Saturday, June 20, 2015

New York State Education Law 3020-a Procedures

New York State Education Law Section 3020-a Disciplinary procedures and penalties.

1.      Filing of charges. All charges against a person enjoying the benefits of tenure as provided in subdivision three of section one thousand one hundred two, and sections two thousand five hundred nine, two thousand five hundred seventy-three, twenty-five hundred ninety-j, three thousand twelve and three thousand fourteen of this chapter shall be in writing and filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board during the period between the actual opening and closing of the school year for which the employed is normally required to serve. Except as provided in subdivision eight of section two thousand five hundred seventy-three and subdivision seven of section twenty-five hundred ninety-j of this chapter, no charges under this section shall be brought more than three years after the occurrence of the alleged incompetency or misconduct, except when the charge is of misconduct constituting a crime when committed.

2.      (a) Disposition of charges. Upon receipt of the charges, the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board shall immediately notify said board thereof. Within five days after receipt of charges, the employing board, in executive session, shall determine, by a vote of a majority of all the members of such board, whether probable cause exists to bring a disciplinary proceeding against an employee pursuant to this section. If such determination is affirmative, a written statement specifying the charges in detail, the maximum penalty which will be imposed by the board if the employee does not request a hearing or that will be sought by the board if the employee is found guilty of the charges after a hearing and outlining the employee`s rights under this section, shall be immediately forwarded to the accused employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by personal delivery to the employee.

(b)   The employee may be suspended pending a hearing on the charges and the final determination thereof. The suspension shall be with pay, except the employee may be suspended without pay if the employee has entered a guilty plea to or has been convicted of a felony crime concerning the criminal sale or possession of a controlled substance, a precursor of a controlled substance, or drug paraphernalia as defined in article two hundred twenty or two hundred twenty-one of the penal law; or a felony crime involving the physical or sexual abuse of a minor or student.

(c)   Within ten days of receipt of the statement of charges, the employee shall notify the clerk or secretary of the employing board in writing whether he or she desires a hearing on the charges and when the charges concern pedagogical incompetence or issues involving pedagogical judgment, his or her choice of either a single hearing officer or a three member panel. All other charges shall be heard by a single hearing officer. (d) The unexcused failure of the employee to notify the clerk or secretary of his or her desire for a hearing within ten days of the receipt of charges shall be deemed a waiver of the right to a hearing. Where an employee requests a hearing in the manner provided for by this section, the clerk or secretary of the board shall, within three working days of receipt of the employee`s notice or request for a hearing, notify the commissioner of education of the need for a hearing. If the employee waives his or her right to a hearing the employing board shall proceed, within fifteen days, by a vote of a majority of        all members of such board, to determine the case and fix the penalty, if any, to be imposed in accordance with subdivision four of this section.

Education Law §3020-a. Disciplinary procedures and penalties.


3.      Hearings. a. Notice of hearing. Upon receipt of a request for a hearing in accordance with subdivision two of this section, the commissioner of education shall forthwith notify the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter "association") of the need for a hearing and shall request the association to


provide to the commissioner forthwith a list of names of persons chosen by the association from the association`s panel of labor arbitrators to potentially serve as hearing officers together with relevant biographical information on each arbitrator. Upon receipt of said list and biographical information, the commissioner of education shall forthwith send a copy of both simultaneously to the employing board and the employee.

b.  (i) Hearing officers. All hearings pursuant to this section shall be conducted before and by a single hearing officer selected as provided for in this section. A hearing officer shall not be eligible to serve as such if he or she is a resident of the school district, other than the city of New York, under the jurisdiction of the employing board, an employee, agent or representative of the employing board or of any labor organization representing employees of such employing board, has served as such agent or representative within two years of the date of the scheduled hearing, or if he or she is then serving as a mediator or fact finder in the same school district. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the hearing officer shall be compensated by the department with the customary fee paid for service as an arbitrator under the auspices of the association for each day of actual service plus necessary travel and other reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of his or her duties. All other expenses of the disciplinary proceedings shall be paid in accordance with rules promulgated by the commissioner of education.

(ii)   Not later than ten days after the date the commissioner mails to the employing board and the employee the list of potential hearing officers and biographies provided to the commissioner by the association, the employing board and the employee, individually or through their agents or representatives, shall by mutual agreement select a hearing officer from said list to conduct the hearing and shall notify the commissioner of their selection.

(iii)   If the employing board and the employee fail to agree on an arbitrator to serve as a hearing officer from said list and so notify the commissioner within ten days after receiving the list from the commissioner, the commissioner shall request the association to appoint a hearing officer from said list.

(iv)   In those cases in which the employee elects to have the charges heard by a hearing panel, the hearing panel shall consist of the hearing officer, selected in accordance with this subdivision, and two additional persons, one selected by the employee and one selected by the employing board, from a list maintained for such purpose by the commissioner of education. The list shall be composed of professional personnel with administrative or supervisory responsibility, professional personnel without administrative or supervisory responsibility, chief school administrators, members of employing boards and others selected from lists of nominees submitted to the commissioner by statewide organizations representing teachers, school administrators and supervisors and the employing boards. Hearing panel members other than the hearing officer shall be compensated by the department of education at the rate of one hundred dollars for each day of actual service plus necessary travel and subsistence expenses.

Education Law §3020-a. Disciplinary procedures and penalties.


The hearing officer shall be compensated as set forth in this subdivision. The hearing officer shall be the chairman of the hearing panel.

c.  Hearing procedures. (i) The commissioner of education shall have the power to establish necessary rules and procedures for the conduct of hearings under this section. Such rules shall not require compliance with technical rules of evidence. Hearings shall be conducted by the hearing officer selected pursuant to paragraph b of this subdivision with full and fair disclosure of the nature of the case and evidence against the employee by the employing board and shall be public or private at the discretion of the employee. The employee shall have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself or herself and an opportunity to testify in his or her own behalf. The employee shall not be required to testify. Each party shall have the right to be represented by counsel, to subpoena witnesses, and to cross-examine witnesses. All testimony taken shall be under oath which the hearing officer is hereby authorized to administer. A


competent stenographer, designated by the commissioner of education and compensated by the state education department, shall keep and transcribe a record of the proceedings at each such hearing. A copy of the transcript of the hearings shall, upon request, be furnished without charge to the employee and the board of education involved.

(ii)   The hearing officer selected to conduct a hearing under this section shall, within ten to fifteen days of agreeing to serve as such, hold a pre-hearing conference which shall be held in the school district or county seat of the county, or any county, wherein the employing school board is located. The pre-hearing conference shall be limited in length to one day except that the hearing officer, in his or her discretion, may allow one additional day for good cause shown.

(iii)   At the pre-hearing conference the hearing officer shall have the power to:

(A)  issue subpoenas;
(B)   hear and decide all motions, including but not limited to motions to dismiss the charges;
(C)   hear and decide all applications for bills of particular or requests for production of materials or information, including, but not limited to, any witness statement (or statements), investigatory statement (or statements) or note (notes), exculpatory evidence or any other evidence, including district or student records, relevant and material to the employee`s defense.

(iv)   Any pre-hearing motion or application relative to the sufficiency of the charges, application or amendment thereof, or any preliminary matters shall be made upon written notice to the hearing officer and the adverse party no less than five days prior to the date of the pre-hearing conference. Any pre- hearing motions or applications not made as provided for herein shall be deemed waived except for good cause as determined by the hearing officer.

(v)   In the event that at the pre-hearing conference the employing board presents evidence that the professional license of the employee has been revoked and all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or foreclosed, the hearing officer shall schedule the date, time and place for an expedited hearing, which hearing shall commence not more than seven days after the pre-hearing conference and which shall be limited to one day. The expedited hearing shall be held in the local school district or county seat of the county or any county, wherein the said employing board is located. The expedited hearing shall not be postponed except upon the request of a party and then only for good cause as determined by the hearing officer. At such hearing, each party shall have equal time in which to present its case.

(vi)   During the pre-hearing conference, the hearing officer shall determine the reasonable amount of time necessary for a final hearing on the charge or charges and shall schedule the location, time(s) and date(s) for the final hearing. The final hearing shall be held in the local school district or county seat of the county, or any county, wherein the said employing school board is located. In the event that the hearing officer determines that the nature of the case requires the final hearing to last more than one day, the days that are scheduled for the final hearing shall be consecutive. The day or days scheduled for the final hearing shall not be postponed except upon the request of a party and then only for good cause shown as determined by the hearing officer. In all cases, the final hearing shall be completed no later than sixty days after the pre-hearing conference unless the hearing officer determines that extraordinary circumstances warrant a limited extension.

4.      Post hearing procedures. (a) The hearing officer shall render a written decision within thirty days of the last day of the final hearing, or in the case of an expedited hearing within ten days of such expedited hearing, and shall forthwith forward a copy thereof to the commissioner of education who shall immediately forward copies of the decision to the employee and to the clerk or secretary of the employing board. The written decision shall include the hearing officer`s findings of fact on each charge, his or her conclusions with regard to each charge based on said findings and shall state what penalty or other action, if any, shall be taken by the employing board. At the request of the employee, in determining what, if any, penalty or other action shall be imposed, the hearing officer shall consider the extent to which the employing board made efforts towards correcting the behavior of the employee which resulted in charges being brought under this section through means including but not limited to: remediation, peer intervention or an employee assistance plan. In those cases where a penalty is imposed, such penalty may be a written reprimand, a fine, suspension for a fixed time without pay, or dismissal. In addition to or in lieu of the aforementioned penalties, the hearing officer, where he or she deems appropriate, may impose upon the employee remedial action including but not limited to leaves of absence with or without pay, continuing education and/or study, a requirement that the employee seek counseling or medical treatment or that the employee engage in any other remedial or combination of remedial actions.

(b)   Within fifteen days of receipt of the hearing officer`s decision the employing board shall implement the decision. If the employee is acquitted he or she shall be restored to his or her position with full pay for any period of suspension without pay and the charges expunged from the employment record. If an employee who was convicted of a felony crime specified in paragraph (b) of subdivision two of this section, has said conviction reversed, the employee, upon application, shall be entitled to have his pay and other emoluments restored, for the period from the date of his suspension to the date of the decision.

        
(c)   The hearing officer shall indicate in the decision whether any of the charges brought by the employing board were frivolous as defined in section eight thousand three hundred three-a of the civil practice law and rules. If the hearing officers finds that all of the charges brought against the employee were frivolous, the hearing officer shall order the employing board to reimburse the state education department the reasonable costs said department incurred as a result of the proceeding and to reimburse the employee the reasonable costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys` fees, the employee incurred in defending the charges. If the hearing officer finds that some but not all of the charges brought against the employee were frivolous, the hearing officer shall order the employing board to reimburse the state education department a portion, in the discretion of the hearing officer, of the reasonable costs said department incurred as a result of the proceeding and to reimburse the employee a portion, in the discretion of the hearing officer, of the reasonable costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys` fees, the employee incurred in defending the charges.

5.      Appeal. Not later than ten days after receipt of the hearing officer`s decision, the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York state supreme court to vacate or modify the decision of the hearing officer pursuant to section seven thousand five hundred eleven of the civil practice law and rules. The court`s review shall be limited to the grounds set forth in such section. The hearing panel`s determination shall be deemed to be final for the purpose of such proceeding. In no case shall the filing or the pendency of an appeal delay the implementation of the decision of the hearing officer.

 The University of the State of New York The State Education Department
School District Employer-Employee Relations Unit Education Building Annex, Room 980
Albany, New York 12234


The Rights of Tenured School District Employees
to a Hearing on Charges Provided by Section 3020-a Education Law

Section 3020-a of the Education Law, as amended by Chapter 691 of the Laws of 1994, provides that a tenured school district employee who has been charged with incompetence or misconduct may elect to have a hearing officer review the charges and make findings of fact and recommendations as to penalty or punishment, if warranted, which the board of education must implement within 15 days of their receipt of the recommendations. In cases which involve charges of pedagogical misconduct or issues of pedagogical judgement, the employee may elect to have a three member panel perform this function.

The board of education must first meet to consider the charges. If by a vote of the majority of the board they find probable cause for the charges, the tenured employee must be served with a written copy of the charges by certified mail. The board must also furnish the charged employee with a copy of this document outlining the employee’s rights. The board may suspend the employee pending disposition of the charges with pay. The employee may be suspended without pay if the employee has entered a guilty plea to or has been convicted of a felony crime concerning the criminal sale or possession of a controlled substance, a precursor of a controlled substance, or drug paraphernalia as defined in article two hundred twenty or two hundred twenty-one of the penal law; or a felony crime involving the physical or sexual abuse of a minor or student. In addition, if the charges are based on failure to maintain certification, the employee must be suspended without pay.

Within ten days of receipt of charges, the employee must notify the school district clerk or the secretary of the board of education whether he desires a hearing on the charges. If the employee desires to waive his right to a hearing, he should file a notice of intent to waive his right to a hearing with the school district clerk or with the secretary of the board of education and the Commissioner of Education. If the employee fails to waive his right and takes no action within ten days of the receipt of charges, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing. If the employee waives or is deemed to have waived his right to a hearing, the board of education shall then meet and determine the case within 15 days of the receipt of the waiver or within 15 days of the date when the waiver shall have been deemed to have occurred.

The employee who chooses a hearing should carefully follow each step in the timetable supplied by the Education Department to assure compliance with the law.

If the employee chooses to exercise his right to a hearing, he must so notify the board within ten days of receipt of the charges. This notification should advise the board of the


employee’s choice of a single hearing officer or a three member panel, if applicable.

The employee will then receive from the school district clerk or the secretary of the board of education by certified mail, a copy of the Notice of Need for a Hearing. In this notice of need, the employee will find the information regarding the site to be provided for the hearing, the name and address of the attorney who will represent the complainant at the hearing, whether the employee is suspended, with or without pay, an estimate of the number of days required to hear the case, and the name of the panel member, if required.

The Commissioner of Education will then notify the American Arbitration Association (AAA) that a hearing will be held, obtain a list of potential hearing officers, and send a copy of such list to the employing board and the employee, or their attorneys. Not later than ten days from the mailing of the list, the board and employee, or their representatives, shall select, by agreement, a hearing officer and notify the Commissioner thereof.

The Commissioner shall notify the hearing officer and confirm by appointment letter his or her acceptance of such selection. Within ten to fifteen days of receipt of this notice from the Commissioner, the hearing officer shall contact the parties and hold a prehearing conference. If the parties fail to notify the Commissioner of an agreed upon hearing officer within ten days, the Commissioner shall request AAA to select a hearing officer.

Where a three member panel is to hear the proceeding, the employee shall, within five days after receiving the copy of the notification to the commissioner of the need for a panel hearing, in writing by certified mail, notify the board and the Commissioner of the name of his or her selection for the hearing panel. If the employee fails to notify the Commissioner and the board as required, the Commissioner shall select the employee panel member.

The hearing will be conducted by the hearing officer who will have been selected from the list supplied by the American Arbitration Association. Each party may subpoena and cross-examine witnesses. (Copies of any subpoenas served on prospective witnesses must be presented to the chairman of the panel at the start of the hearing.) The employee must have a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and an opportunity to testify on his own behalf. All testimony must be under oath administered by the chairman of the panel.

If the employee or his attorney desires a public hearing, a written demand for such a public hearing must be served upon the hearing officer at least twenty-four hours before the date set for the hearing. The prehearing conference shall be private.

Photographs and recordings may not be made at private hearings. They may be permitted by the hearing officer at public hearings. Representatives of the news media may be present at all public hearings.

At the prehearing conference, the hearing officer decides all motions and objections. He may dismiss any or all of the charges, without prejudice to the filing of more specific charges upon motion of the charged party or his representative, if he determines that the charges as filed are lacking in specificity; he may not, however, dismiss the charges for any other reason without the consent of the complainant or his attorney. The hearing officer shall have the power to consolidate with the pending charges amended or additional charges against an employee as to which the board has found that probable cause exists no later than five days before the hearing, provided that the employee may file a waiver of hearing concerning such amended or additional charges with the hearing officer and provided further that charges involving pedagogical incompetence or issues involving pedagogical judgement may not be consolidated with pending charges unless the employee has previously exercised his or her right to choose between a single hearing officer and a hearing panel in the request for a hearing.

If a hearing panel member is absent and the hearing officer determines the absence will unduly delay the hearing, he must order a replacement. The party who selected the absent panel member then has two days to select a replacement, or the Commissioner will name a replacement. If the hearing officer needs to be replaced and the parties cannot agree on a substitute, the Commissioner shall request the association to select a replacement. In no event shall a panel hearing proceed except in the presence of two panel members and the hearing officer.

At a hearing, no questions may be addressed to the employee unless he has been sworn as a witness with his own consent. The employee is entitled to receive a copy of the hearing transcript upon request without charge. Memoranda of law may be submitted by the employee or the board of education at the conclusion of testimony.

The hearing officer or panel shall make findings of fact on each charge and recommendations as to disciplinary action, or punishment, if any, against the employee on such charge, which findings of fact and recommendations are then to be submitted by the hearing officer to the Commissioner, no later than thirty
days after the last hearing. The findings of the panel on each charge and the recommendations of the panel as to disciplinary action, if any, shall be based solely upon the record of the proceedings before the hearing panel and shall set forth the reasons and the factual basis for the determination. Upon forwarding the findings and recommendations to the Commissioner, the hearing officer declares the hearing concluded.

The Commissioner will immediately forward said findings of fact and the recommendations as to penalty, if any is warranted, to the employee and to the district clerk or the secretary of the employing board. Within 15 days of the receipt of the hearing officer’s decision, the employing board shall implement the recommendations of the panel. If the employee is acquitted of the charges, he or she must be restored to his or her position with full pay for any period of suspension without pay and the charges expunged from the employment record.

If an employee who was convicted of a felony crime as specified in paragraph (b) of subdivision two of this section has said conviction reversed, the employee, upon application, shall be entitled to have his pay and other emoluments restored, for the period of time extending from the date of suspension to the date of the decision.

Either the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York State Supreme Court to vacate or modify the hearing officer’s decision under Section 7511 of the Civil Practice Laws and Rules. The filing of the pendency of an appeal shall not delay the implementation of the hearing officer’s decision.
  
The University of the State of New York The State Education Department
School District Employer-Employee Relations Unit Education Building Annex, Room 980
Albany, New York 12234


The Role of the School District Clerk or the Secretary of the Board of Education Under Section 3020-a Education Law


Section 3020-a of the Education Law requires the school district clerk or the secretary of the board of education  to  perform certain  procedural  steps to  implement  its provisions.  This section of the law authorizes hearings on charges brought against tenured school employees, to be held before a single hearing officer or a three member panel.

A copy of the Law and Regulations of the Commissioner of Education dealing with the hearings have been provided to each school district. Also mailed to each school district:
the timetable, a list of panel members nominated by organizations representing school boards, school administrators, and school teachers and sample forms. The rest of this memorandum is intended to provide the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education with an explanation of the steps to be followed in order to comply with the provisions of Section 3020-a. Since the law mandates certain time limits for each step for the board, the district clerk or the secretary of the board as well as the employee, careful study is suggested.

First, the charges against the employee must be filed with the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education. This must be done not more than five days prior to the next regularly scheduled


meeting of the board. The board may, however, in its discretion, waive the five day time requirement. As soon as the charges have been received by the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education, he or she must immediately notify the board of education that they have been filed.

Within five days of receipt of charges, the board of education must meet in executive session to determine whether or not there is probable cause for the charges filed; a majority vote is required if probable cause is to be found by the board.

If the finding of the school board is that there is probable cause for the charges, the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education must forward to the employee immediately by certified mail:

1.      A copy of the Notice of Determination of Probable Cause on Charges Brought Against Tenured School District Employees (Form 3020-a-i).

2.      A copy of the Rights of Tenured School District Employees to a Hearing on Charges Provided by Section 3020-a of the Education Law.

3.      A copy of the Request by Tenured School District Employee for a Hearing on Charges Brought Against the Employee (Form 3020-a-2).

4.      A copy of the Notice of Waiver of Hearing by Tenured School District Employee (Form 3020-a- 3).

Copies of all enclosed forms may be reproduced locally.

The district clerk or the secretary of the board of education must also forward a copy of each such charge in writing, together with the vote of each member of the board to the Commissioner of Education at once by first class mail.

Within ten days of the receipt of the statement of charges, the employee must notify the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education whether or not he or she desires a hearing on the charges. If the employee desires to waive his right to a hearing, he should file a notice of motion to waive his right to a hearing with the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education, and submit a copy to the Commissioner of Education. If the employee takes no action within ten days of receipt of charges, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing.

If the employee is deemed to have waived his right to a hearing, the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education shall immediately forward to the Commissioner a Notice of Failure to Request or Waive Hearing (Form 3020-a-4). A copy of this form must also be immediately forwarded by certified mail to the employee.

 If the employee waives or is deemed to have waived his right to a hearing, the board shall determine the case within fifteen days of the receipt of the waiver or within fifteen days of the date when the waiver shall have been deemed to have occurred. The district clerk or the secretary of the board of education shall then forward a report of the board’s determination to both the employee and the Commissioner of Education.

If the employee decides that he would prefer to have a hearing, the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education is required to:


1. Forward to the Commissioner at once by first class mail:


a.       An affidavit of service showing service of a copy of the charges upon the employee.

b.      A copy of the employee’s request for a hearing (3020-a-2)

c.       A notice of the need for a hearing (Form 3020-a-5)

d.      The place to be provided by the board for holding the hearing, within the school district or the county seat; (Form 3020-a-5)

e.       Name, address and telephone number of the attorney, if any, who will represent the complainant at the hearing; (Form 3020-a-5)

f.       The name of the panel member selected by the school board, if applicable; (Form 3020-a6)

g.      Whether an expedited hearing is sought, and whether the employee is suspended, either with or without pay.

h.      An estimate of the number of days needed for the hearing.

2. Forward to the Employee by certified mail, return receipt requested:

a.       The place to be provided by the board for holding the hearing.

b.      The name and address of the attorney, if any, who will represent the complainant at the hearing.

c.       Whether an expedited hearing is sought, and whether the employee is suspended, either with or without pay.

d.      An estimate of the number of days needed for the hearing

e.       The name of the panel member selected by the board of education, if applicable.

 Separate notification of the need for a hearing must be given to the Commissioner of Education with respect to each employee against whom charges have been filed. If the board has indicated that charges involve pedagogical incompetence or issues involving pedagogical judgement and the board fails to name a panel member in this notice, the Commissioner will appoint a panel member for the board. It is essential that a representative of the district contact the board’s selected panel member to ascertain that the panel member will be available for the duration of the hearing. 

 Within five days after receiving the copy of the notice of the need for a hearing which includes charges of pedagogical incompetence or issues involving pedagogical judgement, the employee must notify the Commissioner of Education and the school board in writing by certified mail, of the name of his selection for the hearing panel. If the employee fails to notify the Commissioner, and he has not waived his right to a panel hearing, the Commissioner will appoint a panel member for the employee.

Upon notification of the need for a hearing, the Commissioner will request that the American Arbitration Association provide a list, including a brief biography, of potential hearing officers. The Commissioner will forward a copy of such list to the attorney representing the board and the employee. Not later than ten days from the mailing of the list, the parties or their representatives shall by agreement select a hearing officer and notify the Commissioner of such selection. If the parties fail to notify the Commissioner
within, ten days the Commissioner shall request that the association select a hearing officer.

The district clerk or the secretary of the board of education must maintain on file an up-to-date list of the panel members supplied by the Commissioner, from which list the school board and the employee must make their respective selections. These lists of panel members shall be available for public inspection. Panel members may not be residents in nor employed in the territory under the jurisdiction of the employing school board.

The Commissioner will notify the board, employee and the panel members if applicable of the date, time and place of hearing.

At the conclusion of a hearing, the Commissioner will forward a report of the hearing, including the findings of fact and recommendations of the hearing officer or panel, and the recommendations as to penalty or punishment, if one is warranted, to the employee and to the district clerk or secretary of the board of education. The district clerk or the secretary of the board of education should transmit this hearing report immediately upon his or her receipt of said report, to the board of education.

Within 15 days of receipt of the hearing report from the Commissioner, the board shall implement the recommendations of the panel.

This concludes the school district clerk’s and the secretary of the board of education’s role in the panel hearing procedure. If the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education has need of further information, he or she should immediately contact: The School District Employer-Employee Relations Unit, The State Education Department, Room 980, Education Building Annex, Albany, New York 12234.

The University of the State of New York The State Education Department
School District Employer-Employee Relations Unit Education Building Annex, Room 980
Albany, New York 12234

Timetable--Section 3020-a, Education Law
Hearings on Charges Against Tenured School District Employees


Section 3020-a of the Education Law provides that tenured employees of school districts who are charged with incompetence or misconduct may elect to have a hearing on the charges. If such an election is made by the tenured employee, the law mandates the following schedule for implementation of its provisions by school boards and school employees.


STEP      PROCEDURE

1.                            Filing of written charges against the employee not more than five days before the next scheduled board meeting with the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education, who then must notify the board of the charges immediately (Ed. Law 3020-a, subdivisions 1 and 2).


2.                            Board of education meets in executive session to determine whether there is probable cause for the charges filed within five days of receipt of the charges (Ed. Law 3020-a, subdivision 2; Commissioner’s Regulations 82-1.3 (a)).

3.                            If a majority of the board finds probable cause:

a)                        A written statement of the charges in detail and an outline of the employee’s rights must be forwarded to him or to her by the district clerk or secretary of the board of education immediately by certified mail (Ed. Law 3020-a, subdivision 2).

b)                        In addition, the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education must forward a copy of each such charge, in writing, together with the vote of each member of the board to the Commissioner of Education by first class mail, at once (Commissioner’s Regulation 82-1.3 (b)).

4.                            The employee must notify the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education within ten days of receipt of the charges whether he or she desires a hearing on the charges. The employee may:

a)                        Elect to have a hearing and so notify the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education; or
b)                        Waive his right to a hearing and so notify the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education; or

Take no action within ten days, in which case a waiver of the hearing right will be deemed to have occurred. (Ed. Law 3020-a, subdivision 2).
c)

5A.           If the tenured employee elects to have a hearing, the district clerk or secretary of the board of education must notify the Commissioner of the need for a hearing. This must be done within three days of receipt of the request for a hearing. A copy of this Notice of the Need for a Hearing must also be forwarded to the employee by certified mail.

The notice to the Commissioner shall include a copy of the charges, an affidavit of service of a copy of the charges on the employee, a copy of the employee’s request for a hearing, an estimate of the number of days that will be required to hear the case, notification as to suspension and whether the suspension is with or without pay, the place to be provided by the board for the hearing, the name and address of the attorney, if any, who will represent the complainant at the hearing, and a check in the amount of
$225.00 made payable to the American Arbitration Association. If the charges concern pedagogical incompetence or issues involving pedagogical judgment, the employee may choose to have the charges heard by a three member panel. In such circumstance, the notice to the Commissioner must also include the name of the panel member selected by the board from the list furnished to the district clerk or the secretary of the board of education by the Commissioner. It is essential that the person selected as panel member by the board be contacted to ascertain that the person selected will be able to serve for the duration of the hearing.

If the board fails to name a panel member in the Notice of the Need for a Hearing, the Commissioner will appoint a panel member for the board (Ed. Law 3020-a, subdivision 2; Commissioner’s Regulations 82-1.8 (b).


5B.           If the employee waives the right to a hearing or is deemed to have waived his or her right to a hearing pursuant to statute, the board, by a majority vote, determines the case and fixes the penalty or punishment, if any, to be imposed, within 15 days of receipt of the waiver of the hearing from the employee or within 15 days from the date when the waiver was deemed to have occurred (Ed. Law 3020-a, subdivision 2). Copies of the board’s determination should be provided to the employee and to the Commissioner of Education.

The following procedures apply when Step 5A has been followed. If Step 5B is selected, no further reference to the timetable is necessary.

6A.           The Commissioner shall notify the American Arbitration Association (AAA) of the need for a hearing and request AAA to provide to the Commissioner a list of names of persons chosen by the AAA from the panel of labor arbitrators to potentially serve as hearing officers, together with relevant biographical information on each arbitrator. The Commissioner shall forthwith forward a copy of the list to the board and to the employee. (Ed. Law 3020-a, subdivision 3).

 Within ten days of receipt of the list of potential hearing officers and biographies, the board and employee, individually or through their attorneys, shall by mutual agreement select a hearing officer and shall notify the Commissioner of their selection. (Commissioner’s Regulations 82-1.6).

6B.           If the board and the employee fail to agree on an arbitrator to serve as hearing officer, they must notify the Commissioner within ten days of receiving the list. The Commissioner shall then request AAA to appoint a hearing officer from said list. The Commissioner shall notify the hearing officer selected and confirm his or her acceptance of such selection.

7.                            The hearing officer shall contact the parties and, within ten to fifteen days of receipt of notice from the Commissioner confirming his or her acceptance of a selection to serve as hearing officer, hold a prehearing conference.

8.                            Within five days after receiving a copy of the Notice of the Need for a Panel Hearing, the employee must notify the Commissioner and the board in writing by Certified Mail of the name of his or her selection for the hearing panel. If the employee fails to notify the board and the Commissioner, and the employee has not waived or been deemed to have waived his or her right to a hearing, the Commissioner shall select the member of the hearing panel for the employee (Commissioner’s Regulation 82.6). It is essential that the employee contact his or her selection for the hearing panel to ascertain if the panel member selected will be able to serve for the duration of the hearing. Where an employee has exercised the option to have the hearing conducted before a hearing panel and the hearing officer determines that the absence of a panel member is likely to delay unduly the prosecution of the hearing, he or she shall order the replacement of the panel member. If the party who selected such panel member fails to select the replacement within two days, the Commissioner will select the replacement. If the hearing officer needs to be replaced, and the Commissioner determines that the parties cannot agree on a replacement, the Commissioner shall request AAA to select a replacement from the list of hearing officers. In no event shall a panel hearing proceed except in the presence of two panel members and the hearing officer (Commissioner’s Regulations 82-1.lOd).


9.                            Unless the employee or his attorney shall have served a written demand for a public hearing upon the hearing officer, at least twenty four hours before the first day of hearing, the employee will be deemed to have waived his or her right to a public hearing and the hearing will be private. The prehearing conference will be private (Commissioner’s Regulations 82-1.9).

At the prehearing conference, the hearing officer shall determine the reasonable amount of time necessary to hear the charges and shall schedule the location, time and date(s). If more than one day is required, the days scheduled shall be consecutive. The final hearing shall be completed no later than sixty days after the prehearing conference unless the hearing officer determines that extraordinary circumstances warrant a limited extension. (Ed. Law 3020-a, subdivision 3 iv).



10.                        At the conclusion of the testimony, the hearing officer may adjourn the hearing to a specified date, to permit preparation of the transcript, submission by the parties of memoranda of law, and deliberation. This date may not be more than sixty days after the prehearing conference unless the hearing officer determines that extraordinary circumstances warrant a later date. The hearing officer shall arrange for the preparation and delivery of one copy of the transcript of the hearing to each party. (Commissioner’s Regulations 82-1.lOf).

11.                        Within thirty days of the final hearing day, the hearing officer or panel shall render a written decision and forward a copy of such decision to the Commissioner. The decision shall include the findings of fact on each charge and its recommendation as to disciplinary action, if such action is warranted. The findings of fact shall set forward the factual basis for its determination. The hearing officer shall, no later than thirty days from the last hearing date, forward the findings of fact and recommendations, together with all copies of the record, to the Commissioner, and shall than declare the hearing concluded (Commissioner’s Regulations 82-1.10(g).

12.                        The Commissioner will immediately forward a copy of the decision, and the recommendations as to penalty, if one is warranted, to the employee and the board of education. (Ed. Law 3020-a, subdivision 4).

13.                        Within fifteen days of receipt of the hearing officer’s decision, the employing board shall implement the decision. If the employee is acquitted, he or she shall be restored to his or her position with full pay for any period of suspension without pay and the charges expunged from the record (Ed. Law 3020-a, subdivision 4).

14.                        Within ten days after receipt of the hearing officer’s decision, the employee or the employing board may make an application to the New York state supreme court to vacate or modify the decision pursuant to Section 7511 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (Ed. Law 3020-a, subdivision 5).

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Teachers as Role Models: Ethics and Evaluation


Published Online: March 8, 1989
Under present systems for evaluating teachers in New York State and elsewhere, unsupported assumptions about teaching and learning often result in unfair judgments, concludes James A. Gross in Teachers on Trial: Values, Standards, and Equity in Judging Conduct and Competence.
The author, a professor at the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University, analyzed 260 cases in which teachers were charged with incompetence or conduct unbecoming a professional.
Mr. Gross here examines the conception of teachers as role models for students as a basis for assessing teachers' conduct:
Generalizations about teachers as role models presume a certain "Mr. Chips" teaching style, personality, and environment for teaching that simply does not apply to all or even most teachers and teaching situations. ...
[I]t is mainly the students' perceptions that determine not only whether role modeling takes place but also what being pulled down from a pedestal will actually mean--simply rejecting the teacher as a role model, or possibly rejecting the teacher as a teacher, or possibly, as inferred in most role-model-based decisions, being dragged down themselves by compulsively emulating their role model's lying, stealing, drug dealing, alcoholism, sexual abuse, or other offenses.
The assumptions are only subjective and speculative because there is no conclusive empirical evidence to establish just how wide a sphere of influence the teacher as role model has over students. ...
The role-model notion ... is an insufficient and unjust basis for determining and punishing conduct unbecoming a teacher.
Even the most elaborate procedural safeguards in a statutory or contractual disciplinary system are useless if teachers' conduct is measured against subjective standards.
It is unjust to prevent teachers from practicing their chosen professions or to deny them the right to live their personal lives free of employer interference merely on some deciding body's recitation of the immorality of certain actions or the mere invocation of the role-model concept.
It is also unrealistic and imprac8tical to expect teachers to exemplify those qualities they are expected to teach students.
Ilr Press, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14851-0952; 121 pp., $9.95 paper.
In The Ethics of School Administration, Kenneth A. Strike, Emil J. Haller, and Jonas F. Soltis discuss hypothetical cases illustrating moral dilemmas school administrators might be called upon to resolve in such areas as intellectual liberty, equal educational opportunity, and educational evaluation.
Mr. Strike and Mr. Haller are professors of education at Cornell University; Mr. Soltis is professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University.
In the following case, a principal, "Mr. Endicott," has discovered that one of his best teachers, "Miss Loring," works in the evenings as a dancer at a topless bar:
If the scope of a teacher's job goes beyond the role of instructor and includes being a good influence on students, that is a reason to hold that any behavior on the part of a teacher that has an adverse effect on the values of students is not a private matter.
This quickly leads to the conclusion that Miss Loring's second job is a matter of legitimate concern for Mr. Endicott.
If it is reasonable to believe that her dancing will affect student attitudes toward public nudity or sexual conduct, then her behavior is part of the business of the school system.
At the same time, this argument should be seen as problematic. If teachers are required to be good influences on their students, almost any conduct might be considered to be job-related if students knew about it.
This would include not only the teacher's sexual life, but matters such as religion or politics. Are teachers to be required to support the dominant religion or political party of their districts? An argument that has this potential consequence surely must be defective. ...
First, it seems reasonable to us to hold that the role of a teacher should be construed broadly enough to include moral education.
We would argue that a teacher's influence on the character and moral convictions of his or her students cannot be discounted as unrelated to the teacher's job.
Second, however, the area of the teacher's life that should be treated as private and not under the school's control must be determined by balancing the importance of the particular right or interest under consideration against the possible effect of the teacher on students.
There are some areas of people's lives, such as religion and politics, where there are strong reasons for respecting privacy unless extremely undesirable consequences are involved.
Other areas are of less importance. ... Deciding what is public and what is private is not, therefore, simply a matter of deciding whether an action has an effect on an important interest of the school or of deciding if it might do some harm. It is, instead, a matter of weighing the importance of the kind of privacy involved against the public interest threatened.
Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Ave., New York, N.Y. 10027; 137 pp., $12.95 paper.

Monday, June 1, 2015

Some numbers on 3020-a From 2012 (Gannett Albany Bureau)

IN DEPTH: Districts Struggle To Remove Bad Teachers
4:55 PM, Apr 10, 2012 
By CARA MATTHEWS
LINK
Gannett Albany Bureau

ALBANY -- A foreign-language teacher in Arlington, Dutchess County, was absent 127 teacher workdays during the 2008-09 school year, about 83 of which were unapproved personal and sick leave.

In the Mamaroneck, Westchester County, school district, a guidance counselor frequently berated less-senior colleagues, calling them "stupid" and "morons" from the 2005-06 school year to the 2007-08 school year.

An Albion, Orleans County, teacher mimicked a fifth-grader with a stuttering problem in May 2009 and made another child wear a box over his head as punishment in April 2009.

"He said, 'H-h-hi," when he greeted the fifth-grader one day, a student who witnessed the incident said.

Afterward, the boy "was just sad and he didn't talk for like a few days," the other student recounted during a disciplinary hearing.

The disciplinary cases, which led to the firing of the teacher and the guidance counselor, were among 40 filed against administrators and instructors outside New York City in 2010 and 2011 and obtained by Gannett's Albany Bureau through the state Education Department.

The review of records showed that in some instances, school districts moved swiftly to fire troubled teachers, while other cases lingered -- in some cases for four, five or even six years.

It took an average of 742 days -- just over two years -- for upstate districts to secure guilty decisions against teachers and administrators, according to a state Education Department report on cases resolved in 2010. It took an average of 512 days for not-guilty verdicts and 338 days for settlements.

For upstate cases decided in 2011, it took an average of 632 days for a guilty decision and 1,070 days for a not-guilty ruling. That's more than twice the length of time for non-guilty cases in 2010. It took an average of 287 days for cases that were settled.

The number of cases is minuscule compared to the number of teachers in New York. There were 146,601 teachers and 172,901 total staff in school districts outside New York City in the 2010-11 school year, compared to 69,170 teachers and 82,341 staffers in New York City.

How the cases were handled, however, has particular relevance now as the state is implementing new teacher evaluations that advocates say will more quickly identify and remove bad teachers. They will face an expedited hearing process if their performance is rated unacceptable for two consecutive years.

"We are writing into law a new national model for teacher evaluations that will put our students first and put New York state at the front of the class when it comes to school accountability," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in announcing the agreement March 14.

Of the 40 upstate cases resolved in 2010 and 2011, 15 teachers were terminated and 24 teachers and administrators were suspended without pay, fined or penalized. In two-thirds of the 24 cases, school districts had sought to fire the staff member but were unsuccessful. One case was dismissed.

Upstate had fewer cases than New York City in 2010 and 2011. New York City had 74 cases two years ago and 88 in 2011.

Disciplinary action, school officials said, can get bogged down in the hearing process.

If a school district wants to discipline tenured teachers and administrators -- ranging from a reprimand letter to firing them - they have to hire an arbitrator for what is called a 3020-a hearing.

While the process protects school employees' due-process rights, it often can take years and cost districts hundred of thousands of dollars. The state Education Department pays millions of dollars a year for the hearings.

The Hearing Process

The new state budget, which took effect last week, seeks to curb state and local costs. The education commissioner now has the authority to set maximum daily rates for hearing officers' service, travel and other expenses. The commissioner also can limit the number of case "study" hours billed by arbitrators.

Districts and teachers will have to decide which arbitrator they want within 15 days, and no evidence can be introduced after 125 days, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Hearing officers who don't complete hearings in a timely manner can be removed from the list provided by the American Arbitration Association. Hearing officers can cost as high as $1,800 for a five-hour day, and daily rates for court reporters are about $1,000.

The costs have piled up. the state Education Department ended the fiscal year last month with a deficit of as much as $9.5 million for hearings. The payment backlog is 18 months, and some arbitrators have stopped taking cases.

Differing Results

In more severe cases, teachers and administrators are reassigned to their homes during the hearing process. In others, they are transferred to a district office or asked to work on curriculum development.

But they are all paid until their cases are determined. And the records aren't public until after the cases are decided, but even then, the public doesn't often learn all the specifics.

Of the upstate cases resolved in 2010 and 2011, many took one, two or three years to complete. There were several outliers, including one that took more than six years.

The Elmira school district brought charges against Theresa Usack, an assistant principal, in August 2006. The arbitrator dismissed all charges Feb. 7, 2011.

The district brought the case following a problem-filled eighth-grade class trip to Washington, D.C. Several students briefly went missing.

Hearing officer Nancy Faircloth Eischen described the charges as "frivolous" and ordered the district to pay Usack's $4,330 in legal fees and costs, as well as the state Education Department's expenses. The hearing process cost the district more than $55,000 as of last May.

However, the state has yet to send Elmira an invoice. Education Department spokesman Jonathan Burman said Wednesday it was "still being processed."

Usack, assistant principal at Broadway Middle School, said the disciplinary hearing was a waste of time and taxpayers' money. The charges were lodged while she was an assistant principal at Ernie Davis Middle School, and she was assigned to the alternative school for two years before her current assignment.

"I'm very glad that it's over, and I feel very strongly that it could have been avoided," she said. "It was an abuse of power by the school board at that time."

Usack said she's very good at what she does, works hard and treats all children as she would her own.

The school superintendent could not be reached for comment.

While the cost of 3020-a hearings is a large factor in bringing cases, there are others, said Jessica Cohen, district superintendent of the Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Board of Cooperative Educational Services. The district successfully terminated a teacher in September 2010 for incompetence.

"When a superintendent makes a recommendation to a board about bringing charges, you take into account the overall costs certainly, the impact on other staff, which is huge, the negative impact on other staff when they have to testify against their colleagues, and you also look for other ways to resolve the issues," she said.

High School foreign-language teacher Angela Cozzi was brought up on charges by the Great Neck, Nassau County, school district in June 2004, but her case wasn't decided until Aug. 19, 2010. The district accused Cozzi of incompetence. The hearing officer decided the punishment would be 45 calendar days without pay.

Impact On Career

Joyce Spiegel, a former speech pathologist for Mahopac, Putnam County, schools, received notice the district was pursuing 3020-a charges against her in September 2007. She was placed on paid leave pending the outcome. A hearing officer decided Sept. 21, 2011, that the district could fire her.

Spiegel was accused of exposing her breasts to staff members while students were present in the 2006-07 school year. The district alleged she didn't provide speech therapy the same school year to at least three students in the Mahopac Falls School Bridge Program, which serves special-needs children.

Spiegel denied she exposed her breasts. A town judge in Putnam County dropped five charges of misdemeanor child endangerment against her in a related court case.

Spiegel told Gannett's Albany Bureau that none of the allegations were true and that the four people who accused her planned out the charges and lied. A teacher and two aides in the program also were charged with child endangerment at the time. Charges were later dismissed against everyone.

"There was no basis for them, and the judge threw them out," she said.

The disciplinary hearing and the court case destroyed her successful 25-year career, said Spiegel, who was on paid leave for nearly four years.

The legal fees and other expenses for 3020-a cases add up quickly, said Thomas Manko, Mahopac schools superintendent, who received approval from the hearing officer to fire Spiegel. A related 3020-a case against a teacher who worked with Spiegel in the Bridge Program has not been resolved yet.

The cases have cost the district a few hundred thousands dollars a year, he said.

"Plus, the faculty who are being subject to the 3020-a hearing process are on paid leave. We can't suspend them without pay," he said.

Firings Avoided

Robert Kania, the Albion teacher who was accused of making fun of a student's stutter, had been warned after a previous incident that additional missteps could cost him his job. On Jan. 16, 2009, he was suspended for 10 days without pay for making inappropriate statements to a student with attention-deficit disorder and grabbing a child's sweatshirt.

The hearing officer ruled July 7, 2010 that the district had cause to fire the teacher.

Kanie, 36, told Gannett's Albany Bureau that he would never make fun of a student.

As for the box incident, he said he had a student from another class in his room to give that teacher a break. Kania claims the student put the box on his own head to be funny, and when he wanted to take it off, Kania said no.

Kania, who is pursuing a new career in human services, said he regrets the earlier case in which he grabbed a student. He apologized to the boy and his family, and the child stayed in his class that year. "I worked hard at rebuilding what I had broken with him," he said.

While the 3020-a process is designed to protect tenured school employees, it would work better if it were faster and more streamlined, he said.

The types of accusations against teachers who weren't fired were extensive. In the 40 cases, offenses ranged from pushing a student against a wall; pinning a student; using excessive force; allowing a 16-year-old girl to sit on a male teacher's lap and sleeping on school time.

In the Marion, Wayne County, school district, music teacher Troy Nolte was initially suspended without pay for three months for accessing pornography on a school computer, said superintendent Kathryn Wegman. Later, in February 2011, the district brought charges against him for inefficiency and insubordination.

He was fined $10,000 by the arbitrator. He is retiring in June and could not be reached for comment.

"I don't think this district had done a 3020-a before in history," Wegman said. "But it's the only way to discipline a tenured teacher."

The Webster, Monroe County, school district sought to fire Richard Smith, an assistant principal, because of a number of incidents.

He was charged with misconduct in February 2010 for making alleged inappropriate comments in the fall 2009, including that he had "seen more than he wanted to see when following girls who were wearing short skirts up the stairs," the records said.

He was observed sleeping numerous times on the job, although he claimed he had just been closing his eyes. He was accused of being drunk at a parent orientation and at other occasions. He said he was later diagnosed with Bells palsy, which causes facial paralysis.

The hearing officer decided last year on a four-month suspension without pay and wrote Smith's actions "represent substantial problems in judgment and behavior that need correcting."

Smith could not be reached for comment.

The Trumansburg, Tompkins County, school district charged Charles O. Dickerson High School gym teacher Julian Munoz with conduct unbecoming a teacher, immoral character and insubordination. In one incident, he was found guilty of misconduct for fraternizing with a 16-year-old girl and letting her sit on his lap. There was no sexual relationship and their families are friends.

Munoz, who could not be reached for comment, was suspended in March 2011 for four months without pay and reassigned to the elementary-school level. He had to pay a $5,000 fine.

Early Resolution

Many cases are resolved before they even get to the hearing phase with the help of a union representative, said Carl Korn, spokesman for the New York State United Teachers union. The law requires a pre-trial conference to encourage settlements, he said.

Teachers are entitled to due process, he said. A district may offer them tenure after a three-year probationary period. But during the probationary period, a teacher can be removed or dismissed for any reason without a hearing, Korn said.

The 3020-a process protects teachers against "politically motivated board members" and harassment, according to Korn.

The Four County School Boards Association -- which includes Ontario, Wayne, Seneca and Yates counties - supports having the state Education Department appoint hearing officers who would handle 3020-a hearings exclusively. That would improve the consistency and fairness of decisions, said Sharon Sweeney, the group's executive director.

The current system creates an incentive for arbitrators to make "milquetoast" decisions so they don't displease either party, she said.

The state Board of Regents wants to require everything over its annual appropriation to be divided equally between a school district and an employee's union (bargaining unit). The School Boards Association and NYSUT are against the proposal, and it was not included in the budget.

Webster, Monroe County, Superintendent Adele Bovard said she welcomes any efforts to move the process along faster. She said she couldn't comment on the Smith case because it's a personnel matter.

"The schedules are full, the arbitrators are few, and you have to coordinate everyone's schedules. You can wait for months between arbitration sessions," she said.

Jason Whong of the Gannett Albany Bureau contributed to this report.

These are the conditions under which school districts can bring 3020-a hearings against teachers:

Endangerment of student safety
Incompetence
Lack of certification
Absence from work
Insubordination
Corporal punishment and use of excessive force
Improper remarks, physical contact and relationships with students
Physical or mental disability


Source: Four County School Boards Association.

Gannett-point local cases:

Tracy Campanella, Arlington, Dutchess County, school district. The Union Vale Middle School foreign-language teacher received notice 10/15/09 that district was seeking termination. Hearing officer found for district 6/22/11.

Teacher guilty of incompetence and/or neglect of duty, and insubordination. Had been absent 127 teacher workdays during the 2008-09 school year, including 83 days of unapproved personal and sick leave. Insubordination was because she didn't submit a release the superintendent had requested and never went to medical appointments the district had directed her to. Reasons for her absences were redacted from hearing officer's decision. Campanella claimed she had the approval of the district, used teacher sick-bank time and helped with lesson plans during absence.

Anne Cunniff, Katonah-Lewisboro, school district, Westchester County. John Jay High School English teacher. The school board voted 3/18/10 to pursue charges of conduct unbecoming a teacher. Arbitrator ordered 4/18/11 that she would be on unpaid disciplinary leave for the rest of the school year and continue treatment with a psychiatrist or psychologist. Accused of making rude or inappropriate comments and gestures about and to students. There were seven charges between 11/09 and 1/10, including grabbing crotch in the presence of staff and students to demonstrate students' behavior and inviting a male senior into a room and commenting on his 'beautiful eyes' and that she was glad he was off drugs. Hearing officer found she was showing signs of "teacher burnout" from increasing workload and feeling she wasn't getting the help she needed from school.

Elizabeth Denhoff, Mamaroneck, Westchester County, school district, Hommocks Middle School guidance counselor. Terminated 3/2/10 after receiving notice of charges 12/11/07 that district wanted to fire her.

District pursued termination for belittling less-senior colleagues and their work on numerous occasions between the 2005-06 school year and the 2007-08 school year. Called them "stupid" and "morons," trapping one in an office while berating and threatening her for nearly an hour; threatening their employment status; and telling them to keep secrets from the administration. Denhoff claimed she was treated and punished differently than others for the same offense. Hearing officer said she had no remorse.

Ralf Embro, Rockland County Board of Cooperative Educational Services. BOCES River View High School homeroom and history teacher. Received notice 1/12/10 the district was pursuing termination. Hearing officer's decision came on 3/14/11.

Was found guilty of three misconduct charges, including creating an atmosphere of fear among colleagues by talking about his guns and attempting to communicate to students a message of tolerance for unlawful violence. He wore a shirt to school in the summer of 2008 that said, "What does a soldier feel when he captures the enemy? Recoil," or words to that effect. Was found guilty of insubordination by standing at military attention and refusing to speak when asked questions during an investigation into allegations he had made of irregularities in administering Regents exams.

Margaret Everett, Eden, Erie County, school district. Math teacher at Eden Elementary School. A pre-hearing conference was held 7/16/09 on district charges to end her employment. Hearing officer upheld district's move to terminate her employment 8/31/10. Was found to have violated regulations for administering a standardized test in March 2009. She didn't read all the directions beforehand and offered help to some students while they took the exam. Tests had a disproportionate number of erasures.

Margaret Germain, Onondaga-Cortland-Madison BOCES. Special-education teacher. Received notice district was pursuing termination 2/26/09. Hearing officer upheld district's case for termination 9/7/10. Charges were incompetence, inefficiency, neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming a teacher for failing to develop lesson plans for herself and substitutes; not communicating with teaching assistants; not developing individualized education plans for students; unwillingness to work with speech therapists, counselors, etc.; blaming other staff for her failures; unwillingness to accept constructive criticism. Also found guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher for demanding to search lockers of other staffers. Incidents took place from 2006-2009.

Sal Imbimbo, Ossining, Westchester County, school district. Physical- and health-education teacher at Anne Dorner Middle School. Was charged 5/11/10 for 2/1/10 incident of pushing student against a wall and pinning with hand, yelling at him and using excessive force. District wanted to fire him. Arbitrator made decision 5/17/11. Imbimbo was suspended without pay for one month and required to have anger-management training paid for by the district. Was found to have violated the school board's, state commissioner's and Regents' rules against corporal punishment.

Robert Kania, Albion, Orleans County. Fourth-grade teacher, Albion Elementary School. Received notice of charges 6/2/09 that district wanted to fire him. Hearing officer on 6/7/10 said district had just cause to do that. Charged with misconduct for imitating a student's stutter and making another child wear a box over his head in two separate incidents in 2009. Insubordination charge was dropped. Had been suspended 10 days without pay in January 2009 for making inappropriate statements to a student with attention-deficit disorder and grabbing the student by the neck of his sweatshirt, among other actions, and was told he could be disciplined and terminated if another incident occurred.

Julian Munoz, Trumansburg, Tompkins County. Charles O. Dickerson High School gym teacher, reassigned to elementary school. Suspended without pay for four months, required to pay a $5,000 fine. District filed charges 11/4/09 seeking termination. Arbitrator made decision 3/11/11. Munoz faced nine charges based on incidents from 11/12/09 and 7/9/10, including conduct unbecoming a teacher, immoral character and insubordination. Had pattern of behavior with students that lead professionals to question behavior and recognition of appropriate boundaries. Had received warning memos. Found guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher but not immoral character for hitting a student with a back injury with the cloth end of his lanyard, kicking him in the lower back/upper buttocks, knocking him over and exacerbating the injury. Guilty of same charge for fraternizing with a 16-year-old girl and letting her sit on his lap. There was no sexual relationship; the families are friends. Guilty of same charge for sending offensive emails on school's network. Found to have engaged in highly inappropriate and unprofessional conduct, but not insubordination, by putting belongings at an elementary school after being told not to.

Thomas Nichols, Brighton, Monroe County, school district. French Road Elementary School music teacher. Received notice from district 11/8/05 that he was charged with conduct unbecoming a teacher, neglect of duty, physical and/or mental disability and insubordination. Hearing officer made decision 1/10/11, suspending him during the course of remedial actions, including counseling and random drug testing, with the goal of returning to work 9/1/11. Guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher for not being forthright with school doctors; not returning several items of school property; missing department meetings; brushing his teeth, shaving and combing hair in front of students; inappropriate confrontational behavior with colleague; and other charges. Also guilty of neglect of duty for many of same charges. Had been diagnosed with depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Troy Nolte, Marion, Wayne County, school district. Music teacher, originally for high school, reassigned to elementary school. District brought charges 2/7/11 for inefficiency and insubordination, seeking $25,000 fine. Arbitrator's decision was 12/14/11. Fined $10,000. Suspended in March 2009 pending outcome of previous charges against him. Was found guilty and was suspended without pay 9/7/10 to 12/7/10. Returned from leave 5/10/10, told to use rest of school year to plan curriculum. Was found guilty of inefficiency for not writing lesson plans; guilty of insubordination for not following expectations in 6/21/10 annual evaluation and not submitting lesson plans. Was found to have engaged in deceit, delay and evasion on the principal's request for lesson plans.

Richard Smith, Webster, Monroe County, school district. Assistant principal. Was given notice of charges 2/12/10 on multiple charges of conduct unbecoming an assistant principal, decision was 6/22/11. Suspended without pay for four months. District had wanted to fire him. Smith was found guilty of most charges, such as inappropriate comments - some of a sexual nature - in reference to students. Examples include saying he saw more than he wanted when following girls wearing short skirts up stairs and telling a student that no boy should have the word "limp" in his name. Also neglected duties in planning a Washington trip, used profanities in front of staff members, rubbed a female teacher's back, didn't administer assessment test properly, and fell asleep in his office multiple times. Incidents occurred in 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years.

Had been on medical leave from 8/08-1/15/09 for depression. Suspended 11/09 and directed to have another psychiatric exam.

Joyce Spiegel, speech pathologist, elementary schools in Mahopac, Putnam County. District brought charges 9/27/07. Judge agreed on 9/21/11 with district's move to terminate her.

Was charged for lifting shirt and exposing breasts to another staffer in presence of students in the 2006-07 school year; and for failing to provide speech therapy to at least three students. Worked in program for severely handicapped students. Teacher denied breast incident, but it was corroborated by several other staffers. Several misdemeanor child-endangerment charges were dropped by a town judge in Putnam County.

Theresa Usack Armstrong, Elmira schools, assistant principal. District brought charges 8/16/06. Hearing officer dismissed all charges 2/17/11. No details provided -- dismissed charges are redacted from record before it is released to the public. Charges were brought after a class trip to Washington, D.C. that was fraught with problems. Hearing officer ordered district to pay $4,330 in legal fees and costs Usack incurred.

Valerie Yarn, Rochester schools, was physical-education teacher at high school, middle school and Wilson Foundation. District brought charges 2/23/09 seeking to fire her and amended charges 5/19/09. Arbitrator made decision 4/28/11. Placed on medical leave with health insurance through 6/29/12. Told to elect psychologist or psychiatrist and notify district by 9/15/11 for a period ending on or before 4/2/12. School district filed complaint in state Supreme Court. Judge vacated ruling and called for a new review of case by different hearing officer. Yarn's attorney had appealed the decision.

Yarn was charged with harassing co-worker, violating an order of protection (pleaded guilty to 2nd-degree criminal contempt in 2006) Charged with sending inappropriate messages to assistant principal for operations at Wilson Foundation and subjecting her to unwanted physical contact. Also, had girls remove bras for scoliosis exam, left students alone multiple times, late and absent multiple times and started to unbutton a student's blazer and continued to do so after the student asked her to stop.

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Arbitration decisions: Are They in Compliance With The JUST CAUSE STANDARD - or is the Penalty Determined Under the JUST 'CAUSE Someone Dislikes You Standard?

If you are working in disciplinary hearings or 3020-a arbitration, or you want to appeal an arbitrator's decision, you should use JUST CAUSE in your argument.

Betsy Combier

 
                                                   


 JUST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

Did You Know as a union member your employer can not discipline you or fire you without Just Cause?

The U.S. labor movement has secured a number of important rights for unionized workers. Among such rights, just cause provides important protections against arbitrary or unfair termination and other forms of inappropriate workplace discipline. Just cause has become a common standard in labor arbitration, and is included in labor union contracts as a form of job security. Typically, an employer must prove just cause before an arbitrator to sustain an employee's termination, suspension, or other discipline. Usually, the employer has the burden of proof in discharge cases or if the employee is in the wrong.
Employees are expected to meet performance standards and behave appropriately in the workplace. Disciplinary or corrective action taken by the employer is supposed to be a process of communicating with the employee to improve unacceptable behavior or performance. There is a set of guidelines, called the “Seven Tests of Just Cause” that employers are expected to follow when imposing discipline; that Unions need to assure have been applied to their members; and that arbitrators use as a basis to form their decisions.

A LITTLE HISTORY:

For decades, professional arbitrators struggled to reach consistent decisions in discipline cases, because they recognized that inconsistent results produced chaos in both the arbitration process and the work place. Finally, noted arbitrator Carroll R. Daugherty decided to take the bull by the horns by combining the many concepts employed by arbitrators in discipline cases into a single theory which he called “a sort of ‘common law definition” of just cause. It set out to be applied to the facts of any one case which we now refer to as the seven tests of just cause.

The award by Arbitrator Daugherty which is generally recognized as the first decision to formally set out all of the seven tests of just cause was in the matter of Enterprise Wire Co. and Enterprise Independent Union and was issued March 28,1966 (46 LA 359).

You can read Daugherty’s full Arbitration Decision at  https://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/home/EnterpriseWire.html                                            

This was a discharge case involving absenteeism and unsatisfactory work. Unfortunately, in this case, Arbitrator Daugherty ruled in favor of the employer; the union lost the case and the employee was fired. This historic case set the rules for Just Cause and is still being used today by employers, and arbitrators.

DID THE EMPLOYER HAVE JUST CAUSE?
Using the Seven Tests

Here are the "Seven Tests" as to whether the boss has used "just cause" in discipline and discharge cases.

Issues

* Our main contractual weapon in discipline and discharge cases is usually the requirement that the boss must have "just cause" (or "fair cause" or "proper cause") to take action against an employee. Even if these words are missing from the contract, many arbitrators use this standard, anyway.

* But, what is "just cause"? Simply put: it means the employer must have a reason (he or she must have "cause") for imposing discipline and the reason must be fair ("just").

* It is commonly accepted that there are seven tests as to whether the boss has used "just cause" in handing out discipline.

One of the main reasons workers join unions is to gain protection against unfair and unjust discipline that employers hand out. Stewards must be ready to handle all sorts of discipline cases, from warnings to suspensions to firings. Stewards must be ready to deal with situations of gross discrimination by the boss on who gets disciplined, to dealing with union members who sometimes seem to go out of their way to get themselves fired.

Our main contractual weapon is often times summed up in one short sentence, "Employees shall be disciplined or discharged only for just cause". In some contracts the words used are "proper cause" or "fair cause". The importance of a sentence like this is that it binds the employer to imposing discipline not just for any reason (cause) but the reason has to be a "just" reason. Many arbitrators have gone so far as to hold all employers to a "just cause" standard, whether the contract uses the words or not.

What is a "just cause" standard? It is commonly accepted that there are seven tests as to whether a boss has used "just cause" in handing out discipline. The Bureau of National Affairs lists them as follows:

1. NOTICE – Was the employee adequately warned of the consequences of his conduct?

Prior to imposition of discipline, employees must have notice of rules and expectations. The warning may be given orally or in printed form. An exception may be made for certain conduct, such as insubordination, coming to work drunk, drinking on the job, or stealing employer property, that is so serious that the employee is expected to know it will be punishable.

Example: If an employee is told to stop using vulgar language and told that if he continues he will be disciplined, that may be adequate warning. However if a boss comes up to an employee and says "I'm tired of your swearing, cut it out", and then the next day fires the employee for swearing again, that may not be adequate warning.

2. REASONABLE RULES OR ORDERS – Was the employer's rule or order reasonably related to efficient and safe operations?

Was the employer’s rule reasonably related to (a) the orderly, efficient, and safe operation of the employer’s business, and (b) the performance that the employer should properly expect of the employee?

Example: A boss makes a rule that all employees must wear red tee shirts and they must be tucked in so they don't get caught in machinery. An employee is fired for wearing a blue tee shirt that was tucked in. Making a rule that tee shirts must be tucked in so they won't get caught in machinery may be reasonable and related to safety, but demanding the tee shirt be red isn't related to safety or efficiency.

3. INVESTIGATION – Did management investigate before administering the discipline?

Did the employer, before administering the discipline to an employee, make an effort to discover whether the employee did in fact violate or disobey a rule of management? The investigation normally should be made before the decision to discipline is made. Where immediate action is required, however, the best course is to suspend the employee pending investigation with the understanding that he will be restored to his job and paid for time lost if he is found not guilty.

Example: The boss fires a worker for stealing and then demands evidence from the union that the worker isn't guilty. At the grievance meeting the boss admits he never investigated the incident, just took another employee's word. This probably wouldn't hold up. If the union has facts to prove the employee's innocence they should be presented to the boss, even though he failed to properly investigate the case.

4. FAIR INVESTIGATION - Was the investigation fair and objective?
Example: If an incident happened does the employer interview everyone present or only management people who were present. If the employer refuses to interview nonmanagement workers then the investigation may not be fair.

5. PROOF - Did the investigation produce substantial evidence or proof of guilt?

It is not required that the evidence be preponderant, conclusive, or "beyond reasonable doubt," except where the alleged misconduct is of such a criminal or reprehensible nature as to stigmatize the employee and seriously impair his chances for future employment.
Example: Here it is obvious that workers have fewer rights inside the workplace than they would have in civil court, but still the boss must have real evidence, not guesses. Again the boss cannot just try to make a worker prove his or her innocence, without presenting proof of guilt.

6. EQUAL TREATMENT - Were the rules, orders, and penalties applied evenhandedly and without discrimination?

If enforcement has been lax in the past, management cannot suddenly reverse its course and begin to crack down without first warning employees of its intent.

Example: This is the most common form of discrimination. An employer decides to suspend Mary for taking too long at lunch, but lets the employees who eat lunch with a supervisor take extra time every day. This would not hold up. However, if the employer tells everyone that starting on Monday employees will be disciplined for taking too long at lunch and on Tuesday Mary comes back late and everyone else has been on time, she may be disciplined.

7. PENALTY - Was the penalty reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the past record?

Was the degree of discipline administered by the employer in a particular case reasonably related to (a) the seriousness of the employee’s proven offense, and (b) the record of the employee in his or her service with the employer?

If employee A's past record is significantly better than that of employee B, the employer properly may give employee A lighter punishment than employee B for the same offense. The degree of discipline, is important because arbitrators want to ensure that the "punishment fits the crime." An employer's use of progressive discipline often gives the employer an advantage in arbitration.

Example: The classic example is two employees get in an argument and shove each other. One has 25 years service with a clean record. The other has 3 years service with lots of warnings and discipline. Based upon the workers seniority and records, the employer may give the older worker less punishment than the other worker.

Tips for Handling Discipline & Discharge Cases

Here are some basic tips for stewards handling discipline and discharge cases:

Use the "seven tests" as an outline. Did the employer meet the seven tests? Remember that just because an employer messes up on one of the seven tests, this doesn't mean we automatically win, but proving they screwed up helps a lot.
Make sure that an employee's Weingarten rights aren't or weren't violated during the employer's investigation.
Try to stop the employer from suspending or firing a worker. Try to get a cooling off period if necessary. The case becomes harder once a worker is out the door, now we not only have to fight about what happened but over back pay, etc.
Ask for all the employers’ notes and records they used to make a decision. Get any notes or records a foreman or supervisor might keep, even informal records. The union has a right to them. On the other hand the employer has no right to the notes or records that the union makes when investigating a case.
* Do a thorough investigation of the case. DON'T take the employers word on anything.
In a grievance meeting make the employer prove their case first. Make them present all the facts and don't assume anything. Don't let the boss start the meeting by saying to the union, “OK tell me why I shouldn't fire Joe". Make the boss justify firing Joe.
There are two parts to every discipline case. Did the employee violate a known rule and what should the punishment be? Sometimes we lose the first part but then we have to make sure the punishment fits the offense.
If the employer refuses to back down from a written warning and the case doesn't merit arbitration make sure the employer receives from the union a written statement disputing the facts and the discipline. Have this letter also put into the employees personnel file.



In closing, we should all be aware of the JUST CAUSE principles; and we all need to know what PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE looks like.

Within any workers career they will face at least one episode that could be discipline. Has your supervisor discussed a matter with you that he or she has asked you to change? It may sound like a friendly suggestion; and it might be. But it also is Step one of Progressive Discipline.




Monday, February 2, 2015

What Not To Do At Arbitration

By Phil Cutler
Cutler Nylander & Hayton PS
1191 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA  98101
206-340-4600
Philip E. Cutler © 2011

 For over 20 years I have presided over or participated as a panelist in hundreds of arbitrations.  Those experiences have shown me the good, the bad and the ugly.  Quite frankly, there are many more seriously egregious mistakes I have seen lawyers make; it was difficult to pare this list down to 10.

 #10 – Play Games:  Engage in Cheap Games and Discovery Abuse; Continue Gamesmanship During the Hearing

Arbitration is no more a macho gladiator contest than litigation, though some lawyers (and their clients too, unfortunately) seem to believe that gamesmanship – hardball tactics, obfuscation and delay – is the way to win cases.  Though they are wrong, they nonetheless:

  • refuse to stipulate to anything
  • object to practically everything, especially any proposal made by opposing counsel
  • refuse to extend professional courtesies to opposing counsel
  • insist on unbridled discovery rather then thoughtfully analyzing their client’s and the opposing party’s legitimate discovery needs and putting together a discovery plan that largely meets everyone’s needs
  • schedule depositions unilaterally and/or refuse to adjust the schedule to accommodate witness’s or opposing counsel’s legitimate needs
  • lard responses to written discovery with lengthy and generally worthless (and usually unfounded) boilerplate objections
  • unreasonably delay providing documents or information
  • suddenly “discover” key exhibits during the hearing
  • reactively object to nearly all exhibits offered at the hearing by the other side
  • whether at depositions or the hearing, lodge objections to examination questionsthat are largely specious, generally for the sole purpose of interrupting the flow of the case
  • are coy about scheduling witnesses’ hearing testimony
  • refuse to cooperate in any respect
 These lawyers and clients seem to believe that the arbitrator is impressed by these tactics or awards points based on counsel’s cleverness in obfuscating matters, delaying resolution or raising the cost of the case.  They don’t.  Indeed, tactics such as these are seen for what they are:  simple gamesmanship.  Parties and their lawyers who engage in them lose credibility with the only one who counts:  the arbitrator.
Avoid games-playing like the plague.  Like litigation, arbitration is an adversarial process; that, however, does not mean that basic professionalism and civility are ignored in favor of chest-thumping and uncooperativeness.  Counsel should pick her fights with care;  save arguments for those matters that are really important; try and resolve all other matters cooperatively.
Remember that discovery in arbitration is substantially less broad than it is in litigation; tailor your discovery, and suggest a mutual discovery plan, that legitimately addresses the needs of the parties and the case; the arbitrator is unlikely to be receptive to a party’s insistence on turning over every rock.[1]  Avoid bringing numerous discovery disputes to the arbitrator for resolution; arbitrators don’t like having to resolve such disputes any more than judges do.

#9 – Display Anger, Animosity and Rudeness:  Personalize Everything; Engage in Ad Hominem Attacks
You have seen it before, the lawyer who:
  • refers to the opposing lawyer or witness (or even the arbitrator!) disrespectfully
  • sneers, rolls his eyes or raises his eyebrows at arguments made by opposing counsel or a witness’s testimony
  • lards briefs or oral arguments with purple prose
  • encourages or allows her client to make sotto voce comments about testimony, exhibits or case developments
Avoid personal attacks.  Emotions can run high even in arbitration, but your clients have a dispute, which you have been hired to help them resolve – not to fan the flames.  You can be a zealous advocate without stooping to the level of a street-fighter.  Don’t characterize the opposing side’s arguments (or a witness’s testimony) as “patently ridiculous” (or use similar purple prose) in your briefs, examination or oral arguments.  Engaging in such conduct merely highlights for the arbitrator your (or your client’s) lack of professionalism, civility and faith in the merits of your client’s cause.  The arbitrator is looking for objectively supportable facts and legal authority to help her decide the case.  This sort of conduct detracts from the merits of your case and distracts the arbitrator from doing her job.

#8 – Overuse or Misuse Technology:  Use Fancy but Unnecessary Technological or Demonstrative Aids; Fail to Know how to use Them
 Technology is a wonderful teaching and learning tool.  But using power-points or electronic displays for everything is generally unhelpful and can be distracting.  Technology is especially unhelpful (and distracting) if it doesn’t work.  Moreover, unless you print out whatever you display electronically, the arbitrator won’t have a record of your “techie” presentation available to refer back to after the hearing.
In deciding what technology to use, and how, remember that the point of the hearing is to tell your side’s story to a particular audience:  the arbitrator.  Ask yourself if your proposed tech aid facilitates the telling of that story or gets in the way.  You will have presented exhibits in paper form (commonly in a tabbed ring-binder), which both the arbitrator and the witness will have available during the hearing.  Putting exhibits up on a screen (generally with ambient lighting making it difficult to read and follow along; extinguishing the lights makes note-taking difficult or impossible) is frequently unhelpful and often counter productive.  If there is a key phrase or section in an exhibit that you wish to highlight, have a large and readable blow-up made; it will be easier for the arbitrator and witness to read and assimilate.  Most arbitrators appreciate counsel highlighting (a yellow marker does the job nicely) key portions of exhibits in their binder.
The same holds true for squibs from deposition transcripts.  If you are using technology, be sure you practice beforehand so that your presentation is flawless.  If you are using a video squib (from a deposition, for instance), limit use to the really important parts and cue up any squibs so that the presentation is effective.  If you intend to use a power-point presentation during your closing argument, be sure to print off a copy and give it to the arbitrator (and opposing counsel, of course) before the argument.

#7 – Waste Opportunities to Persuade the Arbitrator:  Assume the Arbitrator Shares Your Knowledge of the Case; Fail to Analyze, Distill and Organize Your Case; File Long and Unpersuasive Briefs

By the time the hearing rolls around, you will have lived with your case – the facts and the law – for several months.  The arbitrator may be a quick study, but she doesn’t have the same knowledge base as you do.  Your task at the hearing is to bring the arbitrator along – don’t waste the opportunity to educate her.  Your hearing brief ought to highlight the critical facts that will be adduced at the hearing, put those facts into context so their importance is obvious, and apply the law to the facts.  Make sure the arbitrator knows who the main players (and witnesses) are, and why their testimony is important; cover the elements of your claim or defense.  If a timeline is important, consider preparing a chronology.
Briefs should be focused and as short as possible.  Even if the arbitrator doesn’t place a page-limit on briefs, use local federal or state brief limits as guidelines.  If your hearing brief is longer than 30 pages, try again.  Remember that a reply brief is designed to reply to an argument that your opponent has made in opposition (and which you may not have addressed to your satisfaction in your opening brief); don’t simply repeat all the arguments made in your opening brief.

#6 – Ask Inappropriate Questions; Fail to Pick up on an Opportunity to Deal   With Something the Arbitrator views as Important; Ignore a Witness’s Non-Responsive Answer:  Ask Questions That are not Really Questions or ask Overly Legalistic Questions of a Lay Witness; Rebuff Questions from the Arbitrator

Long, wandering “questions” are to be avoided, as are questions asking for a legal conclusion – from either a lay or expert witness.  Strive for short, crisp questions. Write your questions out ahead of time or practice them.  Be sure there is a question mark at the end.  The power of the witness’s answer depends on the clarity of the question it responds to; if the witness is confused, the arbitrator will likely be confused as well.
Ask questions of witnesses; don’t testify yourself.  The arbitrator is interested in the witness’s testimony, not yours.
Listen to the witness’s response: the arbitrator will hear what the witness says, not what you expect him to say.  If the witness fails to answer the question you asked, repeat it and ask for a response.  A motion to strike as non-responsive will highlight for the arbitrator that the witness may be evasive or not paying attention.
Welcome questions from the arbitrator; if she asks questions, assume that she really is interested in the answer.  Don’t put the arbitrator off by saying, “I’ll come back to that.”  In all likelihood you won’t.  Even if you do, you will have missed an opportunity to respond timely to something the arbitrator wanted more information about.

#5 – Assume the Evidentiary Rules in Arbitration are the Same as Those in Court:  Fail to Take the Time to Understand the Rules of Evidence; Make Numerous and Ineffective Evidentiary Objections

While “not everything goes” in arbitration, arbitration hearings are generally unfettered by the evidentiary rules applicable to court proceedings.  It behooves counsel to know what rules there are and to act accordingly.
Most arbitration providers have rules similar to Rule R-31, AAA Commercial Rules, which states the general evidentiary rule applicable in arbitration:  “Conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary”  and “The arbitrator is empowered to decide the admissibility, relevance and materiality of evidence that is offered.”  To the same effect is Section 15 of the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act.[2]
Most arbitrators will allow leading questions on preliminary matters or matters which are not critical to disposition.  Avoid, however, leading your own client: doing so telegraphs to the arbitrator that your client is unable to testify . . . so you have to do it for him.
Lay an appropriate foundation for key evidence, but don’t overdo it.  Faced with a “lack of foundation” objection, many arbitrators will overrule it and tell you that you may demonstrate the unreliability (or irrelevance) of the evidence on cross.  Pick up on that and heed her advice.  The case will move along more quickly and, assuming you ask crisp, focused questions on cross, the arbitrator will get the point that your opponent’s evidence is to be ignored or not to be accorded much weight.
While arbitrators will not generally accept 3rd or 4th hand hearsay, they will frequently allow hearsay if the evidence is of the sort that a reasonable and prudent business-person would rely on, reserving for herself a decision on the weight that such evidence should be accorded.  Just because a hearsay objection could (and perhaps should) be made at trial, does not mean that objection should be made at the arbitration hearing.[3]  Making numerous and repetitive objections, especially hearsay objections and sweeping admissibility objections to exhibits on any ground, at the hearing is most often counterproductive and serves only to diminish counsel’s effectiveness in the eyes of the arbitrator.  Wise counsel will limit her objections to those which are recognized in almost every context, such as those based on attorney-client privilege, or which are not only critical to the case but also likely to be sustained (e.g., questions about settlement or mediation).
At trial, counsel would hardly ever get away with introducing a declaration of affidavit from a witness.  The same is not true in arbitration.  See, e.g., Rule R-32, AAA Commercial Rules, which permits such evidence over objection with the caveat that the arbitrator will give it such weight as she deems it entitled to.  Your chances of getting the arbitrator to give your witness’s declaration or affidavit substantial weight will be improved if you make the witness available for cross-examination either by telephone or video conference.

#4 – Misuse Cross-Examination of Witnesses:  Try and use Cross to Prove Your Case in Chief; Fail to Plan Cross Before the Hearing

Any student of trial advocacy knows that cross-examination is one of the most powerful tools available to counsel.  Nonetheless, lawyers continue to:
  • ask open-ended questions on cross, giving the witness an(other) opportunity to tell “his” side of the story
  • ask questions to which the lawyer does not know the answer (a bad idea unless the lawyer doesn’t care what the answer is)
  • try and use cross to prove her case-in-chief
  • spend time on cross laboriously challenging every jot and tittle of the witness’s direct examination, especially as to matters that are not important
 Generally, the most that counsel can hope for from a witness on cross-examination is that some in-roads can be made debunking a key point of the other side’s case.  If you have prepared your case well, you will know what points you can get from the witness on cross.  Make a short list and get to it.  Except in the unusual case, resist the temptation to grill the witness for hours on everything he or she said on direct.  While there is truth to the “death by a thousand cuts” maxim, it is rare that such a strategy yields significant results at a hearing.

#3 – Continue Blithely on, Ignoring What Common Sense Tells (or Should Tell) You: Fail to Know When to Stop; Treat the Arbitrator as an Unsophisticated Rube

The arbitration hearing should not be an endurance contest.  Counsel’s task is to present sufficient evidence on key factual points to sustain her client’s burden of proof and provide a foundation for closing argument; do so and then STOP!  There is a difference between “corroborating” evidence and “cumulative” evidence.  Recognize it.
Know your arbitrator’s professional background and work history; know the elements of proof needed.  Prepare your case accordingly.  While your arbitrator may not be an expert on your client’s industry or the particular legal issues your case presents, he is an intelligent individual, who frequently has “tried” cases before, if not as an arbitrator then as counsel.  If the arbitrator tells you that “I got it”, believe him.  Burdening him with hours more testimony on the same subject will not help him rule in your favor; it will likely antagonize and frustrate him.

#2 – Make it Difficult for the Arbitrator to Rule in Your Client’s Favor:  Fail to Organize Your Case and get Your Client’s Story Across

One would think that counsel would do everything possible to help the arbitrator rule in the client’s favor.  It’s amazing how many times counsel does not do so.  In arbitration, your only audience should be the arbitrator.  Make it easy for the arbitrator to understand your case and follow along.
The arbitrator can only rule in your client’s favor if he understands the facts and why they are important.  In order for the arbitrator to “get it” he needs to be told clearly who did what to whom (or didn’t do something) and how that plays with all the other facts that are important.  Begin to do that in your arbitration brief (if you haven’t had an opportunity before then to give the arbitrator a taste of what the case is about).
Similarly, the arbitrator needs to understand the key legal principles that undergird your case.  While some believe that arbitrators try and do equity (some say, by “splitting the baby”), in my experience arbitrators do their best to apply applicable law to proven facts and let the chips fall where they may.  To that end, counsel needs to clearly and cogently – and persuasively – demonstrate to the arbitrator what the law is, and how the law compels an award in your client’s favor.  Do not assume the arbitrator knows what the law is.
Every case has a “story” to tell.  That story should be simple, interesting and based on fact – not fiction.  Commonly, exhibits are an important part of that story.  Prepare your witnesses to tell the story in their words; let them tell it.  Make sure you integrate exhibits with testimony.  If, as is most often the case, chronology is important, prepare a chronology or time-line; find a way to use it as an exhibit, even a demonstrative one.
Organize the exhibits chronologically, or by issue; eliminate duplicate copies of exhibits (there should be only one exhibit that is the contract at issue); number exhibits so that there is only one “Exhibit 1” (you want the arbitrator to be able to easily find, track and follow exhibits and witnesses’ testimony).  Tell the arbitrator how you’ve organized your case.
Put all exhibits in one or more tabbed ring-binders.  Be sure the arbitrator has her own set of exhibit binders; all counsel and the witness should also have their own set: don’t expect to look over the arbitrator’s shoulder.  Don’t use binders with more than a 3-inch spine; when filled with paper, large-spine binders are too heavy and unwieldy.  Put a few extra tabs in the arbitrator’s binder to accommodate the inevitable “late” exhibits.  When bringing additional exhibits to the hearing for insertion in the binders, make sure the exhibits are hole-punched so the arbitrator can easily add them.  Consider using a separate binder of “core” exhibits that will be referred to frequently during the hearing.

#1 – Fail to Tell the Arbitrator Exactly What Your Client Wants:  Don’t Tell her, Keep it a Secret; Hope the Arbitrator “gets it” by Osmosis

Well before the hearing, develop a theory of the case and be sure your story is laid out by your witnesses (and the answers to your focused cross-examination) and exhibits. The arbitrator will never have the breadth of knowledge that you do – and probably doesn’t want or need to.  She does need a clear roadmap, however.  Give her one.
Use your arbitration brief to tell the arbitrator exactly what relief your client wants, and why; repeat it in your opening statement (“the evidence will show that . . . and that an award of . . . should be entered”) and again in closing argument.  Give the arbitrator a draft award laying out the relief your client wants her to award.  If you want injunctive relief, say so and tell the arbitrator what conduct should be prohibited and for how long; give her the legal basis for such an award.  If you’re seeking pre-award interest, specify the date and amount on which such interest should begin to run and the interest rate that should be used – and why.
Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.  In Washington, attorneys’ fees are awardable only where specifically provided for by contract or statute.  However, if your arbitration is administered under the AAA’s Commercial Rules, be aware of Rule R-43(d):  “The award . . . may include . . . an award of attorneys’ fees if all parties have requested such an award or it is authorized by law or their arbitration agreement.”  Asking for attorneys’ fees only because your opponent has requested such relief (and there is no statute or contract authorizing it) can expose your client to an award for substantial fees even if they would not otherwise be available.

Phil Cutler
August 2011


[1]     The rules of most arbitration provider organizations give the arbitrator substantial power to manage and deal with discovery.  See, e.g., Rules R-21, 30 and 31, AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules, and Rule L-4, AAA Optional Rules for Large Complex Cases.  To the same expect, but more explicitly, is Section 17 of the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (adopted in Washington (see RCW 7.04A.170), as well as in many other states).  Moreover, commercial users of arbitration (and their general counsel), view overbroad discovery in arbitration as a significant, and expensive, negative.  See  Cutler, “Reclaiming the Promise of Arbitration,” KING COUNTY BAR BULLETIN (July 2011), and Protocols  for Expeditious, Cost Effective Commercial Arbitration (Stipanowich, von Kann and Rothman, eds.) (College of Commercial Arbitrators, 2010), available on line at www.thecca.net.  Experienced arbitrators tend to actively manage the discovery process so as to reduce the cost of arbitration and improve its effectiveness and efficiency.
[2]     See RCW 7.04A.150(1).
[3]     A key reason for objections at trial is to preserve one’s record for appeal.  Not only is there commonly no transcript of the arbitration hearing, there is very limited judicial review of an arbitrator’s award.  See 9 U.S.C. §10 (Federal Arbitration Act), Section 23 of the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act and RCW 7.04A.230.