2
Admin. for Children’s Services v. Jackson
OATH Index No. 156/08 (Oct. 11, 2007)
Child welfare specialist found to be unfit to perform the duties of her position due to mental disability; recommend placement on involuntary leave.
______
NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS AND HEARINGS
In the Matter of
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES
Petitioner
- against -
GLORIA JACKSON
Respondent
______
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOHN B. SPOONER, Administrative Law Judge
This is a disability proceeding referred by the petitioner, the Administration for Children’s Services, pursuant to section 72 of the New York State Civil Service Law. The petitioner alleges that respondent Gloria Jackson, a child welfare specialist, is mentally unfit to perform the duties of her position and should be placed upon an involuntary leave of absence.
At the hearing held before me on September 19 and 27, 2007, petitioner presented the testimony of respondent's supervisors and a psychiatrist, who found her unfit. Respondent testified on her own behalf, admitting the incidents testified to by the supervisors but insisting that she was being harassed due to her allergies.
For the reasons provided below, I find respondent unfit to perform her duties and recommend that she be placed on disability leave pursuant to Civil Service Law section 72.
ANALYSIS
- 2 -
In this case, petitioner seeks to place an employee on disability leave, alleging that she is unfit to perform the duties of her position. In support of this application, petitioner presented psychiatric evidence that respondent suffered from paranoia. It also offered evidence that respondent's performance of her job was severely compromised by her unfounded belief that her co-workers were torturing her with odorless sprays and invisible particles. Respondent admitted that she had been unable to work at her assigned location for four months, but nonetheless insisted that she could return to work if transferred. As discussed below, both petitioner’s and respondent’s evidence established conclusively that respondent is currently unfit to carry out the essential functions of her job.[1]
Respondent has worked for the City for 17 years as a child welfare specialist. For at least the last five years, she has worked in the child placement office, helping to place abused or neglected children into foster care. The proof here shows that respondent’s condition came to her supervisors’ attention in 2001, when respondent began complaining that her co-workers were spraying perfume at her when she was not looking and spying on her. In 2005, respondent was evaluated by Dr. Azariah Eshkenazi, a psychiatrist retained by petitioner. Dr. Eshkenazi wrote a report concluding that respondent was unfit due to a personality disorder, paranoid type (Pet. Ex. 3). Dr. Eshkenazi saw respondent again in 2006. He indicated that his diagnosis of a personality disorder, paranoid type had not changed. However, based upon statements by respondent’s supervisor and co-workers that respondent was performing her job adequately despite her condition, Dr. Eshkenazi concluded that respondent was fit (Pet. Ex. 2).
Dr. Eshkenazi met with respondent a third time on June 26, 2007. He commemorated much of the interview in a written report (Pet. Ex. 3), dated June 27, 2007. Respondent told Dr. Eshkenazi that her co-workers sprayed perfumes and chemicals in her direction in order to hurt her. She said that they also use listening devices to eavesdrop on her telephone conversations. She told Dr. Eshkenazi that her supervisors retaliated against one co-worker who befriended respondent by assigning him so much work that he developed carpal tunnel syndrome. Respondent said that she had not worked since May 17, 2007, and could not and would not return to her office. Based upon respondent’s statements and his review of other statements from respondent’s supervisors, Dr. Eshkenazi concluded that respondent was unfit in that she suffered from paranoia and paranoid personality disorder, had poor insight into her condition, and could no longer perform her job without psychiatric treatment (Tr. 9-12).
Respondent’s direct supervisor, Gary Cohen, testified that he has supervised respondent for five years and works close to her cubicle. He recalled receiving a number of complaints from respondent’s co-workers about respondent’s behavior. In April 2007, a co-worker named Bridget Johnson told Mr. Cohen that respondent accused Ms. Johnson of spraying chemicals at her.
On May 16, 2007, Mr. Cohen received a telephone call from a representative from a foster care agency. The representative complained about remarks made by respondent to him over the telephone. He told Mr. Cohen that respondent confided in him that her co-workers were spraying her with chemicals in order to make her sick (Tr. 36-37).
Mr. Cohen recalled a particularly disruptive incident which occurred on May 17, 2007. Late in the day, respondent suddenly opened an umbrella at her desk and kept it open for several minutes. Everyone, including Mr. Cohen, stared at respondent in amazement. When Mr. Cohen asked respondent why she had opened the umbrella, she said she needed to protect herself from particles falling down from a light fixture (Tr. 35-36).
Mr. Cohen sought guidance from his own supervisors as to how to deal with respondent’s behavior. A meeting was arranged with respondent, Mr. Cohen, and two of Mr. Cohen’s supervisors. At the meeting respondent explained that she needed to open the umbrella to protect herself from particles raining down on her from the light fixtures above. The supervisors told respondent to go home and, to date, she has not returned to work (Tr. 36; Leatherman: Tr. 57-58).
Employee Relations Specialist Farina Shariff testified that she met with respondent on June 13, 2007, when respondent came to the office to discuss letters notifying her she was considered absent without authorized leave (“AWOL”). Respondent asked Ms. Shariff about her status and Ms. Shariff told respondent that she was considered AWOL. Ms. Shariff told respondent that she could provide medical documentation to get approval for a medical leave. Respondent said that she had not been seen by a doctor and was not out for medical reasons. She said that she was being harassed and tortured by her follow employees at the worksite. She said that her co-workers were spraying perfume in her area, knowing that she was allergic. A custodian had placed chemicals in a light fixture and these chemicals would rain down on her. Respondent was adamant about not returning to work at the site to which she had been assigned and requested a transfer (Tr. 25-26).
Ms. Shariff sought guidance from the law unit about the transfer issue and was told that respondent needed to be actively working in order to apply for a transfer. Ms. Shariff told respondent that respondent could be placed on medical leave if she would provide medical documentation. Finally, Ms. Shariff told respondent to meet with Assistant Commissioner Beth Leatherman (Tr. 27).
Ms. Leatherman testified that, on June 13, 2007, she met with respondent to discuss her request for a transfer. In explaining her reasons for requesting a transfer, respondent spoke at length about problems at the workplace. She said that some co-workers used perfume which made her ill. They also sprayed chemicals and air neutralizers on the steps outside the office, in the lobby, on the time clock, and along the route to her cubicle. They used a cleaning fluid which made her ill and sprayed chemicals on her files when she was away from her desk. She insisted that at some time a maintenance worker installed a black box in an overhead light above her desk and this box radiated chemicals down on respondent, forcing her to use an umbrella to protect herself. Some of the staff wore listening devices to eavesdrop on respondent’s conversations. Respondent insisted that Supervisor Doris Ayala ordered employees to poison respondent and to spy on her (Tr. 62-63).
Respondent insisted that she was a very good worker who carried a heavier caseload than anyone else in the office. Despite her industriousness, she was “tortured” by supervisors and co-workers and could not return to work at the unit where she was currently assigned. Respondent said that she was very ill due both to her medication, which consisted of Claritin D and nose and eye washes, and the toxic air (Tr. 64). Respondent was permitted to go to her cubicle to collect her personal belongings and then left (Tr. 66). Ms. Leatherman took handwritten notes at this meeting and later typed up the notes in a memo for respondent’s file (Pet. Ex. 7).
Ms. Leatherman indicated that respondent’s request for a transfer was not approved for two reasons. Transfers were only approved where employees were actively working and respondent was not currently working and had, in fact, been absent without authorization since May 17, 2007. Ms. Leatherman was also convinced that respondent’s complaints about being poisoned and tortured were not grounded in reality and that respondent would continue to complain of the same things in any new work location. She noted that respondent had been relocated in the past based upon complaints about air quality or odors and the transfers had had little effect upon the frequency of respondent’s complaints (Tr. 71-72).
Supervisor Doris Ayala testified that she had never spoken harshly to respondent and had interacted with her only for a few months in 2002, when she temporarily supervised respondent. Ms. Ayala denied that she has ever worn scent or sprayed perfumes at respondent (Tr. 81-83).
Respondent testified at some length, repeating most of the statements attributed to her by Dr. Eshkenazi and the other witnesses. She described her allergies and sensitivity to cleaning agents and other chemicals (Tr. 98). She admitted virtually all of the incidents described in attachment A, including the May 17 incident in which she opened an umbrella and the remarks to outside contacts concerning her co-workers’ efforts to make her ill. Late in the afternoon on May 17, respondent was working at her desk when she noticed a “fine mist” of odorless chemicals falling on her from the fluorescent light fixture. Respondent admitted that she opened her umbrella to keep the mist out of her eyes. Respondent also insisted that she observed a co-worker at a nearby desk “pressing something” with a finger. Respondent believed that the co-worker was pressing a remote control which was activating a chemical dispenser in the light fixture above respondent’s desk (Tr. 106-07).
Respondent was certain that her supervisors and co-workers wished to make her ill so that she would quit complaining about her heavy and unfair work load (Tr. 111). In particular, respondent accused Mr. Cohen, Ms. Ayala, and Ms. Gatty of repeatedly wearing odorless chemicals which caused respondent headaches, burning eyes, and pain and even “blisters” in her throat (Tr. 100, 105, 113).
Respondent admitted that she has not worked since the May 17, 2007. Since then, she stated that she has been “recuperating” and has visited her allergist several times (Tr. 108). When asked whether she was currently able to return to work and perform her job duties, respondent stated that she could do the job but would not return to work because she had been “traumatized” by her co-workers (Tr. 119).
Respondent offered three doctor’s notes. On February 10, 2006, Dr. Ja Gu Kang, a specialist in internal medicine and cardiology, wrote that he saw respondent three times during the previous month for acute bronchitis, acute sinusitis, and acute rhinitis (Resp. Ex. B). On August 3, 2004, Dr. Jonathan Field, specializing in allergies, immunology, and asthma, wrote that he had been seeing respondent since 1995. He noted that respondent had complained about air quality at her work place and suggested that her work environment be “improved” to remove “allergens,” such as dust (Resp. Ex. C). On April 20, 2004, Dr. Field wrote that respondent was diagnosed with idiopathic environmental intolerance and was “extremely sensitive to airborne irritants” such as “perfumes, disinfectant aerosols and cleaning solutions” (Resp. Ex. D). Notably, respondent offered no evidence as to her psychiatric history or current psychiatric condition and made it clear that she had no intention of seeking psychiatric treatment.
In this case, the issue of respondent’s fitness was not truly contested. While respondent insisted on the one hand that she is fit to perform her job, she refused to work because she believes that virtually all of her co-workers are “torturing” her. As this tribunal has observed before, an employee who refuses to work because of delusional beliefs is, by definition, unable to perform her job duties and must be found unfit. See Housing Authority v. Turetsky, OATH Index No. 716/91 (May 1, 1991) aff’d, NYC Civ. Serv. Comm’n Item No. C92-72-1 (July 15, 1992) (employee’s refusal to perform work found to support finding of unfitness). The hearing evidence here left no doubt that respondent’s beliefs in this regard were delusional, and a product of the paranoia diagnosed by Dr. Eshkenazi.
None of the other evidence offered by respondent was persuasive in undermining Dr. Eshkenazi’s conclusion of unfitness. Respondent’s past evaluations (Resp. Ex. A) since 1999 have all been “good,” and her 2001 evaluation was “outstanding.” However, these evaluations are generally out of date and of limited value in assessing respondent’s current job performance. Respondent’s admission that she shared her paranoiac delusions with representatives from outside placement services and that she could not return to her current work assignment confirmed Dr. Eshkenazi’s determination that her mental problems prevented her from performing her job.