Matter of Henly v. D’Apice, 68 N.Y.2d 813 (1986)
Provisional employees in New York generally lack a right to reinstatement or back pay, even if their termination is in bad faith, unless specific statutory or constitutional violations are present.
Summary
This case addresses whether a provisional employee of the State Division of Probation is entitled to reinstatement and back pay after a jury found he was discharged in bad faith. The New York Court of Appeals held that provisional employees, appointed under Civil Service Law § 65, generally do not have a right to reinstatement or back pay upon termination, regardless of the employer’s motive. The court emphasized that provisional appointments are temporary and do not confer the same rights as permanent employment, unless a constitutional or statutory violation occurred during the termination.
Facts
Henly was employed as a provisional employee with the State Division of Probation. He was subsequently terminated from his position. Henly challenged his termination, alleging it was done in bad faith. A jury determined that Henly’s discharge was indeed in bad faith.
Procedural History
Henly initiated an Article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement to his position and back pay. The Appellate Division ruled that Henly was not entitled to reinstatement or back pay, despite the jury’s finding of bad faith discharge. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether a provisional employee, terminated in bad faith, is entitled to reinstatement and back pay.
Holding
No, because appointments made under Civil Service Law § 65 are provisional and do not grant an expectation of tenure or rights typically associated with permanent employment. Provisional employees can be terminated at any time without charges, reasons, or a hearing, unless the termination violates a constitutional provision or statute.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the nature of provisional appointments under Civil Service Law § 65. The court stated, “Appointments made pursuant to Civil Service Law § 65 are provisional in nature; provisional employees have no expectation of tenure and rights attendant thereto except under the limited circumstances specified in Civil Service Law § 65 (4)… and therefore they may be terminated at any time without charges preferred, a statement of reasons given or a hearing held.” The court distinguished provisional employees from permanent employees, emphasizing the lack of job security for provisional appointees. The court acknowledged that other remedies may be available if the termination violates a constitutional provision or statute but found those remedies (reinstatement and back pay) were not applicable in this case. The court cited previous cases such as Matter of Becker v New York State Civ. Serv. Commn., Matter of Haynes v County of Chautauqua, Matter of Riggi v Blessing, Matter of Benon v LaGuardia, Ranus v Blum, and Matter of Brathwaite v Manhattan Children’s Psychiatric Center to support its conclusion that provisional employees lack the same protections as permanent employees.