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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Excessive absenteeism basis for termination

Excessive absenteeism basis for termination
Cicero v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Auth., 264 AD2d 334

The Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority [TBTA] terminated Rocco Cicero, a toll collector, after finding him guilty of charges alleging toll shortages, four unauthorized absences and excessive absenteeism. The finding of ?excessive absenteeism? was based on Cicero being absent 80% of the time during a 22-month period. Most of this absence was because of an on-the-job injury suffered by Cicero and most of them were authorized by TBTA after periodic medical evaluations by its physicians.

After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the toll shortage charge and one of the unauthorized absence charges, but dismissed the excessive absenteeism charge. The ALJ decided that although Cicero?s absences could be considered ?excessive per se,? ?it would be unfair to discipline employees for taking lengthy, injury-related leave? that was approved by the Authority without first giving the employee additional notice or warning as to what amount of absences would be deemed excessive and subject him or her to discipline. The ALJ recommended a 5-day suspension for the other infractions.

TBTA accepted the ALJ?s findings concerning the charges related to the toll shortage and unauthorized absences but, in addition, sustained the charge of excessive absenteeism. TBTA?s rationale: its rules explicitly authorized dismissal as a penalty for excessive absenteeism, and Cicero?s 80% absentee rate was plainly excessive.

TBTA?s appointing authority commented that Cicero?s absenteeism continued even after the charges were filed against him and that his excessive absences had resulted in serious morale and financial problems to the agency.

Cicero appealed and won an order by State Supreme Court Justice Alice Schlesinger annulling his termination and directing TBTA to reinstate him on the grounds that TBTA?s determination was arbitrary and capricious. Judge Schlesinger concluded that Cicero had been deprived of his due process rights, because he was not given notice that his approved absences could ultimately be considered ?excessive?, and therefore misconduct. The Appellate Division reversed Judge Schlesinger?s ruling.

The Appellate Division decided that TBTA?s decision to terminate Cicero?s employment for excessive absenteeism ?had a rational basis and should not be disturbed.? The courts said that the ALJ acknowledged that an absentee rate in excess of 50% ?may be deemed excessive per se? and that Cicero?s absentee rate was well beyond that threshold. While the ALJ and Judge Schlesinger decided that Cicero had not been given ?adequate notice,? the Appellate Division said that it disagreed and reversed.

The decision comments that TBTA?s rules clearly state that ?excessive absence... will be cause for dismissal.? In addition, the governing collective bargaining agreement guarantees employees only 12 days sick leave per year, and TBTA issued a new policy in 1992 providing that a memorandum of unsatisfactory attendance would be issued to an employee after a 5th sick day was taken. This, said the court, meant that Cicero should have been on notice from numerous sources that excessive absences would not be tolerated.

The Appellate Division also rejected Cicero?s argument that his absences were approved and medically justified and therefore excused for the purposes of maintaining any disciplinary action against him.
.

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