Economico v. Village of Pelham, 50 N.Y.2d 120 (1980)
A tenured public employee can be terminated without a pre-termination hearing under Civil Service Law § 73 when the operative facts triggering the statute (continuous absence for one year or more due to non-service-related disability) are undisputed.
Summary
Economico, a tenured police officer, was terminated after being absent for over 18 months due to a non-service-related injury. He claimed a violation of due process because he wasn’t given a hearing before termination and that the collective bargaining agreement granted him unlimited sick leave. The court held that a pre-termination hearing wasn’t required because the operative facts of his prolonged absence and the nature of his disability were undisputed. The court also found that the collective bargaining agreement did not prevent the village from terminating employment under Civil Service Law § 73.
Facts
Economico, a police officer for the Village of Pelham since 1971, was injured in a non-work-related car accident in January 1976. He was initially placed on paid sick leave. In October 1976, he was ordered to return to work but refused, claiming he was unfit. The village then stopped his sick leave pay, but an arbitrator ordered the village to resume payments. After 18 months of absence, the village terminated Economico’s employment in August 1977 under Civil Service Law § 73.
Procedural History
Economico filed an Article 78 proceeding, arguing his termination violated due process and the collective bargaining agreement. Special Term granted him relief, but the Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the proceeding. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
1. Whether a tenured public employee is entitled to a pre-termination hearing under the Due Process Clause before being terminated under Civil Service Law § 73 for a continuous absence of one year or more due to a non-service-related disability.
2. Whether a collective bargaining agreement provision granting “unlimited sick leave with pay” prohibits a municipality from terminating an employee under Civil Service Law § 73.
Holding
1. No, because when the operative facts triggering the statute (continuous absence for one year or more due to non-service-related disability) are undisputed, a pre-termination hearing is not required to satisfy due process.
2. No, because the collective bargaining agreement provision, even if construed as a perpetual job security clause, cannot prevent an employer from exercising its right to terminate employees under the clear statutory requisites of Civil Service Law § 73.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Economico, as a tenured civil servant, had a property interest in his position, which is protected by due process. However, this interest is not absolute and can be limited by statute. The court emphasized the state’s interest in maintaining an efficient civil service. Section 73 of the Civil Service Law allows for termination after a year’s absence due to disability. The court reasoned that “[o]nce it was demonstrated that petitioner’s condition satisfied the objective criteria triggering application of section 73, his property interest in the position could be extinguished in the sound discretion of the appointing authority.”
The court stated that a hearing is required when the operative facts are in dispute. Quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334, the court noted that “where the facts underlying operation of the statute are in dispute the affected employee must be afforded an opportunity to be heard before that interest is finally extinguished.” However, in Economico’s case, the operative facts—his prolonged absence and the non-service-related nature of his disability—were undisputed. Economico even maintained he was still disabled.
Regarding the collective bargaining agreement, the court found it did not explicitly prohibit termination under § 73. Moreover, even if it did, the court stated that “public policy prohibits an employer from bargaining away its right to remove those employees satisfying the plain and clear statutory requisites for termination.” The court cited Matter of Cohoes City School Dist. v Cohoes Teachers Assn., 40 NY2d 774, 778 for the principle that a municipality may not surrender its ultimate appointing authority.