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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Issuing an unambiguous final decision indicating that all administrative appeals have been exhausted triggers the running of the statute of limitation

Issuing an unambiguous final decision indicating that all administrative appeals have been exhausted triggers the running of the statute of limitations
Matter of Janet Arnold, et al v Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp., 59 AD3d 1074

The Arnold decision by the Appellate Division, 4th Department, sets out the steps involved in processing a lawsuit challenging the layoff of employees.

Arnold filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 in an effort to annul the Erie County Medical Center Corporation?s [ECMCC] determination that created the position of senior technical assistant and abolished the position of computer operator.

The Appellate Division said that in order for the CPLR Article 78 proceeding to be deemed timely it must be commenced within four months after the administrative determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the individual.

When does the administrative determination become ?an agency final determination is final?

When the individual is aggrieved by the determination [, i.e., when] . . . ?the agency has issued an unambiguously final decision that puts the [individual] on notice that all administrative appeals have been exhausted" [see Matter of Carter v State of N.Y., Exec. Dept., Div. of Parole, 95 NY2d 267].

To determine this, said the court, it must first identify the administrative action or determination to be reviewed, and then it must then determine when individuals were first aggrieved by that determination.

In the Arnold situation, the relevant administrative determination for statute of limitations purposes is the County's determination that the computer operator position was not comparable to the newly created senior technical assistant position.

Although Arnold and her co-petitioners were notified by the New York State Department of Civil Service's Testing Service that the position of computer operator was not comparable to that of a senior technical assistant on October 31, 2006 and November 14, 2006 they never received any oral or written communication from the County concerning its determination to abolish their positions.

Accordingly, said the Appellate Division, County's determination was not final for statute of limitations purposes until Arnold and her co-petitioners were laid off from their positions on November 22, 2006.

Another issue in this action concerned the allegation that ECMCC acted in bad faith in terminating Arnold.

The decision notes that "It is well established that a public employer may abolish civil service positions for the purposes of economy or efficiency," citing Matter of Hritz-Seifts v Town of Poughkeepsie, 22 AD3d 493, ?but it may not act in bad faith in doing so ? nor may it abolish positions 'as a subterfuge to avoid the statutory protection afforded civil servants before they are discharged.'" The individual or individuals challenging the abolition of his or her position must establish that the employer in question acted in bad faith.

For information about PELP's e-book Layoff, Preferred Lists and Reinstatement of public employees in New York, go to: http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 10, 2010 (boomark / email).