Individual's "lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility" for misconduct considered by the court in affirming hearing officer's disciplinary determination
Individual's "lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility" for misconduct considered by the court in affirming hearing officer's disciplinary determination Cipollaro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2011 NY Slip Op 03131, Appellate Division, First Department Barbara Cipollaro was served with disciplinary charges pursuant to §3020-a of the Education Law by her employer, the New York City Department of Education, alleging that she had knowingly defrauded Department of $98,000 over a two-year period by enrolling two of her children in New York City public schools while she and her family lived in Westchester County. The hearing officer found Cipollaro guilty of the charges and she was terminated from her position. Cipollaro filed a petition pursuant to Article 75 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules seeking a court order vacating hearing officer decision and the penalty imposed. The Appellate Division ruled that there was no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's determination. Significantly the court said that in view of Cipollaro's "lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility for [her] actions, as well as the harm caused by her actions, the penalty of dismissal, even if there was an otherwise adequate performance record, cannot be said to shock the conscience" [of the court]. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_03131.htm . .
Read more detail on Recent Administrative Law Posts –
Legal notice about the Individual's "lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility" for misconduct considered by the court in affirming hearing officer's disciplinary determination
rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Individual's "lack of remorse and refusal to take responsibility" for misconduct considered by the court in affirming hearing officer's disciplinary determination?
- Arbitrator's refusal to hear employee's "whistle blower" defense in the course of disciplinary hearing requires the vacating of the award
- Hearing officer rejects motion to seal disciplinary hearing records but redacts the name of the victim of the employee's misconduct
- Hearing officer finds that employee's failure to comply with an unlawful order is not misconduct for the purposes of disciplinary action
- Administrative decision to be reconsidered after court finds that not all of the arguments of the petitioner were considered by the hearing officer
- Supreme Court correctly applied the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel to the hearing officer's determinations as to the reasons for the employee's termination
- The individual's retiring from his or her position to avoid disciplinary action may have unexpected consequences
- Hearsay evidence may be the basis for an administrative disciplinary determination
- Respect for the hearing officer's evaluation of witness credibility
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
- An administrative determination will be sustained by the court unless it is shown to be arbitrary or capricious and without a rational basis
This entry was posted in Administrative law
and tagged Affirming
. Bookmark the permalink