Source: https://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2015_10_12_archive.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 07:46:46
Document Index: 727028947

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 431', '§752', '§752', '§703', '§753', '§752', '§296', '§8']

NYC Rubber Room Reporter and ATR CONNECT: Oct 12, 2015
Matter of El v New York City Dept. of Educ.
[*1] Matter of El v New York City Dept. of Educ. 2009 NY Slip Op 50883(U) [23 Misc 3d 1121(A)] Decided on April 1, 2009 Supreme Court, New York County Schlesinger, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on April 1, 2009
In the Matter of the Application of Talib A. El, Petitioner,
The New York City Department of Education, Joel Klein, as Chancellor of The New York City Department of Education, and Lawrence Becker, as Chief Executive of the Division of Human Resources of the New York City Department of Education, Respondents.
401571/08
Attorney for Deft
100 Church Street, Room 2-317
299 Broadway, 4th fl.
Respondent DOE opposes the petition, asserting that it properly evaluated all the relevant factors outlined in the Correction Law and correctly denied Mr. El's application on the ground that: "In light of [your criminal record history], granting employment will pose an unreasonable risk to the safety and welfare of the school community." DOE also asserts that it did not receive a copy of the Certificate of Disabilities until after its decision had been rendered.
The Governing Law Prohibits Discrimination
Petitioner's claims in this case rely in large part on Article 23-A of the Correction Law.[FN1] Included in that Article is Correction Law §752 which bars discrimination against persons previously [*2]convicted of criminal offenses. Pursuant to that law, employment cannot be denied based on an applicant's criminal history unless one or both of the following exceptions is found to apply:
In the case at bar, as noted above, petitioner's employment application was denied because, in light of his criminal history, his employment posed an "unreasonable risk" to the school community within the meaning of the above-quoted exception.
Section 753, subd. (1), provides a list of eight factors which the potential employer "shall consider" when making a determination pursuant to §752 whether the "unreasonable risk" exception applies. See, Arrocha v Board of Education of the City of New York, 93 NY2d 361, 364 (1999). Those factors include the following:
In the case at bar, the Board of Parole issued petitioner a permanent Certificate of Disabilities on August 29, 2007 pursuant to Correction Law §703. The Certificate refers to petitioner's sentencing on March 31, 1988 for the crime of Burglary in the Second Degree and expressly states [*3]that it "removes all legal bars and disabilities to employment, license and privilege except those pertaining to firearms under Sections 265.01(4) and 400.00 of the Penal Law and except the right to be eligible for public office."
Petitioner Presented Substantial Evidence in Support of his Application
As he properly asserts, petitioner presented to the Board of Education substantial evidence in support of his employment application. Admittedly, between 1985 and 1987, petitioner pled guilty to five misdemeanors involving Trespass, Petit Larceny, and Criminal Mischief. Additionally, on July 3, 1987, he pled guilty to Burglary, a Class C felony. During those years, petitioner was 18-20 years old. He is now about 42 years old.
According to the affidavit of Judith Kay, DOE's Deputy Director for Employee Relations (Exh. 15 to Answer), all of the above facts were considered by Ms. Kay as part of her review and determination of petitioner's application. By letter dated March 3, 2008, Ms. Kay notified petitioner [*4]that the Board had denied his application. (Exh. 16 to Answer). In that letter, Ms. Kay gave great wight to petitioner's criminal history. Indeed, she began by detailing petitioner's five convictions from the late 1980's. She then listed in general terms the other factors she had considered, many of which are listed in Correction Law §753(1), quoted above. Ms. Kay expressly acknowledged that the application could not be denied based on a criminal conviction absent a finding, pursuant to §752, of a direct relationship between the employment sought and the prior conviction, or that granting employment would pose an unreasonable risk to the safety or welfare of individuals. She then stated her conclusion as follows:
Your application for a substitute teacher position is denied based on your criminal record history detailed above including a serious felony conviction. In light of this, granting employment will pose an unreasonable risk to the safety and welfare of the school community.
Significantly, the letter then advised petitioner of his right to submit additional information
in support of his application, stating as follows:
If you have any additional information that you believe has not yet been considered you may submit it in writing to the Director of Employee Relations, Division of Human Resources at 65 Court Street, Room 200, Brooklyn, New York 11201.
In addition, and quite significantly, he attached the Certificate of Relief from Disabilities issued him by the Board of Parole. The Certificate had been issued on August 29, 2007, after petitioner's interview had been held but before his application had been denied. While petitioner asserts in his petition (at ¶19) that he submitted the Certificate "in support of his application", he suggests in his affidavit (at ¶8) that he first submitted it in response to the denial letter, and Ms. Kay unequivocally attests that she did not review it as part of petitioner's application before she rendered her March 3, 2008 denial (see Kay Aff. at ¶16). In any event, the DOE in its March 3, 2008 denial letter explicitly advised petitioner of his right to submit additional relevant information, and respondent does not dispute that the Certificate of Disabilities falls into that category. However, the BOE never responded to petitioner's post-denial submission, and it appears that it never considered the Certificate.
The Decision Denying Petitioner's Application is Arbitrary and Capricious
212-417-3700 Footnotes
Footnote 1:Petitioner also relies on the New York State Human Rights Law, found at Executive Law §296(15), and the New York City Human Rights Law, found in the Administrative Code at §8-107(10), both of which bar public employment discrimination based on conviction alone.
Posted by Betsy Combier at 1:03 AM No comments: Links to this post
Labels: Judge Alice Schlesinger, Talib El v NYC DOE