SanWorker Found Guilty Of Collection Shakedown; ALJ Recommends Firing

Sanitation Commissioner John J. Doherty has terminated a Sanitation Worker who solicited money from two homeowners to collect bulk garbage.

JOHN J. DOHERTY: Another 'businessman' on the payroll.

On Aug. 5, 2006, Brooklyn Sanman Jason Norris was assigned to collect trash from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. with a new partner. That day, the Sanitation Department received two complaints from homeowners who lived on East 55th Street between Aves. L and M that Mr. Norris had asked for money to remove trash.

Truck Bypassed Home

The first homeowner had excess garbage because he was renovating a new home with the help of his two sons. That morning, they placed at the curb for collection household garbage and bulk items including wood, an iron board and sheetrock. However, according to the homeowner, Mr. Norris's Sanitation truck never stopped at their house. The homeowner, identified by OATH only as Mr. Smith, approached the truck several houses down from his home.

Mr. Norris, a four-year veteran, told him there was too much garbage for the Sanitation Department to pick up. Mr. Smith offered $20, and Mr. Norris allegedly stated, "That's not going to do it."

Mr. Smith next offered $40. "That is not enough still," Mr. Norris allegedly replied. "You've got to do better than that." Mr. Smith then asked whether he had to pay $50 or $100. Mr. Norris said he also had to take care of his partner, which angered Mr. Smith.

A neighbor who witnessed the exchange urged Mr. Smith to call 311 to report the incident.

Mr. Norris told a different story of that morning. He said he was walking from house to house collecting garbage, and picked up a short can and bag from Mr. Smith's residence. He said he did not grab the acoustic tile, cement with chicken wire, a tar can, old toys and magazines from the house because he thought it might be commercial garbage. He said Mr. Smith offered to put the materials in the truck, which he told him was against the rules. Then, he said, Mr. Smith offered him $20, but Mr. Norris replied he could not take any money. The offer was bumped to $40, according to Mr. Norris, who said he again declined.

Top Officials Made Home Visit

Mr. Smith's 311 call prompted Sanitation Department officials to investigate that day. Deputy Chief Louis Lanni, Superintendent Charles Burge and Supervisor Terrance Winters went to the scene to investigate, where they saw material left at the curb. They talked to Mr. Smith, who was interviewed for the record.

The two superior officers went to lunch, but Mr. Winters kept working. He saw a house with a toilet bowl, some rolled-up carpet and other material in a cardboard box, despite the fact that this side of the street had been cleaned. The homeowner, identified by OATH only as Ms. Thomas, came outside with a phone in her hand. He asked if she had a contractor and whether she knew that she could only put six bulk pieces of garbage on the street that had not been generated by a contractor. Ms. Thomas replied that a Sanitation Worker had asked for $100 to remove the garbage and that she was actually in the process of calling 311 about the matter. Ms. Thomas testified that she offered $20 to take the carpet, but that allegedly was not enough for Mr. Norris.

Mr. Norris said that he took some items from Ms. Thomas's house such as a bookshelf and household garbage but did not take others because it was construction material. He said Ms. Thomas offered him $20 but he refused.

Homeowners More Credible

Administrative Law Judge Alessandra F. Zorgniotti said she believed the testimony of the homeowners rather than the Sanitation Worker, because they had no motive to lie. She recommended termination for Mr. Norris. "The purpose of barring the receipt of unlawful gratuities is to prohibit 'tipping' a public servant because it undermines the integrity of governmental administration," she wrote in her decision.

"Soliciting a bribe or gratuity for the performance of one's duties is an act of corruption that cannot be tolerated," she continued. "Such conduct leaves the public with a negative opinion of all city employees. As such, it necessitates a severe sanction, both to discipline the employee and to deter future similar conduct by other employees."