Administrator' terminated after being found guilty of ignoring the Civil Service Law with respect to the appointment of personnel

Administrator' terminated after being found guilty of ignoring the Civil Service Law with respect to the promotion of personnel
Gillen v Smithtown Library, 254 AD2d 486, Affirmed, 94 NY2d 776

An administrator who ignores the mandates of the Civil Service Law when it comes to promoting staff members places himself or herself in harms way, as the Gillen case demonstrates.

Thomas G. Gillen, director of the Smithtown Library, was terminated from his position by the Smithtown Library Board of Trustees after being found guilty of illegally promoting employees in contravention of the Civil Service Law.

The Appellate Division rejected his appeal seeking to overturn the disciplinary action taken against him. As to the penalty of termination, the court said that when considered in light of all of the circumstances of this case, dismissal “was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness,” citing the Court of Appeals ruling in Pell v Bd. of Education, 34 NY2d 222.

The ruling also noted that “a high degree of deference is to be accorded to an agency’s determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed, citing Washington v Dolce, 208 AD2d 937.

In affirming the Appellate Division’s decision, the Court of Appeals said:

"Given [Gillen's] repeated violation of the Civil Service Law, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed is 'so disproportionate to the offense ... as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222)....'

"That the Appellate Division in remanded the matter for the imposition of a new penalty after dismissing four of the charges does not change our decision. A reviewing court generally 'will not presume to determine the precise sanction to be imposed' (Harris v Mechanicville Cent. School Dist., 45 NY2d 279, 285).

"Thus, where, as here, several charges have been dismissed on appeal, an appellate court will often remit the matter for an appropriate penalty (id.; see also, Matter of Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182, 186). Our standard of review remains the same based on the charges sustained, not on those dismissed."
NYPPL