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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Disciplinary charges must provide information sufficient to prepare a defense

Disciplinary charges must provide information sufficient to prepare a defense
Matter of Capone v Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District, 38 A.D.3d 770

Ralph Capone, formerly employed by the Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District as a Custodial Worker I, challenged his termination after he was found guilty of charges filed against him pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law. Capone alleged that he was not given adequate notice the dates of the alleged misconduct in the charges filed against him, that the hearing officer?s findings were not supported by substantial evidence, and that termination was too severe a penalty to impose under the circumstances.

The charges against Capone were filed after two adult students in the Adult Education Program conducted by District told their instructor that Capone had ?initiated sexually explicit conversations with them and offered to perform certain sexual acts.? The hearing officer found Capone guilty of 17 of the 18 charges filed against him and recommended that the penalty of termination be imposed. The District adopted the hearing officer?s findings and recommendations and dismissed Capone from his position.

The court decided that the Statement of Charges was sufficient to give Capone notice of the charges against him and allow him to present a defense. According to the Appellate Division, §75 requires that:

The charges must be reasonably specific in light of the circumstances, which include ?whether the interval ascribed for a particular offense is so excessive on its face that it is unreasonable; whether the respondent has exerted diligent efforts to state the time more specifically; and whether, under the circumstances, the designated period is reasonable."

In this instance the Appellate Division ruled that ?Given the petitioner's repeated contacts and conversations with the students, the charges against [Capone] identifying the relevant time period as May to June 2003 and Fall 2002 were adequate.? Further, as the District had provided Capone with the content of these conversations, ?the exact nature of his alleged misconduct was known to him as well.?

According to the decision, there was substantial evidence in the record to establish that Capone initiated sexually explicit conversations and offered to perform sexual acts with two adult students and it was the hearing officer's role "to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses and determine which testimony to accept and which to reject." Thus, it was proper for the hearing officer to find the testimony of the two students to be credible, while finding Capone?s testimony and that of his wife to be less than credible.

As to the penalty imposed, termination, the court observed that Capone, prior to the preferment of these charges, had an unblemished 19-year record with the District and that ?while inappropriate and embarrassing to the adult students, did not endanger any minor children. His conduct also did not prevent them from attending class, nor did it involve any physical assault.?

?Nonetheless,? said the court, ?we are constrained by the Court of Appeals' decisions in Matter of Waldren v Town of Islip (6 NY3d 735), and Pell v Board (34 NY2d 222) not to disturb the UFSD's determination, as it cannot be said as a matter of law that the penalty imposed on the petitioner herein, termination, is ?so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness.?"

The Appellate Division noted that in Waldren, the Court of Appeals held that, in the context of a 30-year career that was otherwise unblemished, an employee's use of his office computer to view Internet pornography was sufficient to warrant termination.

According, the court said that ?In view of such precedent, we cannot conclude that termination of the petitioner's employment was so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness.?

For the full text of the decision, go to:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_02552.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on August 26, 2009 (boomark / email).