Due-process-rights-of-healthcare-workers

Questions Presented The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to review Petitioners’ federal due process claims alleging that a New York State agency, the Justice Center, failed to provide Petitioners—both healthcare workers— with any sort of hearing before finding Petitioner Lynch guilty of “category one” sexual abuse and Petitioner Salu guilty of “category three” neglect, resulting in both being fired from their employment. In 100% of Justice Center cases, guilt (“substantiation”) is determined before any hearing is offered by the Justice Center. At a de novo hearing often 18 months or more thereafter, the Justice Center relies solely on hearsay evidence to adjudicate guilt in about 97% of its cases, even when credibility is at issue, thereby depriving the accused worker of the due process right to confront his or her accuser. Because the state courts routinely rubber-stamp Justice Center determinations on “substantial evidence” grounds, Petitioners first sought federal court review, which was denied resulting in this appeal. Recently the state court did review, and did rubber stamp, the Justice Center’s due processviolative adjudications against Mr. Salu and Mr. Lynch. Three questions are presented: 1. By declining inquiry into a State agency’s denial of due process to accused healthcare workers (e.g., the Petitioners), but instead deferring to the State court’s “article 78” administrative review procedures, did the Circuit Court abrogate its responsibility to protect the workers’ due process right to a pre-determination hearing, and right to confront the evidence against them at the much-later administrative appeal hearing? 2. Does a state agency violate the due process clause of the 14" Amendment by routinely adjudicating health care workers as guilty of abuse or neglect without affording them any kind of pre-determination hearing , with the agency adjudication usually resulting in immediate termination of the workers’ employment? 3. Does it violate due process for a state agency to routinely adjudicate accusations of wrongdoing on hearsay evidence alone (in about 97 percent of their adjudicatory hearings), denying healthcare workers the ability to face their accusers even when witnesses credibility is at issue?