Statute of limitations no bar to bring disciplinary charges when the allegations claim “continuous incompetency”

To contact us Click HERE

Statute of limitations no bar to bring disciplinary chargeswhen the allegations claim “continuous incompetency”Canna v Town of Amherst, 55 AD3d 1269

Town of Amherst Superintendent of the Wastewater Treatment Facility Anthony R.was terminated from his employment following a hearing conducted pursuant toCivil Service Law §75 (1) based on charges alleging incompetence in the supervision of the operation of the facility.
Canna appealed, contending, among other things, that theSection 75 hearing officer “was biased against him;” that the Town Board’sresolution to terminate his employment was not supported by the required numberof valid votes; that the charges were barred by the 18-month statute oflimitations set out in Section 75(4) of the Civil Service Law; and that thepenalty imposed, dismissal, was “shocking to one’s sense of fairness.”
The Appellate Division rejected Canna’s claim the hearingofficer was biased, holding that Canna failed to present "a factualdemonstration to support the allegation of bias and proof that the outcome [ofthe hearing officers findings and recommendation] flowed from it."
As to the validity of the Board’s vote, the court rejectedCanna’s claim that the Board’s vote was tainted by the statements by one TownBoard member to the effect that it would be difficult for Canna to resume hisposition as superintendent of the Facility after all that had transpired.Further, said the Appellate Division, “The record establishes that he furtherstated that, although [that member of the Board] did not believe that [Canna]was ‘single handedly’ responsible for all of the problems at the Facility, hebelieved that the evidence establish that [Canna] was incompetent, andincompetence is a valid basis for termination.”
Addressing the other aspects of Canna’s appeal, theAppellate Division said that the disciplinary proceeding against Canna was nottime-barred based on the 18-month limitations period set forth in Civil ServiceLaw §75(4) because his “alleged incompetency was continuous” and that thepenalty imposed upon him, dismissal, was not so disproportionate to the offenseas to be shocking to one's sense of fairness, citing Pell v Board of Education,34 NY2d 222.
The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07300.htm

===================The Discipline Book,- a concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public employees in NewYork State. This more than 1500 page e-book is now available from the PublicEmployment Law Press. Click on http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/for additional information concerning this electronic reference manual.=======================