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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

The ?substantial evidence? standard applies in administrative hearings; the "arbitrary and capricious" test governs in contract disciplinary actions

The ?substantial evidence? standard applies in administrative hearings; the "arbitrary and capricious" test governs in contract disciplinary actions
Matter of Edwards v Oyster Bay-East Norwich Cent. School Dist., 2010 NY Slip Op 30922(U), April 8, 2010, Supreme Court, Nassau County, Judge Denise L. Sher [Not selected for publications in the Official Reports]

On or about October 22, 2008, Donald Edwards was hired by the School district as a custodian, a position in the competitive class. His continuation in serve was contingent on his satisfactorily completing his probationary period.

On March 3, 2009, Edwards was served with disciplinary charges alleging that he was guilty of incompetence and of insubordination.

The school district, contending that Edwards was not entitled to a Section 75 disciplinary hearing, stated that one was provided to Edwards pursuant to the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"), which incorporated the "protections of Section 75 of the Civil Service Law."

Arthur Riegal, Esq. was designated to serve as the hearing officer by the school district.

Although Riegal dismissed a number of the specifications filed against Edwards, he found that Edwards was both incompetent and insubordinate and recommended that he be terminated from his position.

The school district adopted the Hearing Officer s findings and recommendations and adopted a resolution terminating.

Edwards sued the School District and the School District Board, contending that the school district?s decision to terminate him was ?arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, affected by errors of fact and law, taken in bad faith, taken without substantial evidence on the records and in violation of law.? Edwards also argued that Hearing Officer s findings and conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence.

Here, it is undisputed that the petitioner was a probationary employee when he was terminated. Specifically, Edwards would not have become permanent until the completion of at least twenty-six weeks of employment.*

Judge Sher said that Edwards ?had no right to challenge his termination by way of hearing or otherwise, absent a showing that he was entitled by law to a disciplinary hearing, the hearing that was had in this case was the result of a bargained for product of contract (not law).?

The court then stated that ?It is well settled that when procedural protections are provided by contract, not law, the standard by which an administrative body?s decision must be judged is not the "substantial evidence" standard, as Edwards contends but rather the "arbitrary and capricious" test governs.

In a proceeding such as this, said Judge Sher, which challenges a determination made by an administrative agency, the court' s function is to ascertain, upon the proof before the agency, whether its determination had a rational basis in the record or, conversely, was arbitrary and capricious or affected by an error of law. An agency action is deemed to be arbitrary if it is taken "without a sound basis in reason and without regard to the facts.

In this instance the court said that the school district's determination need only be supported by a ' rational basis ' if it is to be upheld.

Accordingly, Judge Sher said that ?in the light of the foregoing, this Court defers to respondent's factual determination that [Edwards] was guilty of insubordination and that he was incompetent, as it was not arbitrary and capricious and had a rational basis in the record and dismissed Edwards? petition.

* Although the court said that ?Edwards would not have become permanent until the completion of at least twenty-six weeks of employment,? Edwards was, in fact, a permanent employee but had not yet attained tenure in view of the fact that he had not yet satisfactorily completed the required probationary period. Case law holds that a probationary employee may be terminated at any time without a hearing after completing his or her minimum period of probation and before the end of the probationary period unless otherwise provided by a collective bargaining agreement. If the appointing authority wishes to terminate a probationary employee before he or she has completed his or her minimum period of probationary service, he or she is entitled to a disciplinary hearing pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/pdfs/2010/2010_30922.pdf

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on April 28, 2010 (boomark / email).