## Facts

- On December 16, 2010, the New York City Department of Correction (DOC) hired Jenny Castillo as a correction officer assigned to the night shift, subject to a two-year probationary period.
- Castillo received favorable recognition early in her employment, including letters/certificates of appreciation and media attention for saving a person’s life.
- Between September 13, 2011 and February 5, 2012, Castillo took 63 sick days. The absences were medically documented and attributed to surgeries on her left hand after an injury; DOC did not dispute the medical basis.
- On February 8, 2012, DOC notified Castillo that she had been designated “chronically absent,” which placed her under increased attendance scrutiny.
- Castillo later stated that many absences after the chronic-absence designation were connected to domestic violence, including interference by her abuser and safety concerns for her children.
- In April 2012, Castillo asked to transfer from the night shift to the day shift. DOC denied the request.
- Castillo disclosed to DOC’s Health Management Division (HMD) that she was a domestic-violence victim and feared leaving her children with her abuser at night. HMD referred her to counseling within DOC.
- The counseling service advised Castillo to seek an order of protection and indicated that her supervisor would be told of her domestic-violence status.
- DOC had a policy calling for domestic-violence victims to be referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) office to assess reasonable workplace accommodations, but DOC did not refer Castillo to EEO.
- On May 21, 2012, DOC marked Castillo absent without leave (AWOL) even though she notified her superior that she needed to appear in Family Court and provided a copy of a temporary order of protection.
- On August 22, 2012, DOC terminated Castillo’s employment during her probationary period, citing attendance-related concerns, including the chronic-absence status and the AWOL designation.
- Castillo commenced a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, New York County, against the Commissioner (Dora Schriro), DOC, and the City of New York, seeking to annul the termination and obtain reinstatement with back pay and benefits, relying in part on protections in the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) for victims of domestic violence.

## Issues

1. Whether DOC’s termination of a probationary correction officer was arbitrary and capricious or made in bad faith where DOC had notice (through its own HMD/counseling channels) of the officer’s domestic-violence status yet failed to follow its internal policy for EEO referral and accommodation review.
2. Whether, under the NYCHRL’s protections for domestic-violence victims, DOC could treat domestic-violence-related attendance problems as grounds for termination without considering reasonable accommodations such as a shift change.

## Decision

- The court granted the Article 78 petition to the extent stated in the decision.
- The court annulled DOC’s determination terminating Castillo’s employment.
- The court directed reinstatement and awarded back pay and benefits from the date of termination, subject to offsets and other terms set out in the court’s order.

## Legal Principles

- A probationary public employee may generally be terminated for almost any reason or no reason, but not for a constitutionally or statutorily improper reason, and not in bad faith.
- In an Article 78 proceeding, an agency action may be set aside when it is arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or reflects bad faith.
- The NYCHRL protects employees who are actual or perceived victims of domestic violence, and it is construed broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs.
- An agency cannot avoid responsibility by compartmentalizing knowledge within its own operations; notice received through internal health or counseling channels may be treated as notice to the employer for evaluating whether the employer acted in bad faith.
- An employer’s failure to follow its own written procedures designed to implement anti-discrimination protections—such as a mandatory referral to an office tasked with evaluating reasonable accommodations—can support a finding that a termination decision was arbitrary and capricious.
- Treating a documented court appearance to obtain a protective order as AWOL, despite notice and paperwork, may be evidence of unreasonable decisionmaking in the employment-termination process.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court, New York County, annulled DOC’s termination of probationary correction officer Jenny Castillo because the record showed DOC had notice of her domestic-violence circumstances through its own HMD and counseling resources, failed to follow its policy requiring EEO referral to consider reasonable accommodations (including a day-shift transfer), and relied on attendance events—such as an AWOL designation on a Family Court date supported by a temporary protective order—in a manner the court found arbitrary and capricious and indicative of bad faith under the NYCHRL’s protections for domestic-violence victims.


Castillo v. Schriro, 15 N.Y.S.3d 645 (2015)