Labor and Employment Arbitrator: January 2018

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Court of Appeals Issues Major 3020-a Decision

On January 9, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued a 14 page decision addressing the standard of review to be applied in Education Law Section 3020-a cases. Bolt v. Department of Education, ___N.Y. 3d___(Jan. 9, 2018). Interestingly, the Court's major opinion is fairly short (about a half of a page) and there is a concurring opinion which spans about 14 pages. This decision primarily addresses the issue of whether the Appellate Division erred by concluding that in 3 separate appeals, that the Hearing Officer decision to terminate was shockingly excessive. In concluding that the Appellate Division erred in all three appeals, the majority simply stated:

"That reasonable minds might disagree over what the proper penalty should have been does not provide a basis for vacating the arbitral award or refashioning the penalty" (City School Dist. of the City of N.Y. v McGraham, 17 NY3d 917, 920 [2011]). Here, the penalties imposed are not irrational and do not shock the conscience (see Matter of Russo v New York City Dept. of Educ., 25 NY3d 946, 948 [2015], cert denied ___ US ___, 136 S Ct 416 [2015]; Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38 [2001]; Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550, 554 [2000]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]). The Appellate Division exceeded its authority by reweighing the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the hearing officer.

It is difficult for me to understand the court's rationale. How is a court to determine whether or not a particular decision is shocking if it does not weigh the evidence?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mitchell H. Rubinstein's Accomplishments

Education

J.D. Hofstra University School of Law

B.S. Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations

Presently

-Hearing Officer, N.Y.C. Office of Administrative Trials & Hearings (“OATH”)

-Hearing Officer, N.Y.S. Education Dep’t., Office of Adult Career & Continuing Educational Services-Vocational Rehabilitation (“ACCES-VR”)

-Public Arbitrator-FINRA

-Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School

Formerly

-Employment Attorney, Sapir, Schragin, LLP (represented individuals)

-Senior Counsel, New York State United Teachers (“NYSUT”) (represented unions and union members)

-Adjunct Professor of Law, St. John’s Law School

-Labor Attorney, Trans World Airlines (“TWA”) (represented employer)

-Labor Associate, Breed, Abbott & Morgan (represented employers)

-Labor Associate, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson (represented employers)

Published Scholarship

LAW REVIEW ARTICLES

1. Employees, Employers and Quasi-Employers; An Analysis Of Employees & Employers Who Operate In The Borderland Of An Employer-Employee Relationship, 14 U. Pa. J. Bus. L. 605 (2012).

2. Duty Of Fair Representation Jurisprudential Reform: The Need To Adjudicate Disputes In Internal Union Review Tribunals And The Forgotten Remedy Of Re-Arbitration, 42 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 517 (2009) (lead article).

3. Obama’s Big Deal; The 2009 Federal Stimulus; Labor And Employment Law At The Cross Roads, 33 Rutgers L. Rec. 1 (2009) (lead article).

4. A Lawyer’s Worst Nightmare: The Story Of A Lawyer And His Nurse Clients Who Were Both Criminally Charged Because The Nurses Resigned En Mass, 103 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 317 (2009).

5. Privacy Legal Issues In The Public Sector, 58th Ann. N.Y.U. Conf. on Lab., ch. 18, pp. 629-669 (Wolters Kluwer, Jonathan Remy Nash & Samuel Estreicher eds. 2010)(by invitation).

6. Sprint/United Co. v. Mendelsohn: The Supreme Court Appears To Have Punted On The Admissibility of “Me Too’ Evidence Of Discrimination. But Did It? 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 264 (2008)

6A. Reply To Professors David L. Gregory and Paul M. Secunda With Respect To The Significance Of Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 387 (2008).

7. Parents As Quasi-Therapists Under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 76 U. Cin. L. Rev. 899 (2008).

8. Is a Labor Relations Evidentiary Privilege Developing?,29 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 221 (2008).

9. Assignment of Labor Arbitration, 81 St. John’s L. Rev. 41 (2007).

10. Our Nation’s Forgotten Workers: The Unprotected Volunteers, 9 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 147 (2006).

11. Union Immunity From Suit In New York, 2 N.Y.U. J. L. & Bus 641 (Summer 2006) (lead article).

12. Altering Judicial Review Of Labor Arbitration Awards, 2006 Mich. St. L. Rev. 235 (Summer) (lead article).

13. Advisory Arbitration Under New York Law: Does It Have A Place In Employment Law? 79 St. John’s L. Rev. 419 (Spring 2005).

14. A New York Court Recognizes A Labor Union Evidentiary Privilege, 9 The Labor Lawyer 595 (Fall 1993).

15. The Use of Predischarge Misconduct Discovered After An Employee’s Termination As A Defense In Employment Litigation, 24 Suffolk Univ. L. Rev. 1 (1990) (lead article).

16. The Affirmative Action Controversy, 3 Hofstra Lab. L. J. 111 (1985).

SHORTER PUBLICATIONS

1. A Peek at New York Defamation Law, 82 N.Y.S. Bar. J. 58 (Nov./Dec. 2010).

2. Attorney Labor Unions, 79 N.Y.S. Bar Journal 23 (Jan. 2007).

3. Public Sector Labor and Employment Law (2d Ed. 1998) (By Lefkowitz, Osterman & Townley).

4. Contributing Editor, Discipline And Discharge In Arbitration (BNA 1998)

5. Reciprocal Discovery In Teacher Discipline Proceeding Under Section 3020-a Of The Education Law, Vol. 23, No. 2, p. 23, Labor & Employment Newsletter (NYS Bar Ass’n. June 1998).

6. Labor Arbitration Under New York Law, 64 N.Y.S. Bar Journal 35 (Sept/Oct. 1992).

7. Refusal to Hire Overqualified Applicants May Age Discrimination, NYLJ, May 17, 1991 at 1

8. Don’t Burden The Employers, National Law Journal, Oct. 30, 1989, at 13, col. 1.

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

Court of Appeals Issues Major 3020-a Decision

Does Janus Invalidate Mandatory Bar Association Membership Fees