure to appear as scheduled before the hearing officer started the hearing;
3. A formal hearing was conducted and that the employer was required to introduce evidence proving its charges before the hearing officer;
4. A formal record of the hearing was made and a transcript provided to the appointing authority and, if requested, to the employee.
Finally, the employee must be advised of the appointing authority?s determination and his or her right of appeal.
Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on July 22, 2010 (boomark / email).
Katrina Victims See Justice, Ruling Paves the Way for Class Actions
Katrina Victims See Justice Ruling Paves the Way for Class Actions
Health Net
Settles Three Class Actions for $215 Million
Sonus, Vonage
Settle their Class Actions
Hurricane Insurer
Settles 2 Class Actions for $35 Million
Google
Settles Book-Scanning Class Actions for $125 Million
Wal-Mart
Settles 63 Federal and State Class Actions for $640 Million

Database of the Day: Illinois Physician Profiles and License Actions
Polanski Requests To Be Sentenced In Absentia
"Polanski loses bid to be sentenced in absentia"
Database of the Day: California Escrow Agents’ Employees Disciplinary Actions
Tennessee Ranks #40 in Doctor Discipline
Texas lawyer suspended for actions in probate case









