Age requirements and eligibility for taking a test
Beloten v Diamons, 276 AD2d 438
The Beloten case involves a relatively novel issue: age qualification for appointment to positions in the competitive class.
The case arose after New York City issued an announcement for an examination for firefighter allowing only emergency medical technicians and paramedics [EMTs] not more than 29 years old as of the beginning of the application period to take the examination.
Scott R. Beloten and a number of other EMTs took and passed the written test. However they were disqualified and not permitted to take the physical agility portion of the examination because of age: all were more than 29 years of age at the beginning of the application period.*
Beloten objected, contending that the upper age limit for firefighters applies only to candidates for that position taking an open competitive exam, and that to apply the age limit to candidates taking a promotional exam, as [the City] did, would violate Section 54 of the Civil Service Law and anti-discrimination statutes.
The Appellate Division said that two provisions of the Civil Service Law were relevant in resolving this case: Sections 52(1) and 54.
Section 54 allows civil service authorities to adopt reasonable age requirements with respect to open-competitive, entry level positions. Section 52(1) provides for the filling of vacancies by promotion of persons holding positions in lower grades that are in direct line of promotion or, under certain circumstances, from lower grades in related or collateral lines of promotion.
Reading Sections 52(8) and 54 together, the court concluded that age requirements for purposes of taking a promotional exam are prohibited when the promotion would be from a grade that is in direct line, and permitted when the promotion would be from a grade that is in a related or collateral line.
The Appellate Division rejected the theory that this was a promotion situation for the EMTs, ruling that because the position of firefighter is an entry-level position in that there is no direct lower position to be promoted from, the only way a person could become a firefighter was to sit for an open competitive examination.**
Deciding that EMT applicants for the position of firefighter were more akin to entry-level applicants taking an open exam for that position than to a firefighter taking a closed promotion examination for a higher level title, the court ruled that:
... notwithstanding that the exam petitioners took was not open, in that participation was limited to current Fire Department employees having certain emergency medical titles, we conclude that Civil Service Law Section 54 did not apply to prohibit an age requirement, and that Civil Service Law Section 52(8) did apply to require that petitioners satisfy the eligibility requirements for taking the entry-level exam for firefighter, including the requirement in Administrative Code Section 15-103 that they not be more than 29 years old.
* Presumably none of the plaintiffs was eligible for an adjustment to his or her chronological age pursuant to the provisions of Section 243.10-a of the Military Law.
** The EMTs conceded that the examination announcement indicated that their positions were in a collateral, not direct, line of promotion to the position of firefighter.
Artificial Intelligence [A.I.] is not used, in whole or in part, in the preparation of summaries of judicial and quasi-judicial decisions posted on the Internet by NYPPL.
Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor members of the NYPPL staff are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2023 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org.