New York Public Personnel Law: Dismissed probationer required to prove that his or her termination was for an improper reason

December 01, 2010

Dismissed probationer required to prove that his or her termination was for an improper reason

Dismissed probationer required to prove that his or her termination was for an improper reason
Matter of Lambert v Kelly, 2010 NY Slip Op 08618, decided on November 23, 2010, Appellate Division, First Department

Yolanda Lambert, a probationary police officer, challenged her termination from her position, alleging it was for an impermissible reason and in an effort to frustrate her receipt of vested interest retirement benefits.

Affirming the Supreme Court Alice Schlesinger’s decision dismissing Lambert’s petition, the Appellate Division said that the basic rules in adjudicating a probationer’s allegation that his or her probationary dismissal was unlawful are:

1. It is well settled that a probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing or statement of reasons, for any reason or no reason at all, in the absence of a showing that the dismissal was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation or law; and

2. The burden of proving bad faith is on the employee, and its mere assertion, without supporting evidence, does not satisfy that requirement;

Here, said the Appellate Division, Lambert failed to produce competent proof that she was terminated for an impermissible or unlawful reason. On the contrary, the court pointed out that the record discloses a rational basis for the challenged determination, including:

1. Lambert had violated numerous NYPD regulations, including illegally parking her personal vehicle displayed an expired police parking permit that belong to another individual; and

2. Lambert used her position as an officer to try to get special treatment from the City Marshal's Office when attempting to retrive the illegally parked vehicle after it was impounded.

Finally, the Appellate Division said that there was no evidence that Lambert was dismissed “in order to frustrate her receipt of vested interest retirement benefits.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_08618.htm
NYPPL

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.

NYPPL Blogger 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 NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors 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.