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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Police officer terminated after conducting a secret investigation in violation of a direct order

Police officer terminated after conducting a secret investigation in violation of a direct order
Matter of Longton v Village of Corinth, 57 AD3d 1273

The Village of Corinth Board of Trustees terminated Jason W. Longton, Jr., from his employment as a police officer after he was charged and found guilty of violating various department rules.

Although Longton was dismissed following a hearing held pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law, that determination was annulled and the matter remanded for a new hearing because the Village failed to make a proper stenographic transcript of the original hearing [see Matter of Longton v Village of Corinth, 49 AD3d 995].

A second hearing was held. Again the Hearing Officer found Longton guilty of the charges filed against him and recommending termination. The Village of Corinth Board of Trustees adopted the Hearing Officer?s recommendation and Longton appealed.

According to the Appellate Division, the most serious charge filed against Longton concerned his alleged misconduct and insubordination by continuing to secretly investigate an individual after being given a direct order by the Chief of Police of the Village of Corinth not to do so.

The court noted that standard of review of a determination made following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 is whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence. In situations, such as the Appellate Division said were present in this case, where conflicting versions concerning the event are presented, "credibility questions are within the Hearing Officer's sole province" and a courts may not substitute its own judgment for that of the hearing officer, even when evidence exists that could support a different result.

The Appellate Division found that there was sufficient proof in the record to establish substantial evidence of insubordination.

Longton?s claim that he reasonably believed the Chief of Police's order was unlawful rests upon credibility determinations that the Hearing Officer resolved against him. Further, said the court, Longton?s ?assertion that the subsequent investigation of [the individual] was lackluster, even if true, does not provide an after-the-fact justification for his insubordination.?

As to Longton?s complaint that the penalty imposed, termination, was excessive, the Appellate Division said that a disciplinary penalty would not be disturbed unless it is "so disproportionate [to the offense] as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness." Here, said the court, Longton, an employee of short duration, ?disobeyed a direct order almost immediately after it was given in a matter in which he had a considerable emotional involvement. In doing so, he displayed conduct clearly at odds with the strict discipline necessary to effectively operate a police department.?

Noting that a lesser penalty would have been appropriate, the Appellate Division said it was ?unpersuaded that the penalty imposed was shocking under the circumstances.?

============================================
If you are interested in learning more about disciplinary actions please click here: http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/2009/03/discipline-book.html
============================================

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on March 19, 2010 (boomark / email).