May 7, 2024 — Natasha Pecue started working as a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor in 2012. Her job was helping people with disabilities find employment. As a worker with a disability herself, she found fulfillment in her job. But nine years into her career with the Adult Career and Education Services-Vocational Rehabilitation (ACCES-VR) office in Clinton County, New York, she was suddenly placed on involuntary leave. What followed was a long, arduous journey that would ultimately end with victory, thanks to the support of PEF Field Representative Martin Blair.
In 2001, Pecue suffered injuries that caused physical disabilities which made mobility difficult, forcing her to use a motor scooter to get around. Pecue was hired by the state under a N.Y. Labor Law section 55-b appointment, which facilitates state employment for individuals with disabilities.
“I worked as a field counselor for my area,” Pecue said. “I was very proud of the agency I was hired with. I was very proud and very good at my job.”
Pecue worked in largely rural Clinton County, part of PEF Region 7. Her work assignments were always within 30 minutes of her home, close to the city of Plattsburgh. The closest ACCES-VR office was in Malone, an hour-and-a-half journey for Pecue, who uses a special vehicle to drive and has difficulty driving for more than an hour.
“Before the pandemic we were expected to come in once a week to the office,” Pecue said. “After the pandemic, for some reason, they changed it to two days a week.”
Driving to the office those two days a week became difficult for Pecue, especially when her condition worsened. In 2021, after surgery to address her symptoms, she returned to work with a temporary reasonable accommodation: That she be allowed to report from an established worksite in Plattsburgh, instead of the Malone office.
Although she was given the accommodation until the end of August 2021, when Pecue asked that it be extended and made permanent, she encountered resistance from the agency.
PEF fights back on her behalf
Decisions on reasonable accommodation requests at ACCES-VR must be rendered within 10 days of receipt of materials, according to agency policy. Pecue submitted her request on Aug. 31, 2021, and was still awaiting a decision in October of that year.
The response from the agency not only denied, but also placed her on involuntary leave under Civil Service Law section 72.5. Pecue was ordered to seek an Employee Health Service examination, forcing her to travel to Albany from her home in Plattsburgh.
The Civil Service Law cited by the State Education Department (SED, under which ACCES-VR falls) allows an agency to place an employee on an involuntary leave of absence if there is “probable cause” to believe that the employee would present a potential danger to others, to property, or would somehow interfere with operations.
Section 72 also provides that, if requested by the employee, a hearing can be scheduled following a motion to appeal the decision. For that, Pecue turned to PEF Field Representative Martin Blair.
“I remember feeling frustration and anger with the agency after she explained her case to me,” said Blair. “They mishandled this case from the beginning. They could have allowed her to keep working. We had just come off COVID where employees were working remotely, and she was doing fine.”
Blair said the accommodation process is supposed to be fluid, and subject to negotiation. He said SED put Pecue in a tough position by placing her on unpaid leave while seeking the examination and awaiting the hearing.
Since Pecue was already placed on leave when Blair and PEF got involved, his mission was to appeal the decision and prepare for the upcoming hearing.
The case took another negative turn when, pursuant again to Section 72, Pecue was terminated while awaiting the hearing.
PEF fought hard during the hearing, not only against SED’s assertion that Pecue was unfit to perform her duties and that she was a potential danger or interference, but also to prove that SED improperly handled her request for a reasonable accommodation.
“We did our best to pick apart the rationale that said she’s unfit for work,” Blair said. “We tried to expose the fact that the exam did not go in depth enough. They did not ask enough questions about the scope of her work. It was a ‘fast food’ examination.”
Hearings for Section 72 cases are not legally binding. Instead of a court order, hearing officers provide recommendations and typically the agency follows those recommendations.
While the hearing officer sided with the agency and recommended Pecue not return to work, he disagreed on the application of Section 72.5, stating that the law was inappropriately applied and Pecue deserved back pay.
“The hearing officer did seem to agree with us that she could have kept working at the satellite office at least while the hearing was going on,” Blair said.
SED did not fully agree with the decision, and said in concluding arguments that Pecue could not prove she was fit to continue working for SED. They did not award her backpay, and even asked that Pecue pay SED “an amount equal to the cost of the hearing and the resources expended.”
“This is one of the cruelest things I’ve ever seen an agency do,” Blair said. “She is a single mom, with a disability, in a wheelchair. We’re talking about an amount of about $5,000 to $7,000 after all the hearings were done.”
Time to appeal
Blair and Pecue did not take no for an answer and appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
In April 2023, Blair sent the appeal to the CSC arguing that Pecue was still fit for duty and the hearing officer’s decision should be upheld. Additionally, Blair argued that by improperly applying Section 72.5, improperly handling Pecue’s reasonable accommodation request, and using both as a means of termination, underscored Pecue’s entitlement to back pay and a restoration of accruals. PEF also argued that Pecue should be returned to work, as was Pecue’s wish in the first place.
The CSC maintained SED’s recommendation that Pecue was “unfit” to return to work. However, they did agree with PEF that SED’s overreach and misuse of laws and regulations should result in restitution.
“I’m glad they agreed with our position,” said Blair. “We were able to secure approximately $50,000 in back pay for Natasha. We also got service credits and accruals back, about seven months worth. And the credits go back to her pension, too.”
Pecue said while she isn’t sure if she would return to work at SED at this point, she was glad for the time she spent working and to have the union by her side during this ordeal. The union, she said, is important to her and always will be.
“When I was looking for work in this field, I had offers from different states. All over the country,” Pecue said. “The only reason I moved back to New York state is because I knew I would find a union.”
“I am honored that Martin invested so much time with me,” she said. “He earned this win. Martin is a wonderful asset to PEF.”