McCormick v. New York City Civil Service Commission, 70 N.Y.2d 979 (1988)

A court reviewing a civil service commission’s modification of a penalty can only reverse if the modified penalty is so disproportionate to the offense, considering all circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.

Summary

McCormick, a Sanitation Department employee, was initially dismissed for violating sick leave policies. The New York City Civil Service Commission reduced the dismissal to a 44-day suspension. The court, applying the “shocking to one’s sense of fairness” standard from Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., found the modified penalty too lenient. The court reversed the Appellate Division order and remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court with instructions to send it back to the Civil Service Commission for a more appropriate penalty. This case clarifies the limited scope of judicial review over administrative penalties.

Facts

Appellant McCormick was terminated from his position as an employee of the New York City Sanitation Department due to violations of the department’s sick leave policies.

Procedural History

The New York City Civil Service Commission, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 76, reviewed the dismissal penalty and modified it to a 44-day suspension. The case then went to the Appellate Division, and ultimately to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the New York City Civil Service Commission’s modification of McCormick’s dismissal to a 44-day suspension was so lenient as to be