Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Ordering a hiring freeze

Ordering a hiring freeze
In the Matter of Dutchess County Legislature, et al., v William Steinhaus, etc., 2008 NY Slip Op 08486, decided on November 5, 2008, Appellate Division, Second Department

In December 2007, in anticipation of a possible shortfall in the budget of the County of Dutchess, William Steinhaus, the County Executive of the County of Dutchess, issued Executive Order #2 of 2007 imposing a temporary freeze with respect to "all hiring for current and future vacant positions in county government."

On January 9, 2008, while the 2007 Order was still in effect, the Chairman of the Dutchess County Legislature appointed Frederick Knapp to the position of Assistant to the Chairman of the Legislature, and requested that he be added to the County payroll. The County Attorney, however, advised that request was "invalid," under authority of the 2007 Order.

In February 2008 Steinhaus issued Executive Order #2 of 2008 amending the 2007 Order by lifting the across-the-board hiring freeze and delegating to the County's Budget Director the authority to hold positions vacant on a "case by case basis" in light of "changing budgetary conditions."

The Dutchess County Legislature brought an Article 78 action ?in the nature of mandamus? seeking a court order to compel Steinhaus to add Frederick Knapp to the in the position of Assistant to the Chairman of the Dutchess County Legislature. Supreme Court rejected the County Executive?s motion for summary judgment and Steinhaus appealed only to have the Appellate Division affirm the lower court?s ruling.

The Dutchess County Charter establishes the County Executive as the "chief budgetary officer of the County" and the Dutchess County Administrative Code, provides that the County Executive "shall maintain control at all times over the expenditures of every unit of County government."

The Appellate Division ruled that the hiring freeze ? a remedial action -- was valid because it applied temporarily across all units of County government and "merely temporarily extended the time period during which the positions would remain unfilled."

However, said the court, the Dutchess County Charter vests the County Legislature, not the County Executive, with the authority to "establish or abolish positions of employment and titles thereof." By issuing the 2008 Order, Steinhaus sought not only to make unilateral modifications to the budget, but also to delegate to the Budget Director the authority to, in effect, abolish, as a matter of discretion, vacant budgeted positions by refusing to fill them.

Accordingly, said the court, the 2008 Order ?ran afoul of the Dutchess County Charter by attempting to delegate discretionary power[to the Budget Director] that the County Executive did not himself possess.?

In an earlier case, Caputo v Halpin, [Decided with Romaine v Halpin and Catterson v Halpin], 78 N.Y.2d 117, the Court of Appeals considered the question of a County Executive imposing a hiring freeze with respect to the filling of vacant positions with the offices of other elected officials. The freeze was imposed in order for the County to have a "balanced budget."

Clearly a County Executive may do so with respect to those positions under his direct authority.

In Caputo the Court of Appeals, held that a County Executive may also prevent the filling of vacancies in the offices of other elected county officials such as the County Comptroller, the County Clerk and the County's District Attorney where there is some basis in law, rule or regulation for such action to be taken.

The Court concluded that under the Suffolk County Charter and Administrative Code, the County Executive, as the County's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Budget Officer, was empowered to take such actions "not inconsistent with the Charter and Code as were necessary to fulfill his responsibilities, including imposing a hiring freeze."

Again, a budget crisis was the underlying reason for the freeze. Other aspects of the County Executive's spending reduction plan included a five-day voluntary/mandatory furlough, an early retirement program, personnel layoffs and reductions in departmental appropriations. When Suffolk County Executive refused to approve filling vacancies in the Offices of the County Clerk, the County Comptroller and the District Attorney, they sued.

In deciding Caputo, the Court of Appeals referred to its decision in Slominski v Rutkowski, 62 NY2 781. This case concerned similar issues involving the Erie County Executive. The Court said that despite the lack of an express provision granting the Suffolk County Executive authority to order temporary hiring freezes, a power enjoyed by the Erie County chief executive officer, the rationale in Slominski was applicable in the Suffolk County situation. It ruled that "the very broad powers granted the Suffolk County Executive are sufficiently similar to those granted the Erie County Executive in Slominski to render that case essentially indistinguishable."

The full text of the Steinhaus decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_08486.htm

The full text of the Caputo decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/search/display.html?terms=appeal&url=/nyctap/I91_0121.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on November 12, 2008 (boomark / email).