The Nassau County Supreme Court has reversed the disciplinary suspension of a fire chief in New York state. While the case itself is of little consequence outside of the department and individuals involved, it serves as a good example of the problems that can arise when the elements of due process are ignored in a disciplinary matter.

Let’s start with the facts. Fire Chief Andrew Greig was suspended from the Glenwood Hook & Ladder, Engine & Hose Company, Inc. for “violating department By-Laws Article III Section (l) paragraph (a) for conduct unbecoming a member and creating a hostile work environment in the aggressive, harassing and intimidating manner.”

Quoting from the decision:

• Petitioner, who was Chief of the Department at the time, and its highest ranking operational officer, requested that Kaitlyn Papasidero (“Papasidero”), a firefighter, EMT, and secretary of Respondent, attend a standby at the High School football game at 2:00 p.m.
• Papasidero declined stating that she could not “make it” because she was going shopping with her cousin. Although she informed Petitioner that she was unable to attend the standby because she was going shopping, Papasidero returned to the firehouse at approximately 3:20 p.m. to “hang out” with other members.
• Later that evening, there was an emergency call for an “automatic alarm” at 10:49 p.m., which Papasidero responded to along with other members. When Papasidero returned to headquarters and walked through the bay, Papasidero heard Petitioner shout twice: “how was shopping.”
• Petitioner and Papasidero subsequently had an exchange of words during which it is alleged that Petitioner shouted, among other things: “you made up a bullshit excuse.”
• The charges also assert that Petitioner looked at Papasidero and “then looked at Farrell Sheridan and shouted “Good luck in November because this is what you will be dealing with everyone wants everything fucking handed to them.”
• Petitioner was subsequently suspended on or about October 7, 2024.
• In its Decision, the Committee determined “that at the time of the incident, Chief Andrew T. F. Grieg was on duty on Department property and was guilty of violating department By-Laws Article III Section (l) paragraph (a) for conduct unbecoming a member and creating a hostile work environment in the aggressive, harassing and intimidating manner he spoke to Firefighter/EMT Kaitlyn G. Papasidero on October 5,2024 at approximately 22:49 PM. He also violated By-Law Article III section (l) paragraph (a) for conduct unbecoming a member in the manner in which he spoke during this conversation to Firefighter/EMT Kaitlyn G. Papasidero in the use of profane and indecent language.”

Chief Greig filed an Article 78 action to challenge his suspension, alleging the department failed to follow its own procedures and in doing so violated his due process rights. Judge Danielle M. Peterson agreed, concluding:

• Respondent [fire department] does not contest its failure to adhere to its own Constitution and by-laws, and concedes that “the Disciplinary Committee was established in early November 2024 following the voluntary resignation of two Disciplinary Committee Chairpersons.”
• Moreover, the committee evidenced a lack of impartiality by assuming a prosecutorial role during the trial proceedings.
• As Petitioner correctly argues, nothing within the Respondent’s Constitution and by-laws allows the Committee to take on a prosecutorial function. Instead the Committee’s role is limited to “keep[ing] minutes of the trial and all evidence presented,” and “[a]fter hearing all the evidence and after giving all the parties an opportunity to present any witnesses or evidence on their behalf the committee shall decide in private the guilt or innocence of the accused.”
• Here however, instead of remaining neutral, a review of the hearing transcript indicates that the Committee, as opposed to the Papasidero, conducted the proceedings by deciding which evidence to present and which witnesses to call.
• The charges as drafted by Papasidero are also deficient as initially filed in that while they described the incident and detailed a verbal exchange of words between Petitioner and Papasidero, they failed to identify a specific rule that Petitioner allegedly violated.
• Upon review of the record and the submissions before it, the Court further finds that the Committee’s decision is arbitrary and capricious.
• Papasidero acknowledged in her testimony at the hearing that Petitioner’s comments were directed at her not because of her gender or any other protected characteristic, but rather because she declined to attend the standby.
• Although Petitioner was charged with using “profane and indecent language,” Papasidero admitted at the disciplinary hearing that she heard other members use the same profane language, however, these members were not brought up on charges.
• Thus, it appears the Petitioner was the subject of selective enforcement of these provisions.
• Lastly, the Court finds the measure of punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offense of yelling and sarcastically inquiring about Papasidero’s shopping trip “as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.”

With that, Judge Peterson reversed the discipline and ordered that Chief Greig’s record be expunged.

Those who have attended Managing Disciplinary Challenges in the Fire Service will recognize several due process issues mentioned in the court’s ruling. These include

• The adjudicator must be impartial (neutral). By assuming a prosecutorial role, the Grievance Committee abdicated its role as a neutral. This was a violation of procedural due process.
• The notice of hearing failed to inform Chief Grieg of the rules he was accused of violating. Many departments fail to distinguish between complaints about misconduct (which are essentially allegations that need to be investigated) and charges (which are formal allegations by the organization that specific rules have been violated). This lack of proper notice was a violation of procedural due process.
• Chief Greig was disciplined for swearing and yelling when others in the department were not disciplined for such conduct. Selective enforcement occurs when the department targets one employee for engaging in conduct, while ignoring the same conduct in others. This was a violation of substantive due process (arbitrary and capricious).
• The punishment was disproportionate to the infraction (a version of selective enforcement, premised on arbitrary and capricious conduct). This was a violation of substantive due process and typically is a violation of just cause as well.

Here is a copy of the decision.