In Morris v. State of New York, 34 Misc 3d 1243A, 950 N.Y.S.2d 609, 2012 NY Slip Op 50516U (Ct Cl, Marin, J.), the Court similarly rejected the State's argument that the CBA prevented the facility's administration from acting. There, the CO, assigned to Bayview, had a history of allegations of sexually aggressive behavior against Bayview inmates. While the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated, the investigator testified at her deposition that only that CO and two or three other officers at Bayview had multiple allegations of sexual misconduct lodged against them. The Court rejected defendant's argument that summary judgment was not appropriate because the prior allegations against the CO were unsubstantiated. The investigator asserted that DOCS could not just discipline a CO based on an allegation and the CO had collective bargaining rights, and thus the State could not take any corrective action until the employee was found guilty of employee misconduct. She further testified that less severe types of discipline could not be imposed in response to a sexual misconduct allegation, such as a change in the CO's general duties, because of the CO's collective bargaining rights. The Court noted that while the State "took the position that the collective bargaining agreement blocked the removal of the CO from proximity to female inmates . . . the arguments were general; they offered no specifics." Nor did defendant advance "an argument that moving one officer, while granted this is a smaller facility, would affect operations and therefore affect the security of the prison and the safety of officers and inmates. No effort was made to develop some form of workable resolution". Id. In Morris, id., the Court reviewed at depth and quoted the collective bargaining agreement that ran from April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2003 (Agreement) (and the prior one that ran from 1995 to 1999). The Court noted that: i) "Article 6 affirms DOCS' operational authority for the management of their facilities: Except as expressly limited by other provisions of this Agreement, all of the authority, rights and responsibilities possessed by the Employer are retained by it'"; ii) Article 8 is entitled discipline, and Section 2 describes that the disciplinary process is triggered by a written reprimand, loss of leave credits or other privilege, fine, suspension without pay, reduction in grade or dismissal from service; iii) Article 8, section 7, provides that: " Shift, pass day, job transfer or other reassignment or assignments to another institution or work station shall not be made for the purpose of imposing discipline.'". The Court continued and noted that: i) Article 8, Section 4 (a)(1) "gives DOCS the authority to suspend an employee when it determines that there is probable cause that such employee's continued presence on the job represents a potential danger to persons or property or would severely interfere with its operations'"; and ii) Sections 2 and 3 of Article 24 provide that employees select pass days based on seniority, and "the Employer shall have the right to make any job or shift assignment necessary to maintain the services of the department or agency involved. However, job assignments and shift selections shall be made in accordance with seniority provided the employee has the ability to properly perform the work involved.'"