84 N.Y.2d 665 (1994)

r
r

Civil Service Law § 71 allows for termination of an employee after a cumulative one-year absence due to an occupational injury, which is a rational policy that does not violate equal protection or due process.

r
r

Summary

r

Two state employees, Allen and Spiegel, were discharged after being absent for a cumulative year due to occupational injuries. They challenged their terminations, arguing that Civil Service Law § 71 requires a continuous one-year absence before termination is allowed, not a cumulative one. Allen also claimed an equal protection violation because employees with non-occupational injuries are terminated only after a continuous one-year absence under Civil Service Law § 73, and a due process violation in the termination procedure. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that the Civil Service Department’s interpretation of § 71 was rational and did not violate equal protection or due process guarantees.

r
r

Facts

r

r

r
• Allen and Spiegel were state employees.

r

• Both employees were absent from work due to occupational injuries.

r

• They received letters stating they would be terminated after accumulating one year of absence under Civil Service Law § 71 and 4 NYCRR 5.9.

r

• Throughout their absences, they received workers’ compensation benefits.

r

r

r
r

Procedural History

r

r

r
• Allen and Spiegel filed separate CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging their terminations.

r

• Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the respondents’ interpretation of § 71.

r

• The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s decisions.

r

• Allen appealed as of right, and Spiegel was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

r

r

r
r

Issue(s)

r

r

r
1. Whether the Civil Service Department’s interpretation of Civil Service Law § 71, allowing termination after a cumulative one-year absence, is rational.

r

2. Whether the different treatment of employees with occupational injuries (Civil Service Law § 71) versus non-occupational injuries (Civil Service Law § 73) violates equal protection.

r

r

r
r

Holding

r

r

r
1. Yes, because the agency’s construction is supported by a comparison of section 71 and section 73, which uses the term “continuous” in connection with the measurement of leaves of absence.

r

2. No, because the different treatment is rationally related to the state’s interest in an efficient civil service and does not violate equal protection guarantees.

r

r

r
r

Court’s Reasoning

r

r
The Court reasoned that the Civil Service Department’s interpretation of Civil Service Law § 71 was rational, supported by the difference in language between § 71 and § 73 (which uses