Joel Stashenko, New York Law Journal
August 7, 2015

A judge ordered a probationary corrections officer who was fired for “chronic absences” to be reinstated after deciding that her repeated complaints of domestic violence were ignored by the New York City Department of Correction.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan said the agency’s actions provided “ample” evidence of bad faith before it terminated Jenny Castillo. Its actions ranged from denying her “hardship” request not to work the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift so she could care overnight for the five children in her care, to marking her AWOL for the day she was in Family Court at a hearing on an order of protection she sought against her abuser, the judge said.
Castillo was terminated as of Aug. 22, 2012. But Ling-Cohan said the agency was in a position to have known that Castillo might be in a domestic violence situation as early as April 10, 2012, when she reported a back injury to the Department of Correction’s Health Management Division (HMD) that she said was caused by her abuser.

Ling-Cohan also detailed in Matter of Castillo v. Schriro, 104502/12, other instances where the department was on notice of the domestic situation but apparently did nothing.
They included the three “progress notes” in her health division file in April and May 2012 confirming her abuse victim status; referrals as a domestic violence victim as early as April 23, 2012, to the Correction Assistance Response for Employees (CARE) unit; and a letter that Castillo said she delivered in person to her bosses on May 16 from Safe Horizon detailing her situation.
On April 30, the health division deemed Castillo unqualified psychologically to possess a firearm after she told the medical staff about the domestic abuse.

“In fact,” Ling-Cohan wrote, “it appears that the only ‘accommodation’ respondents made in response to petitioner divulging her painful secret of domestic violence, which affected her well-being and that of the five children under her care, was to take away her gun.”
The judge added that “incredibly,” an agent for the correction department sent to check up on her at 10:15 p.m. on a day she was absent from work, believed Castillo’s abuser when he said she was at church. Castillo said she was, in fact, at home.

Castillo argued that she missed work because her abuser hid her jail ID, so she could not report to work; because she was afraid to leave the children with him overnight or; after she secured the order of protection, she could not find overnight arrangements to care for the children in her home.
She said she was also in fear for her own safety and that of the five children-her three children and two grandchildren-due to the verbal threats of violence.

The city maintained that its information about Castillo’s domestic situation was “limited” and that, at any rate, it has liberal authority to dismiss employees who are on probationary terms.
[Description: Justice Ling-Cohan]Justice Ling-Cohan

Ling-Cohan countered that protections in New York City Human Rights Law against discrimination based on disability or status as a domestic violence victim apply to probationary employees. The law puts the burden on the employer to show it tried to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to the affected employee’s circumstances, something the Department of Correction did not do for Castillo, she said.
As far as the arguments about not being apprised of Castillo’s situation, Ling-Cohan said Castillo proved through unchallenged documentation that the Department of Correction and its divisions were adequately informed.

The judge also said the assistant deputy warden who signed off on Castillo’s termination had “unfettered” access to all of Castillo’s records, including those with the agency’s health division and CARE program.

Ling-Cohan said Castillo made a valid claim for a violation of her human rights based on disability with her argument that the department did not recognized the 63 days she missed from September 2011 to February 2012 stemmed from two surgeries she had to repair injuries she suffered when a kitchen cabinet fell on her hand.

Castillo said she was unfairly placed on “chronic absence” status upon her return to work based on earlier absences.

Ling-Cohan ordered Castillo to receive back pay to the date she was terminated as well as benefits and seniority.

Castillo said she was hired as a provisional correction officer subject to a two-year probation period on Dec. 16, 2010, She received a letter of appreciation from the department on May 6, 2011, and a certificate of appreciation on Aug. 7, according to the decision.

Castillo was also cited in a Feb. 27, 2011, New York Daily News story for having saved the life of a choking man on whom she performed the Heimlich maneuver outside a Queens bank.
Assistant Corporation Counsels Stephen Pischl and Anika Bent-Albert defended the Department of Correction.

A spokesman for the corporation counsel’s office said Wednesday the city will “abide by the court’s decision.”

Mercedes Maldonado, senior attorney for Isaacs, Devasia, Castro & Wien LLP in Manhattan, said she was “very happy” and hoped for Castillo’s prompt return to the job.

“This woman really needs to get back to work,” Maldonado said.

Jenny Castillo will get back her job as a correction worker.

A judge hammered the city Correction Department for unfairly firing a probationary employee who missed work due to injuries she suffered from her abusive husband.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ordered the city to reinstate Correction Officer Jenny Castillo and give her $84,000 in back pay.

“I got my life back,” the 40-year-old mother of five told the Daily News on Thursday. “My job as a correction officer was not a job. It was a career. It was my dream job.”

Castillo said she repeatedly told her bosses about her “out-of-control” husband and asked for scheduling accommodations.

During one fight, he wrapped his hands around her neck and tried to strangle her, court papers say. Another time, he hid her badge so she couldn’t go to work. He also threatened to slash her face with a broken bottle and repeatedly talked of killing her, according to legal documents. She was forced to miss 63 days of work, partially due to a back injury she suffered after he slammed her into a wall, records show.

At one point, jail bosses deemed Castillo AWOL after she attended a mandatory Family Court hearing concerning a restraining order against her husband, court papers show. Callous jail honchos placed her in a “chronic absence” program and fired her on Aug. 22, 2012.

“I didn’t have any hope,” Castillo recalled.

The department’s “discriminatory and bad faith” firing “shocks the conscience” and violated the department’s internal rules for domestic violence victims, Ling-Cohan ruled on July 28.

As the case snaked its way through court, Castillo lost her home in Jamaica, Queens, and at times barely had enough money to feed her family, she said.

Her lawyer hopes the decision sends a message to the department.

“It’s high time that the Department of Correction stopped punishing people for absences that are medically documented or punishing employees who are victims of domestic violence,” said Mercedes Maldonado of the firm Koehler and Isaacs.

Jail officials didn’t respond to a request for comment.

THE CHIEF-LEADER
Claimed Illegal Retaliation

Judge Dismisses Rival’s Suit Against COBA Head

Updated: 4:01 pm, Mon Jul 13, 2015.
By MARK TOOR

A State Supreme Court Justice has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association President Norman Seabrook and the union by a dissident board member.

“At this point, the actions and inactions complained of in the petition amount to the internal workings of a union,” State Supreme Court Justice Carol E. Huff said in a three-page decision issued July 1.

‘A Rancorous Dispute’

COBA Corresponding Secretary William Valentin claimed in the Article 78 petition that Mr. Seabrook had unlawfully deprived him of his elected position and that the union had failed to consider countercharges he made against the union head. “Both Valentin and Seabrook made numerous accusations against each other in what is clearly a rancorous internal dispute,” Justice Huff wrote.

She agreed with COBA’s attorneys that Mr. Valentin’s suit should be dismissed because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies within COBA before bringing the Article 78 petition. Mr. Valentin’s lawyers had argued that “exhaustion of remedies is not required because it would be futile for him to attempt them,” the decision said.

But Justice Huff ruled that “Valentin has not established that following COBA procedure would be futile, or even that he has been deprived of his office, as opposed to being deprived of certain optional benefits. He has also failed to prove that his charges against Seabrook are not being pursued in accordance with COBA rules.”

Bharara on the Case

Both Mr. Valentin and Mr. Seabrook said that U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara had opened an investigation of COBA based on allegations by Mr. Valentin that the union president had invested $10 million without the executive board’s approval. Mr. Seabrook argued that he did not need such approval.

He said in a statement about Mr. Valentin’s suit, “Bringing these meritless claims was a waste of time and money, not just for our hard-working members, but also for the taxpayers of this city and state. We’re glad the judge agreed that they are without merit. Hopefully, our victory today will put this issue behind us and send a message to the person behind these frivolous claims that the matter is closed.”

Mr. Valentin said in an interview that he did not consider the dispute concluded. He presented a May 18 letter from the head of the union hearing committee on his case, Valerie Flake, in which she said, “After a full investigation, reviewing the charges and supporting documents, the by-law provisions allegedly violated, and having had interviews with relevant witnesses, the committee finds that there is not sufficient evidence on any of these charges to hold a hearing.”

In a second letter dated July 9, she said, “The hearing committee has no further role to play in this matter.”

Reloading for New Round

So, he said, “COBA did rule on the issue,” and he did indeed exhaust his union remedies. He said he would re-file the Article 78 petition. “I’m still in the fight,” he said. “This is still going to continue.”

Mr. Valentin filed his Article 78 petition in April. He said in February that Mr. Seabrook fired him from the executive board last winter when he tried to obtain a copy of the union’s membership list, which he said he was responsible for updating.

The COBA president said at the time that Mr. Valentin had sought not only the membership list but also confidential information about Correction Officers, including their Social Security numbers. Mr. Seabrook said that when he did not comply with the request for the list, Mr. Valentin asked a union employee to give him a copy and “don’t tell Norman.”

At that point, Mr. Seabrook said, he determined Mr. Valentin was no longer trustworthy and revoked his release time, sending him back to duty in the jails. Mr. Valentin remains an officer of the union, Mr. Seabrook said.

Valentin’s Rebuttal

In his lawsuit, Mr. Valentin denied seeking confidential information. He said in his internal complaint to the union that Mr. Seabrook revoked or took back his union credit card, E-Z Pass, mobile phone, computer account and office computer. He said he was no longer notified of executive-board meetings.

He then filed charges with the union and the Article 78 petition on which Justice Huff ruled.

Click to read full article

Former Rikers Island correction officer fighting to get job back after allegedly being shot in face by jail boss husband, then fired
BY CHELSIA ROSE MARCIUS , RICH SCHAPIRO
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Friday, April 24, 2015, 2:30 PM

SUSAN WATTS/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Janine Howard, here with Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association head Norman Seabrook, is suing the Correction Department to get her job back.

First she was shot in the face — allegedly by her jail boss husband. Then she was fired from her job as a Rikers Island correction officer.
Now Janine Howard, 40, is fighting to get back on the Correction Department payroll.
“I feel victimized,” the Long Island mother said Friday in her first interview. “I feel my safety, security can just be taken from me at any time.”
Howard’s nightmarish ordeal began on Dec. 2013 when she was shot by Rikers Island Capt. Brian Martin, 37, during an argument inside their Roosevelt home, prosecutors say.
Martin has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder charges.
The shooting left Howard with shattered bones in her face and a bullet fragment in her neck.

SUSAN WATTS/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Howard was shot in the face by husband and jail boss Brian Martin, and then just a year later was fired with no reason being given.

But what came afterward was almost as painful, Howard says.
A Rikers Island supervisor showed up at her house without warning on Dec. 23, 2014 — and told her she was being fired. No reason was given, Howard said.
At the time, Howard was out sick and on restrictive hours.
“I had a small child,” added Howard who has a five-year-old daughter from a prior relationship. “I thought it was a good career. The job is difficult but I thought I could do it.”
Howard is suing the Correction Department to get her job back — an action that was initiated by Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association head Norman Seabrook.

SUSAN WATTS/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Howard, 40, said that she “felt victimized” by the Correction Department, as they let her go without ever giving her a reason.

“I feel my safety, security can just be taken from me at any time.”

“Miss Howard is a victim of a horrendous crime,” said her lawyer Mercedes Maldonado.
“Norman Seabrook and the Correction Officers Benevolent Association executive board instructed me to bring this litigation, get her job back, and that’s what we intend to do.”
Seabrook said Howard has been victimized twice.
“For this man to think that he can abuse her, attempt to murder her … is unacceptable,” Seabrook added.
“For the Department of Correction to turn around and terminate her services the day after she was supposed to be off probation sends a very clear message that they don’t seem to have feelings of caring about their employees.”
The Correction Department did not immediately return a request for comment.