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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Overturning arbitrator?s finding would require the court to make new findings of fact and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator's

Overturning arbitrator?s finding would require the court to make new findings of fact and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator's
Kalyanaram v New York Inst. of Tech., 2010 NY Slip Op 08856, decided on December 2, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department

According to the Appellate Division, ?[a]fter investigating complaints from 37 students alleging that Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, a member the New York Institute of Technology?s faculty had engaged in inappropriate conduct during class,* the Institute sent a letter to Kalyanaram notifying him that, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) governing faculty employed by New York Institute of Technology, "you are hereby dismissed, effective as of May 21, 2007, for engaging in serious professional misconduct."New York State Supreme Court Judge O. Peter Sherwood denied Kalyanaram?s petition seeking to vacate an arbitration award, thus sustaining the Institute?s terminating Kalyanaram?s employment. Judge Sherwood then granted the Institute?s cross motion to confirm the arbitrator?s award.

Finding that Kalyanaram failed to establish any of the grounds available for vacating the arbitration award, the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court?s determination.

Among the several theories advanced by Kalyanaram was that the arbitration award violated ?public policy.?

The Appellate Division rejected Kalyanaram public policy argument, explaining that ?To find a violation of public policy with respect to academic freedom or the whistleblower or anti-retaliation statutes relied upon by Kalyanaram, it would have to ignore specific factual and legal findings made by the arbitrator ? and then make an additional factual finding that [Kalyanaram] was discharged for that conduct.?

As to Kalyanaram?s complaint concerning the findings made by the arbitrator with respect certain e-mails Kalyanaram was alleged to have written, the Appellate Division said it would have to engage in impermissible fact-finding and substitute its judgment for that of the arbitrator were it to consider Kalyanaram?s representations in that regard.

Kalyanaram also claimed that the arbitrator?s award was irrational. The Appellate Division said that an arbitration award would be held irrational ?only if there is no proof whatever to justify it.?

Stated another way, the court indicated that an arbitration award will be confirmed if there is "any plausible basis" for it. Challenges, said the court, based on the ?sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence? to support an award are not grounds for vacating the award.

* Kalyanaram was accused of denigrating students' intelligence and ethnicity, making sexually explicit remarks, demeaning faculty members at an affiliated college and making sexual advances toward female students.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_08856.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on December 09, 2010 (boomark / email).