OATH Recent Decisions

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

Personnel

ALJ Joycelyn McGeachy-Kuls recommended dismissal of an excessive absence charge against an eligibility specialist. Respondent did not deny that she was absent on the charged days but argued that her supervisor’s denial of her request to work remotely was unfair as her colleagues were approved to do so. The ALJ found that petitioner proved that respondent was absent without authorization on the charged occasions but did not establish that the absences were excessive per se because they were less than 50% of respondent’s assigned workdays. Petitioner also failed to prove that respondent’s absences had an adverse effect on the operations of her department. Dep’t of Social Services v. Santiago, OATH Index No. 2383/25 (Sept. 16, 2026).

ALJ Julia Davis recommended termination of employment for a motor vehicle operator who incurred multiple motor vehicle violations. The ALJ determined that respondent committed misconduct by incurring eleven motor vehicle violations, including for operating his agency vehicle in a bus lane, proceeding through a red light, speeding in a school zone, driving recklessly, and pursuing another driver after a collision, as well as for absenting himself from his tour of duty. The ALJ rejected respondent’s defense that the charges were brought in retaliation for respondent filing complaints against a supervisor, as there was a clear and independent basis for each of the charges. In assessing the appropriate penalty, the ALJ found that respondent’s alleged ignorance of certain traffic laws, lack of a prior disciplinary history, and the extra work he performed during the COVID-19 pandemic was insufficient to outweigh respondent’s long history of violations and his failure to correct his conduct despite multiple warnings. Dep’t of Environmental Protection v. Carter, OATH Index No. 1570/25 (Sept. 24, 2026).

In a default proceeding, ALJ Charlotte Davidson recommended termination of employment for a stock worker in the kitchen at a juvenile detention center who used threatening language toward a supervisor. Petitioner alleged that respondent threatened and used inappropriate language towards a fellow employee and engaged in behavior that threatened good order and discipline. The ALJ found that respondent threatened his supervisor by stating that “if we was in the streets, you would get a headshot,” while waving a knife. In assessing penalty, the ALJ noted that respondent’s threatening behavior occurred in a locked space while he was gesturing with a knife, the seriousness of respondent’s threats, and respondent’s failure to present any mitigation. Admin. for Children’s Services v. Reid, OATH Index No. 1188/26 (Sept. 11, 2026).

Worker Protection

In a default proceeding, ALJ Michael D. Turilli recommended $3,000 in employee relief and $3,550 in civil penalties for an employer who violated the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act. The ALJ found that respondent failed to pay her employee, a home health aide, for the use of sick time on six occasions, and failed to maintain a written paid sick time policy and distribute a notice of employee rights. The complainant, who was hired by respondent to care for respondent’s elderly mother, credibly testified that she was absent from work on six occasions due to illness or medical appointments and was not paid for any use of sick time during her employment. Although respondent was also charged with failing to provide information and records during petitioner’s investigation, the ALJ dismissed that charge due to the lack of any evidence at trial. Dep’t of Consumer & Worker Protection v. Levoy, OATH Index No. 2279/26 (Sept. 14, 2026).

Contracts

The Contract Dispute Resolution Board, chaired by ALJ Kevin F. Casey, denied a contractor’s petition seeking additional compensation for the removal and reinstallation of plaza arches at the West 79th Street Bridge and Rotunda Complex. The contract required the contractor to remove the plaza column stones, repair damaged concrete, and replace the column stones. The contractor was responsible for providing a temporary support system for the arches during column removal. The contractor claimed that due to unforeseen conditions, its subcontractor had to use alternate means and methods to remove the column stones, which led to temporary removal of all the arch stones. The Board found that dismissal was warranted because the contractor failed to submit a notice of dispute within thirty days of the agency’s unambiguous denial of the request for additional payment. On the merits, the Board also found that the contract required the contractor to repair and replace the columns, and its decision to remove and reinstall the arches, which the Contract required if needed, did not entitle it to extra compensation. Judlau Contracting, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transportation, OATH Index No. 1665/26, mem. dec. (Sept. 25, 2026).