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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Using internal investigation reports in civil lawsuits

Using internal investigation reports in civil lawsuits
Ramirez v MBSTOA, 258 A.D.2d 326

It is not uncommon for an employer to undertake an ?internal investigation? of an incident involving alleged negligence or misconduct on the part of an employee in the performance of his or her duties. For example, an internal affairs unit of a police department may conduct an ?internal investigation? following allegations of negligence or misconduct filed against a police officer.

If the internal investigator finds that the employee ?was at fault? and states this conclusion in his or her final report, may a plaintiff use this as an ?admission? by the employer in a lawsuit for negligence?

Not necessarily. In Ramirez wanted to use an internal investigation report prepared by MBSTOA investigators that concluded that the MBSTOA?s driver who was involved in a particular accident was ?at fault? in his lawsuit against MBSTOA to prove ?negligence? on its part. The Appellate Division upheld a lower court?s ruling that Ramirez could not use the investigation report as evidence in the lawsuit that Ramirez brought against MBSTOA for negligence.

The court?s rationale: the admission of the report into evidence ?would be unfairly prejudicial? to MBSTOA and ?misleading to the jury.? The trial court had barred Ramirez?s introduction of the MBSTOA?s initial internal investigatory report because it found that the investigator?s determination was based on the Authority?s ?internal rules and policies? and that those rules and policies ?exceeded the applicable common-law negligence standard of care.?

In other words, MBSTOA demanded a higher standard of performance on the part of its drivers than was required under common law. The Appellate Division concurred with the Supreme Court judge?s ruling, observing that the initial report?s conclusion that the MBSTOA driver ?was at fault? was changed on review to a finding of ?questionable?.

The lesson here is that if an agency wishes to prevent adverse information contained in an internal investigation report from being used in a trial, it must show that the report was prepared in consideration of a standard of care that is higher than that imposed under common [or case] law.
.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on October 05, 2010 (boomark / email).