You are here: / / THE MILD PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ARBITRATOR ON AN EMPLOYEE WHO SEXUALLY...
,

THE MILD PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ARBITRATOR ON AN EMPLOYEE WHO SEXUALLY HARASSED A FELLOW EMPLOYEE VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY; MATTER REMITTED FOR IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY BY A NEW ARBITRATOR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the mild penalty imposed by the arbitrator in this place-of-employment sexual harassment case violated public policy. The matter was remitted for imposition of a penalty by a different arbitrator. The employee, Dominie, committed several egregious acts of sexual harassment targeting another employee which led to his pleading guilty to harassment second degree. The arbitrator reinstated Dominie’s employment without conditions:

… [T]he situation here does not involve a single act of misconduct as in Barnard College. In defined contrast, we have a series of four separate, escalating and outrageous sexual harassment incidents. The events are particularly troublesome considering that Dominie engaged in annual sexual harassment training since 2013 and, when confronted by his supervisors after the two January 2017 incidents, promised not to re-offend. The events that followed were even more egregious and rise to the level of criminal conduct, as memorialized in Dominie’s guilty plea to the harassment charge. Given the extremely inappropriate nature of Dominie’s conduct, we conclude that the arbitrator’s decision violates public policy. The award fails to account for the rights of other employees to a non-hostile work environment and conflicts with the employer’s obligation to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace … . The fact that the victimized coworker no longer worked in the office is hardly a mitigating factor. Nor is the penalty consistent with the arbitrator’s “significant concern” that Dominie failed to acknowledge his own wrongdoing. As such, we find that Supreme Court properly vacated the award as violative of the public policy prohibiting sexual harassment. We also conclude that the court was authorized to remit the matter to a different arbitrator for the imposition of a new penalty (see CPLR 7511 [d]). Matter of New York Off. for People with Dev.al Disabilities (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO), Third Dept 4-29-21

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S UNIQUE REQUIREMENT OF FULL EXPERT-WITNESS DISCLOSURE FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN; THAT WAS AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR AN UNTIMELY DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT MOTHER AND FATHER NEGLECTED THE NEWBORN WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR AMPHETAMINES AND DOCTOR-PRESCRIBED SUBUTEX; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD’S LOW BIRTH WEIGHT AND NEED FOR COMFORTING WAS RELATED TO AMPHETAMINES AS OPPOSED TO THE SUBUTEX; FATHER’S “HOSTILE” BEHAVIOR TOWARD PETITIONERS AND HIS REFUSAL TO SIGN A BIRTH CERTIFICATE WERE NOT VALID GROUNDS FOR A NEGLECT FINDING (THIRD DEPT).
Four-Month Statute of Limitations Starts Running When Administrative Agency’s Policy Change Is “Readily Ascertainable,” Not When Notice of the Policy Change Is Actually Received
THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO CONFLICTING MEDICAL OPINIONS, HERE DEALING WITH WEANING CLAIMANT FROM OPIOID PAIN KILLERS (THIRD DEPT).
District Attorney’s Former Status as a Judge Hearing Cases Involving the Department of Social Services Did Not Preclude the District Attorney from Issuing Subpoenas for Department Records
THE EMAIL EXCHANGES BETWEEN ATTORNEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A VALID SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EMAIL EXCHANGES EVINCED AN ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Courts Should Not Defer to Zoning Board of Appeals’ Determination of a Purely Legal Question (the Meaning of a Town Code Provision)
PURSUANT TO A MOLINEUX ANALYSIS, THE WEAPON-POSSESSION COUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED FROM THE MENACING AND ASSAULT COUNTS, IN WHICH DISPLAY OF A WEAPON WAS ALLEGED; THE SIROIS HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE VICTIM TO REFUSE TO TESTIFY, THEREFORE THE VICTIM’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE ACTION CONTESTING THE AMENDMENT TO THE BY-LAWS OF A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT HE OWNED THE...