Relates to hearing officers

• Democratic1

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Robert Jackson says this is needed

Section 72 of the Civil Service law provides public employers with a process through which to seek a medical review when an appointing authority believes an employee is unable to perform the duties of his or her position due to a physical or mental disability, other than a disa- bility resulting from occupational injury or disease as defined in the workers' compensation law. Under current law, employees have 10 days from service of a notice by the employer to impose a leave of absence to request a hearing. Where a hearing has been requested, an independent hearing officer is appointed after agreement by the appointing authority and the employee. The hear- ing officer conducts the hearing and makes recommendations on the case. However, the determination by the hearing officer is not binding and the appointing authority is responsible for rendering a final determination within ten working days of the date of receipt of the hearing officer's report and recommendation. The determination on an employees' fitness to perform work-related func- tions due to mental or physical disability can have long-lasting conse- quences for such employee. It makes no sense for employers and employees to go through this process, deploy their time and resources to present evidence, and expend taxpayer monies, only to have the determination of the independent hearing officer ignored by the employer. The determination of an independent hearing officer for Section 72 proceedings should be binding on the employee and the employer. Allow- ing employers to overrule independent hearing officers on these fitness cases gives the appearance of impropriety and unfairness and increases the likelihood of time consuming and costly appeals by affected employ- ees.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.