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