Civil Service Law Section 75

This is the question that was posed in the case of petitioner versus Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority “MABSTOA”

The Appellate Division First Department decided that it was violative of public policy to allow the union to place an employee who was to be disciplined on union paid release time. The lower court

Matter of Town of Wallkill Police Benevolent Association

This Article 75 proceeding was brought about to vacate an arbitration decision that the Town of Wallkill violated the collective bargaining agreement. The issue at hand was whether the Town of Wallkill violated the collective bargaining agreement between it and the Town of Wallkill Police Benevolent Association

Transit Authority v. Wong

This Article 75 disciplinary proceeding was brought about by Petitioner, NYC Transit Authority, against Respondent, Sze Tung Wong, alleging incompetence and misconduct and seeking termination. Respondent was accused of being unable to complete tasks appropriate to his position and title of Computer Specialist II, being uncooperative and unwilling to complete assignments

Matter of Smith v. New York City Department of Education

This Article 75 case was brought about by Petitioner, Theodore Smith, to challenge the decision and penalty, a one-year suspension without pay. Petitioner was a tenured New York City physical education teacher who had multiple allegations of misconduct, insubordination, incompetence and dereliction. The Arbitrator trying

HRA filed Section 75 charges versus employee. Trial evidence revealed that the misconduct charged was the result of a mental disability. The charges were dismissed and HRA afforded chance to bring Civil Service Law Section 72 action versus employee.
Continue Reading Section 75 case dismissed- Misconduct due to Mental Disability Section 72 applies