OATH Recent Decisions

To subscribe to receive the monthly BenchNOTES newsletter by email, click here.

Personnel

ALJ Kevin F. Casey recommended a 30-day suspension after finding that a correction officer submitted a false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete report regarding a colleague’s use of force. The ALJ determined that the officer’s report referenced an “upper body control hold” but omitted material details regarding another officer’s use of force, including that the person in custody fell or was pushed to the floor. ALJ Casey did not sustain a companion charge that the officer failed to intervene when the same person allegedly engaged in self-harm. Although surveillance video shows the person moving his hand up and down his arm, it does not show any object in his hand, injuries, or reactions from two nearby officers to suggest the person engaged in self-harm. Although another officer, who was face-to-face with the person, reported seeing an unknown object and injury, that did not prove respondent saw the object or injury. In recommending a 30-day suspension, the ALJ noted that the evidence did not support a departure from the DOC Disciplinary Guidelines. Dep’t of Correction v. Parvez, OATH Index No. 2545/25 (Oct. 10, 2025).

ALJ Astrid B. Gloade recommended a 20-day suspension of a supervisor after she failed to perform her duties efficiently and properly supervise her employees. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”) proved that the supervisor sent a letter containing confidential information about an applicant to an incorrect childcare program. DOHMH also proved that the supervisor provided incorrect guidance to a subordinate and failed to meet deadlines on her supervisory responsibilities, such as approving applications, reviewing assignment logs, and finalizing performance improvement plans. The ALJ dismissed the remaining charges. The ALJ found that DOHMH’s request for termination of the supervisor was excessive given the proven charges and her lengthy and unblemished tenure. Instead, the ALJ recommended a 20-day suspension, noting that such a penalty follows the principles of progressive discipline and puts the supervisor on notice that she should modify her behavior. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Brooks, OATH Index No. 3239/24 (Oct. 28, 2025).

ALJ Orlando Rodriguez recommended termination of employment for an eligibility specialist, after petitioner, the Human Resources Administration (“HRA”), proved she failed to report to her work location for approximately four months, was absent without authorization, ignored supervisory directives, and acted aggressively and discourteously. Respondent disputed the charges, contending that they were a product of a broader campaign of bullying and harassment by managerial staff against her. The ALJ rejected this argument, finding that respondent’s references to her prior complaints of bullying and harassment, without more, were insufficient to establish that reporting to duty posed an imminent threat to her health and safety and therefore did not fall under the exceptions to the “obey now, grieve later” principle. The ALJ noted that while HRA only proved some of the charges, respondent’s prolonged unauthorized absence alone provided sufficient grounds to terminate her employment. Dep’t of Social Services (Human Resources Admin.) v. Gates, OATH Index No. 883/24 (Oct. 31, 2025).

Licensing

ALJ Seon Jeong Lee recommended lifting of the suspension of a taxi driver arrested for an off-duty incident. Petitioner, the Taxi and Limousine Commissioner ("TLC"), sought to introduce a five-page exhibit detailing respondent’s TLC license suspension history maintained in TLC’s internal database. The document included suspension dates, reasons for the suspensions, arrest information, and alleged criminal conduct or charges. Respondent moved to preclude this evidence under New York Exec. Law § 296(16), which makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for licensing agencies such as TLC to inquire about, or act upon adversely, any arrest or criminal accusation of an individual which was later terminated in favor of such individual. In accordance with § 296(16), the ALJ precluded the evidence of prior suspensions that were based solely on prior arrests that were dismissed and sealed. The ALJ found that the purpose of the statute was to protect an individual against the discriminatory effects of criminal accusations and prior suspensions stemming from arrests and criminal charges that are terminated in favor of a respondent should not factor into the risk analysis. Ultimately, the ALJ found that the evidence, including respondent’s Uber ratings, his other prior suspensions, and the criminal complaint, failed to establish respondent’s continued licensure posed a direct and substantial threat to public health or safety. Accordingly, the ALJ recommended lifting the suspension. Taxi & Limousine Comm’n v. Fazal, OATH Index No. 431/26 (Oct. 15, 2025), adopted, Comm’r Dec. (Oct. 20, 2025).