New York Law Review

Tag: Permanent Appointment

  • Matter of Washington v. New York City Dept. of Personnel, 72 N.Y.2d 739 (1988): Measuring Probationary Period for Civil Service Employees

    Matter of Washington v. New York City Dept. of Personnel, 72 N.Y.2d 739 (1988)

    A civil service employee’s probationary period commences on the date of permanent appointment, not the date of passing the qualifying examination, for purposes of determining eligibility for protection under Civil Service Law § 75.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed the issue of when a civil service employee’s probationary period begins for the purpose of determining eligibility for protection against removal under Civil Service Law § 75. The petitioner, Washington, argued that his probationary period started when he passed his qualifying exam. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the probationary period commences on the date the employee is appointed to a permanent position, adjusted for absences, and not the date the qualifying examination was passed. This distinction is crucial for determining when an employee gains protection from removal without formal charges or a hearing under Civil Service Law § 75.

    Facts

    Washington took a qualifying examination and passed it on December 18, 1984. He was then appointed as a permanent employee on February 7, 1985. Subsequently, the Agency removed Washington from his position. Washington argued he was improperly removed because his probationary period should have been calculated from the date he passed the exam. If calculated from the exam date, he would have been afforded the protections of Civil Service Law § 75.

    Procedural History

    The Appellate Division initially ruled in favor of Washington, basing its decision on a prior case, Matter of Montero v. Lum. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a civil service employee’s probationary period, for purposes of determining protection under Civil Service Law § 75, commences on the date of permanent appointment or the date of passing the qualifying examination?

    Holding

    No, because Civil Service Law § 61 dictates that the probationary period begins on the date of permanent appointment, adjusted for absences, not the date of the qualifying exam. Therefore, Washington was not yet entitled to the protections of Civil Service Law § 75 when he was removed.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized the plain language of Civil Service Law § 61. The court explicitly stated that the probationary period is tied to the date of permanent appointment. The court distinguished its prior ruling in Matter of Montero v. Lum. While Montero referenced the examination date, it did so only to differentiate it from the date of a *temporary* appointment. The court clarified that Montero did not alter the fundamental rule that the date of permanent appointment governs the probationary period. As the court stated, “our decision in Montero did not change the statutorily fixed rule that the date of permanent appointment controls for purposes of measuring the probationary period.” The court reinforced that eligibility for permanent appointment (which requires passing the exam) is a prerequisite, but the probationary period itself begins upon the actual permanent appointment. The practical implication is to provide a clear, consistent, and easily ascertainable start date for probationary periods, simplifying administrative processes and reducing ambiguity. This ensures a uniform application of Civil Service Law § 75 protections.

  • Matter of Green v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 18 N.Y.2d 136 (1966): Limits on Conditional Permanent Teacher Appointments

    Matter of Green v. Board of Educ. of City of New York, 18 N.Y.2d 136 (1966)

    A teacher who has completed a satisfactory probationary period and received a permanent appointment cannot be removed without a hearing and charges of incompetency, even if additional qualifications attached to the permanent appointment have not been fulfilled.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether a teacher with a permanent appointment can be removed without a hearing for failing to meet conditions attached to that appointment after successfully completing a probationary period. The New York Court of Appeals held that once a teacher receives a permanent appointment following a satisfactory probationary period, they cannot be removed without cause and a hearing, even if they haven’t fulfilled all preconditions attached to the permanent appointment. The court reasoned that allowing such conditions to persist beyond the probationary period would undermine the protections of the tenure law.

    Facts

    The Board of Examiners announced an examination for social studies teachers requiring a baccalaureate degree and 30 graduate semester hours. The announcement allowed applicants until February 15, 1964, to complete 28 of the 30 graduate hours. The petitioner had a baccalaureate degree and passed the exam. She received a license subject to meeting the preparation requirements by February 15, 1964. After a three-year satisfactory probationary period, the Board of Education made her appointment permanent, contingent on certification of satisfactory service during probation and subject to any conditions of the license. The petitioner had not completed all the required semester hours by 1964 and was notified that her teaching license would be terminated, leading to her removal without a hearing or charges.

    Procedural History

    The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to prevent her removal without a hearing and charges. The Special Term initially denied the petition. The Appellate Division reversed, granting the relief sought while allowing the respondents to initiate further proceedings consistent with the decision. The Board of Education appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a teacher with a permanent appointment, following satisfactory completion of a probationary period, can be removed without a hearing and specific charges for failing to meet conditions attached to the permanent appointment relating to educational qualifications.

    Holding

    No, because the Education Law prohibits the extension of a teacher’s probationary period beyond three years, and after a permanent appointment is made, a teacher “shall not be removable except for cause.”

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that allowing conditions to be attached to permanent appointments that extend beyond the probationary period would undermine the protections of the tenure law. The statute explicitly states that a permanently appointed teacher “shall not be removable” except for specific grounds. The court emphasized that the time to assess teaching qualifications is during the probationary term, not after the appointment becomes permanent. The court cited People ex rel. Murphy v. Maxwell, 177 N.Y. 494, which held that statutory provisions for removal on charges of misconduct or incompetency are exclusive, preventing the Board of Education from imposing additional conditions, such as termination upon marriage. The court also referenced Matter of Boyd v. Collins, 11 N.Y.2d 228, clarifying that a board of education cannot bypass the tenure statute. According to the court, the failure to meet preconditions could be a valid ground for removal on charges and after a hearing if it adversely affected her competency to teach, but it cannot be the basis for summary dismissal. The court reasoned that the hearing afforded to the teacher was “for cause” and was addressed to good behavior and efficient and competent service.