Matter of Civil Service Law Section 77, 7 N.Y.3d 171 (2006)
An award of back pay pursuant to Civil Service Law § 77 may not include pre-decision interest unless specifically provided by statute.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that research scientists who were unlawfully laid off from a state institute were not entitled to pre-decision interest on their back pay award under Civil Service Law § 77. The court reasoned that while the statute provided for back pay, it did not explicitly mention interest. Because waivers of sovereign immunity are strictly construed, and because the legislature carefully considered the components of back pay awards, the court declined to imply a right to interest where the statute was silent. This case highlights the principle that statutory remedies against the state are narrowly interpreted.
Facts
Petitioners, research scientists at Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI), were laid off. They challenged the layoffs in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court found the layoffs unlawful and awarded back pay with interest from the date each installment was incurred.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the scientists, awarding back pay with interest. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court’s judgment on other grounds but affirmed the award of pre-decision interest. The State appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, challenging only the pre-decision interest award. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order regarding interest.
Issue(s)
Whether an award of back pay pursuant to Civil Service Law § 77 may include pre-decision interest when the statute does not explicitly provide for it.
Holding
No, because Civil Service Law § 77 does not explicitly provide for pre-decision interest, and waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that interest is purely a creature of statute. Civil Service Law § 77 specifies what a claimant “shall be entitled to receive,” and makes no mention of interest. The court found that the statute’s reference to “salary or compensation” suggests that “compensation” refers to items other than salary. Because the legislature clearly delineated what could be deducted from back pay awards (e.g., unemployment insurance benefits), the court inferred that the omission of interest was intentional. The court also noted that because the statute allows recovery against the State, it constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, which must be strictly construed. As the court stated, “waiver of immunity by inference being disfavored.” (Sharapata v Town of Islip, 56 NY2d 332, 336 [1982]). The court rejected the argument that fairness required awarding interest, stating that it could not rewrite the statute. Finally, the court dismissed the argument that CPLR 5001(a) entitled petitioners to interest, as the suit was to enforce a statutory right, not for breach of contract or injury to property.