Source: https://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/12/csl-75-provides-right-to-attorney-at.html
Timestamp: 2016-12-06 21:46:16
Document Index: 188261191

Matched Legal Cases: ['§75', '§75', '§75', '§75', '§75', '§75', '§75', '§504', '§75']

New York Public Personnel Law: CSL §75 provides a right to an attorney at a disciplinary hearing but not in course of an investigation before disciplinary charges are served
TO RESEARCH NYPPL POSTINGS type in your key word or phrase in the box at the upper left and tap enter. Monday, December 13, 2010
CSL §75 provides a right to an attorney at a disciplinary hearing but not in course of an investigation before disciplinary charges are servedMatter of Nygard v County of Warren, 2010 NY Slip Op 09060, decided on December 9, 2010, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentThomas Nygard, a Warren County deputy sheriff, was served with disciplinary charges alleging seven acts of misconduct pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law. Such charges included alleged acts of misconduct that occurred while Nygard was “off-duty.”Ultimately the §75 Hearing Officer found Nygard guilty of four of the charges. The Hearing Officer, considering the results in another recent disciplinary matter involving Nygard,* recommended termination as the penalty to be imposed by the appointing authority. Nathan H. York, the Warren County Sheriff, Nathan H. York, found that the record supported sustaining one additional charge, for a total of five, and terminated Nygard from his position.Nygard appealed, contending that his “statutory rights” had been violated because his request to adjourn an administrative investigation that ultimately lead to disciplinary charges being filed against him until he could have an attorney present was rejected. Accordingly, Nygard argued, “all information gleaned at the inquiry should have been excluded from the subsequent disciplinary proceeding.”The Appellate Division disagreed, noting that Civil Service Law §75(2) establishes two different requirements for representation depending on the stage of the administrative disciplinary proceeding.First, said the court, Subdivision 2 provides that during questioning of an employee who "appears to be a potential subject of disciplinary action," the employee has a right to have a union representative present. If the appointing authority fails or refuses to permit the individual to have his or her union representative present, Subdivision 2 states that the failure to afford this right to the employee bars the use of any statements made, or evidence derived, in the course of the initial questioning in the absence of such representation from being used in the disciplinary hearing.However, noted the Appellate Division, there is a “second stage” in the disciplinary process addressed in §75(2) that expands the employee’s right to representation to include the right to representation by an attorney** once disciplinary charges have been filed against an individual and a scheduled hearing.The Appellate Division ruled that in Nygard’s case, the administrative inquiry constituted a “stage one questioning” at which he had a union representative present. Accordingly, said the court, the relevant statutory requirement was satisfied and “the record reveals no violation of proper procedures.”Nygard also contended that his off-duty conduct was improperly considered as a basis for disciplinary action. The court disposed of this argument by pointing out that “An employee may be disciplined for actions occurring while off-duty, citing Villanueva v Simpson, 69 NY2d 1034.Finding that substantial evidence supported each of the five disciplinary charges sustained by the Sheriff, the Appellate Division rejected Nygard’s claim that dismissal was too harsh a penalty in this instance, finding that termination was not "so disproportionate as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness."***Here, said the court, the penalty did not rise to that level given the nature of the charges sustained, “particularly when considered together with the fact" that only a few months earlier [Nygard] had been disciplined for a similar off-duty incident.* In Bigelow v Village of Gouverneur, 63 NY2d 470, the Court of Appeals said that such records could be used to determine the penalty to be imposed if 1. The individual is advised that his or her prior disciplinary record would be considered in setting the penalty to be imposed, and 2. The employee is given an opportunity to submit a written response to any adverse material contained in the record or offer “mitigating circumstances.”** §75(2) provides that in disciplinary hearing stage of the process, in contrast to investigatory stage of the procedure, the hearing officer shall “upon the request of the person against whom charges are preferred, permit him [or her] to be represented by counsel or by a representative of a recognized or certified employee organization….” *** The so-called Pell Doctrine, Pell v Board of Education, 34 NY2d 222.The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_09060.htm.
Special Education Cases under the IDEA and §504 of...
Dismissal recommend after employee is found guilty...
Unilateral changes in health insurance
Failure to exhaust administrative remedy bars appe...
Arbitrator’s award must be confirmed if not comple...
Police officer’s September 11 line of duty injury ...
Compulsory arbitration demand
A court's review of a disciplinary arbitration awa...
Seniority in a tenure area and the “40% rule”
An employee organization's duty of fair representa...
Confidentiality of e-mail
Vacating an arbitrator’s award
Employees alleging that they were required to perf...
Failure of employee to provide a urine sample with...
Criticism of employee performance serving pursuant...
Determining membership in a negotiating unit for t...
New York City Civil Service Commission’s ruling ap...
Public Personnel Administrators invited to join iZ...
Court sustains Commissioner of Education’s determi...
Reinstatement of a former employee permitted notwi...
Statute of limitations - duty of fair representati...
Determining the minimum period of probation
Applicant rejected after being found overqualified...
Videotape used in disciplinary hearing to rebut em...
Dissatisfaction with an employer's drug testing pr...
Concerning the employee’s duty to mitigate damages...
Past practice - paying for health insurance premiu...
Governor Paterson issues pardons to the benefit of...
Civil Service Commission’s jurisdictional reclassi...
School officials were entitled to qualified immuni...
Statements made to the press about an individual t...
Payment for unused leave credits upon resignation ...
Political activities by State officers and employe...
Employee conduct must be “in furtherance of the em...
Requests for union leave
Extension of the probationary period
Arbitrator’s refusal to hear employee’s “whistle b...
Governor David A. Paterson fined $62,125 after bei...
Teacher placement and the ADA
Absence of the name of an individual on a list of ...
Employee may be terminated on the grounds that he ...
Violating the employer’s “Use of the Internet Poli...
Burden of proof in disability claims
Criminal investigations and the Taylor law
Employee serving a disciplinary probationary perio...
Readers of NYPPL use a variety of operating system...
Liquidation of employee leave credits upon separat...
Governor Paterson signs Executive Order on Record ...
Determining on-duty status
Modifying a disciplinary procedure
Arbitrators generally permitted independent recour...
The statute of limitations for initiating a lawsui...
Section 207-c administrative hearings
Failure to serve notice of an appeal to the Commis...
Ordering worker to report to agency’s medical clin...
Termination during a probationary period
Dismissal of charges in the course of a Section 75...
Applying for disability retirement benefits
Absence from an assigned post
Seeking class action relief in arbitrations
CSL §75 provides a right to an attorney at a disci...
Disciplinary decision based on evidence obtained u...
Age requirements and eligibility for taking a test...
DiNAPOLI WARNS OF A SWEEPSTAKES SCAM USING FAKE ST...
Exhausting of Taylor Law contract remedies
Responding to Freedom of Information requests
Loss of a required license or certification bars t...
Collective bargaining after the Taylor Law Agreeme...
Timely appeal to the Commissioner of Education pro...
Complimentary Webinar - Assessing the Risks of Mov...
Disciplinary charges must sufficiently specific so...
Placement on a preferred list
Rejection of an applicant for appointment as a pol...
Determining if assigned duties constitute out-of-t...
Fruits of an undercover investigation used as a ba...
Modifying employee work schedules
Employee disciplined for disruptive behavior alleg...
An administrative agency must follow the rules and...
Appointing authority’s threat to take action again...
Employee claims termination was in retaliation and...