Matter of Tierney v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 28 N.Y.3d 937 (2016)
A government employee is not entitled to additional compensation for performing duties outside their job title if those duties are consistent with their existing title and responsibilities and are not substantially different from the normal duties of the employee’s position.
Summary
Thomas Tierney, a Safety and Security Officer 2 (SS02) at a New York State psychiatric center, served as Acting Chief Safety and Security Officer (CSSO) for a period and sought additional compensation for the extra duties. He filed a grievance claiming he was performing out-of-title work. The state’s Department of Civil Service (DCC) and the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (GOER) denied his grievance, determining that the duties he performed were consistent with the SS02 title. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the determination was rational and not arbitrary or capricious, as the duties performed were not substantially different from those expected of an SS02.
Facts
Thomas Tierney, employed by the Office of Mental Health (OMH) as an SS02, was assigned to the Hudson River Psychiatric Center. When the CSSO position became vacant, Tierney served as Acting CSSO. He filed a grievance seeking additional compensation for the work he performed while acting in the CSSO role, listing specific duties he undertook. OMH sustained the grievance at step 2 but deferred the decision to DCC. DCC compared the duties of CSSOs and SS02s and concluded that the duties Tierney performed were consistent with his SS02 title. GOER adopted DCC’s findings and denied the grievance.
Procedural History
Tierney filed a grievance with OMH seeking additional compensation for out-of-title work. The grievance was reviewed through three steps, involving OMH, DCC, and GOER. The DCC and GOER denied the grievance. Tierney then filed an Article 78 petition in the trial court, which dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
1. Whether GOER’s determination, adopting the findings of DCC, that Tierney’s duties as Acting CSSO were consistent with his SS02 position, was arbitrary and capricious.
Holding
1. No, because the Court of Appeals found that GOER’s determination was supported by a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious.
Court’s Reasoning
The court applied the standard of review for administrative determinations, stating that such decisions must be upheld if they have a rational basis and are not arbitrary or capricious. Civil Service Law § 61 (2) restricts employees from performing duties of a position unless they are duly appointed to it. The court noted that the record supported the determination that Tierney was performing duties consistent with his SS02 title. The court emphasized that the out-of-title work, which involved his performance as an Acting CSSO, did not meet the standard for additional compensation because the duties were a natural extension of his SS02 role. The court highlighted that the duties in his grievance form did not reflect the key distinctive duties of a CSSO. The court found that the DCC’s comparison of the duties was rational, and that GOER’s adoption of the DCC’s findings was therefore appropriate.
Practical Implications
This case reinforces the deference courts give to administrative agencies in civil service matters. It clarifies that employees are not entitled to additional compensation simply for performing duties outside their specific title, especially if those duties are within the scope of their existing job description. The case underscores the importance of a comprehensive analysis of job duties when evaluating claims of out-of-title work. It implies that government employees must provide complete details of their additional responsibilities in their grievances in order to get additional compensation. The decision should guide how the lower courts analyze similar cases involving civil service employees. The ruling also suggests that if a government employee performs out-of-title work over an extended period, they are not automatically entitled to compensation; the critical inquiry centers on the nature of the work performed.