Court Opinion

ID: 9962531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:09.182103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.561429
License: Public Domain

Johnson v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31348(U)
                     April 17, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 160051/2020
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 160051/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          160051/2020
                OFFICER GREGORY JOHNSON,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE            N/A1
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
                CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
                OF CORRECTION
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001)1- 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,
            17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
            were read on this motion to/for                                            ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)                .

                      Petitioner seeks to vacate his suspensions; respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss the

            petition is granted.

            Background

                      Petitioner alleges that he tested positive for COVID-19 on April 3, 2020 and he

            subsequently took a leave of absence in order to quarantine. He contends that instead of being

            able to quarantine, the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) “engaged in nefarious tactics

            designed to understand [sic] that governmental purposes, because of the City and the

            Department's objective of (a) fiscal crisis and (b) reducing the Department's largely women and

            minority unform workforce through hostile tactics” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1, ¶ 30). He insists that

            he was then suspended three separate times and prevented from returning to work.

            1
             The Court recognizes that this proceeding has been pending for years until being reassigned to the undersigned this
            week. The Court apologizes, on behalf of the Court system, for the lengthy delay in getting a decision.
                160051/2020 JOHNSON, OFFICER GREGORY vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                            Page 1 of 5
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160051/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

                   Petitioner contends that his suspensions for absences related to COVID-19 were in bad

            faith and lacked any rational basis. He contends that his summary suspensions by respondents

            violates various paid leave and civil rights statutes. Petitioner also contends that his suspensions

            are evidence of discriminatory conduct by respondents as part of an effort to reduce the number

            of minority employees working for the Department of Correction (“DOC”).

                   Respondents cross-move to dismiss on the ground that petitioner violated a DOC

            regulation by being absent from his residence while on sick leave. They emphasize that

            petitioner was not terminated; instead, he was merely suspended for abusing his sick leave.

            Respondents observe that on the three occasions at issue, petitioner was not at home during his

            sick leave and so he was suspended without pay each time.

                   In opposition to the cross-motion, petitioner complains about DOC’s COVID-19 leave

            policy and insists it only serves to spread the virus. Petitioner argues that any effort to reduce

            DOC’s uniformed workforce will disproportionately affect members of protected classes as the

            vast majority of uniformed DOC workers are members of such groups. He insists that his

            suspensions constitute an adverse employment action for purposes of a discrimination claim.

                   In reply, respondents contend that petitioner’s papers are filled with unsupported and

            conclusory allegations. They emphasize that the uncontroverted facts are that petitioner was

            suspended on three occasions for violating a DOC directive while on paid sick leave for four

            months following a positive test for COVID-19.

            Discussion

                   “It is a long-standing, well-established standard that the judicial review of an

            administrative determination is limited to whether such determination was arbitrary or capricious

            or without a rational basis in the administrative record and once it has been determined that an

             160051/2020 JOHNSON, OFFICER GREGORY vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                             Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160051/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

            agency's conclusion has a sound basis in reason, the judicial function is at an end. Indeed, the

            determination of an agency, acting pursuant to its authority and within the orbit of its expertise,

            is entitled to deference and even if different conclusions could be reached as a result of

            conflicting evidence, a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency when the

            agency's determination is supported by the record” (Partnership 92 LP v State Div. of Hous. and

            Community Renewal, 46 AD3d 425, 428-29 [1st Dept 2007], affd 11 NY3d 859 [2008] [internal

            quotations and citations omitted]).

                   The Court’s analysis begins with the subject regulation, Directive 2262R (NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 19). This directive contains, in relevant part, procedures when a uniformed employee is out

            on sick leave. Specifically, it provides that “Members of the uniformed force who report sick and

            are otherwise not classified as chronic absent will not be confined to their residence for the first

            eight (8) days they report sick in a calendar year. Members are responsible to have knowledge of

            their sick day count during the calendar year. Ignorance of the members' sick day count will not

            be a defense in disciplinary procedures resulting from an out-of-residence violation” (id. at 5). It

            also states that “Members of the uniformed force who have reported sick for nine (9) or more

            days during a calendar year, or are classified as chronic absent shall not leave their residence or

            place of confinement except for visitation to their personal physician, a hospital, H.M.D. or

            where contractually permitted” (id. at 6).

                   The record contains three instances where DOC’s Health Management Division sent

            someone to petitioner’s residence to conduct an “absence control visit” and petitioner was not at

            home (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 4, 5, and 20). Respondents contend that petitioner was out for four

            months after testing positive for COVID-19. Therefore, the Court finds that respondents met

             160051/2020 JOHNSON, OFFICER GREGORY vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                              Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160051/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

            their burden to dismiss this petition as they cite a rational basis for petitioner’s suspensions—

            repeated violations of the aforementioned DOC directive about sick leave.

                   Curiously, petitioner does not address these three absence control visits at all. He did not,

            for instance, contend that he was actually at home during these visits or that he had an acceptable

            justification for not being at home. In fact, petitioner did not directly respond to respondents’

            contentions surrounding his suspensions in any way. Instead, petitioner’s papers detail how

            DOC is allegedly attempting to reduce its workforce in violation of various civil rights statutes.

            In this Court’s view, those arguments are not pertinent to this proceeding. As respondents point

            out, petitioner was not fired nor have respondents made any effort to terminate his employment;

            he was simply suspended after he was caught violating the rules.

                   That renders petitioner’s claims based on the Civil Service Law and civil rights statutes

            as inapplicable. That petitioner may be part of a protected class is not a basis to find that he is

            entitled to back pay where petitioner wholly failed to address the stated justification for his

            suspensions. Petitioner did not adequately argue how receiving suspensions for not being at

            home constitutes a discrimination claim. Moreover, the Court observes that petitioner styled this

            proceeding as an Article 78 petition, not as a plenary action in which he alleged causes of action

            based on civil rights violations.

            Summary

                   The Court recognizes that that petitioner contends that DOC is engaged in some sort of

            scheme to reduce its workforce by “false and fabricated means.” This speculation is not relevant

            to this proceeding where it is not disputed or contested that petitioner was not at home on three

            occasions when, according to DOC policy, he was supposed to be at his residence. The fact is

            that petitioner’s extended sick leave required him to remain at his residence, with certain

             160051/2020 JOHNSON, OFFICER GREGORY vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                              Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 160051/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 31                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

            exceptions, and the exhibits submitted in this proceeding show he violated DOC’s regulations.

            That constitutes a rational basis for his suspensions.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss is granted; and it is further

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed without costs or

            disbursements.

                   4/17/2024                                                             $SIG$
                      DATE                                                       ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:               X   CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                     □
                                          GRANTED             DENIED     GRANTED IN PART              X     OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                     □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT              REFERENCE

             160051/2020 JOHNSON, OFFICER GREGORY vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                    Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 001

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]