Matter of Johnson v. Katz, 68 N.Y.2d 649 (1986)

An unclassified public employee is entitled to a pre-termination opportunity to respond to charges, coupled with post-termination review procedures, but is not necessarily entitled to a full pre-termination hearing under Civil Service Law § 75.

Summary

This case addresses the due process rights of an unclassified employee who was terminated for misconduct. The Court of Appeals held that the employee received sufficient due process because she had a pre-termination opportunity to respond to the charges against her and access to post-termination review. The court found that terminating the employee for leaving a young child at the wrong location was not disproportionate to the offense and declined to convert the proceeding into a breach of contract action, as the employer would be entitled to summary judgment.

Facts

The petitioner, an unclassified employee, was responsible for transporting children. She let a four-year-old child off at the child’s home instead of the babysitter’s house, which was two miles away. She failed to check the route sheet or the tag worn by the child, both of which indicated the correct drop-off location. The employee admitted to this error during a hearing.

Procedural History

The employee was terminated. She challenged the termination, arguing she was entitled to a pre-termination hearing under Civil Service Law § 75. The lower courts ruled against her claim. She appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether an unclassified employee is entitled to a full pre-termination hearing under Civil Service Law § 75 and whether the employee received adequate due process before termination.

Holding

No, because as an unclassified employee, the petitioner was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing under Civil Service Law § 75. Yes, because the employee was given an opportunity to respond to the charges before termination and had access to post-termination review procedures, which satisfied due process requirements.

Court’s Reasoning

The court relied on Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v Loudermill, stating, “all the process that is due is provided by a pretermination opportunity to respond, coupled with posttermination review procedures.” The court noted the employee had a conference with her supervisor the day of the incident and again two days later. She also failed to attend a third hearing scheduled after she appealed the termination notice and failed to grieve the matter under the collective bargaining agreement. The court found the termination was not “so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” (citing Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 237), given the employee’s admission of the error. The court declined to convert the case into a breach of contract action because, based on the employee’s admission, the employer would be entitled to summary judgment. The court emphasized that, at most, the employee was entitled to an Article 78 review of the disciplinary measure and to sue for breach of contract, but the facts of the case did not warrant such action.