Felix v. New York City Dep’t of Citywide Admin. Servs., 3 N.Y.3d 501 (2004)
Failure to maintain residency within a municipality, as required by local law, results in forfeiture of employment and is distinct from misconduct, thus not automatically entitling an employee to a pre-removal hearing under Civil Service Law § 75.
Summary
Francisco Felix, a New York City employee, was dismissed after DCAS determined he violated the city’s residency requirement. Felix challenged his dismissal, arguing he was entitled to a pre-removal hearing under Civil Service Law § 75(1). The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that failing to maintain residency is a forfeiture of employment, not misconduct, and the “notice of and opportunity to contest the charge” procedure afforded to Felix satisfied due process. The court emphasized the distinction between residency as a qualification for employment and misconduct related to job performance.
Facts
Felix was hired by the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) in 1993. As a condition of his employment, Felix signed a form acknowledging that he was required to maintain residence in New York City. In 2002, DCAS suspected Felix resided in Nassau County. DCAS notified Felix of their suspicion and gave him an opportunity to contest the allegation, requesting documentation to prove his New York City residency. Felix initially provided minimal documentation and later submitted documents that appeared recently created and a W-2 form and tax return from 2000 with a Nassau County address.
Procedural History
Felix filed a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging his dismissal. Supreme Court granted his petition, finding he was improperly discharged without a pre-removal hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Felix’s non-residency was a forfeiture of employment or misconduct, thus determining his entitlement to a pre-removal hearing under Civil Service Law § 75(1)?
2. Whether the “notice of and the opportunity to contest the charge” procedure set forth under New York City Administrative Code § 12-120 satisfied due process?
Holding
1. No, because failure to maintain residency is a condition of employment distinct from misconduct, and therefore does not automatically trigger the protections of Civil Service Law § 75.
2. Yes, because the procedure provided Felix with adequate notice and opportunity to present evidence, satisfying due process requirements in this context.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that failing to maintain residency is separate from misconduct related to job performance. Residency is a qualification for employment, while misconduct involves deficiencies in job performance. Quoting Mandelkern v. City of Buffalo, 64 AD2d 279 (1978), the Court stated that “residence is a consideration unrelated to job performance, misconduct or competency. It is a qualification of employment.” Therefore, the procedural due process afforded under Civil Service Law § 75(1) (a pre-removal hearing) is not automatically required for dismissals under New York City Administrative Code § 12-120.
Regarding due process, the Court held that the procedure afforded to Felix was sufficient. Felix received notice of the allegations and had the opportunity to submit documentation to contest the charge. The Court emphasized that documents like tax returns and driver’s licenses do not require adversarial testing to determine residency. The Court found that Felix’s submissions, particularly the tax documents, demonstrated his non-residency, justifying his dismissal.
The court distinguished this case from situations involving misconduct, where a full evidentiary hearing might be necessary to resolve disputed facts. Here, the relevant facts were established through objective documentation. The Court emphasized that “[a] procedural rule that may satisfy due process in one context may not necessarily satisfy procedural due process in every case” (Bell v Burson, 402 US 535, 540 [1971]).