Using hearsay evidence in a disciplinary hearing

Using hearsay evidence in a disciplinary hearing
Saunders v City of New York, App. Div., First Dept., 273 A.D.2d 103, motion for leave to appeal denied, 95 N.Y.2d 766

A New York City police officer was terminated from his position after being found guilty of having "assaulted and caused physical injuries” to two individuals.

The officer appealed, contending that the Commissioner's determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it was based on hearsay. The Appellate Division disagreed, holding that "[t]he hearsay statements of the complainants were sufficiently probative to constitute substantial evidence."

According to the decision "[h]earsay may constitute substantial evidence where, as here, it is sufficiently reliable and probative on the issues to be determined."

This, in turn, depends on the credibility of the witnesses. The issue of the credibility of the witnesses at the officer's departmental disciplinary hearing, said the court, "was a matter to be assessed by the Deputy Commissioner who presided at the trial.”

Accordingly, said the court, determinations concerning the credibility of witnesses "is largely beyond our power of review."

Barring a former employee from property

Barring a former employee from property
Toussaint v Local 100, TWU, CA2, U.S. App. LEXIS 16257

May an employer prohibit an individual it has dismissed from entering its property? The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the employer may prohibit such an individual from entering its non-public areas.

A Transportation Workers Union representative had been dismissed from his position with the New York City Transit Authority [NYCTA]. NYCTA then banned the representative from the non-public areas of its property. The representative sued, contending that this action by NYCTA violated his First Amendment rights.

The Circuit Court affirmed a federal district court's dismissal of the Union representative’s petition. The lower court had determined that he "failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits" because:

1. He did not demonstrate that he was excluded from non-public areas because the Transit Authority's motivation was to impair the exercise of his First Amendment freedoms or;

2. The Transit Authority's rule barring discharged employees from non-public areas lacked a reasonable basis.

The representative also attempted to obtain a stay of arbitration, claiming that NYCTA and Local 100 went forward with his arbitration "without allowing him to participate in selecting a neutral arbitrator to chair the arbitration panel." The Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this representation as moot "because the arbitration [had] proceeded to conclusion."