Prue v. Hunt, 78 N.Y.2d 364 (1991)

Due process requires that a civil servant facing termination under Civil Service Law § 73 for disability-related absence receive pre-termination notice and an opportunity to be heard, even if a post-termination hearing is also provided.

Summary

Prue, a police officer, was terminated under Civil Service Law § 73 after being absent for over a year due to an injury. He was offered a post-termination hearing but argued he was entitled to a pre-termination hearing. The court held that under Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, due process requires pre-termination notice and an opportunity to respond before a civil servant is terminated for disability-related absence under § 73. This requirement stems from the potential for erroneous discharge and the need for discretion in determining an employee’s ability to perform their duties. The pre-termination hearing need only provide the employee with an explanation of the charges and a chance to present their side of the story, balancing the employee’s interests with the employer’s administrative burden.

Facts

Prue, a 19-year veteran police officer, was injured in a non-work-related accident and was unable to perform his duties. After exhausting his paid leave, Prue requested reinstatement, submitting a doctor’s note stating he could perform a desk job (which he had previously held as PBA President). His request was denied, and he was terminated under Civil Service Law § 73 due to his continuous absence.

Procedural History

Prue commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding contesting his termination. The Supreme Court upheld the termination, finding the offered post-termination hearing sufficient. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Loudermill requires a pre-termination hearing, superseding the prior holding in Matter of Economico v. Village of Pelham. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal to address the impact of Loudermill on the pre-termination hearing requirement.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Federal Due Process Clause requires a pre-termination hearing for civil servants terminated under Civil Service Law § 73 due to disability-related absence.
2. If a pre-termination hearing is required, what procedural formalities are mandated by Federal due process?

Holding

1. Yes, because the potential for erroneous discharge and the discretionary nature of § 73 terminations necessitate a pre-termination opportunity for the employee to respond.
2. Due process requires only pre-termination notice and an opportunity to respond, either in writing or in person, because post-termination review is available, and the issues are not overly complex.

Court’s Reasoning

The court relied heavily on Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, which established that public employees with a property interest in their employment are entitled to a pre-termination hearing. The court reasoned that Prue’s termination implicated contested questions regarding his physical condition and ability to perform a desk job, which could have influenced the discretionary decision to terminate him under § 73. Citing Loudermill, the court stated that “the only meaningful opportunity to invoke the discretion of the decisionmaker is likely to be before the termination takes effect.”

The court emphasized that the pre-termination hearing need not be a full evidentiary hearing but should provide the employee with an explanation of the grounds for discharge and an opportunity to present their side of the story. This balances the employee’s due process rights with the employer’s administrative burden. The court found no need for greater procedural formality than required in Loudermill, given the availability of post-termination review and the relative simplicity of the issues involved. The court concluded that Section 73, as interpreted to require pre-termination notice and opportunity to be heard, is not facially unconstitutional.