Terminated employee’s reliance on the Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency in challenging her dismissal held misplaced
The Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency sets out the principle that a position created by a legislative act can be abolished only by a correlative legislative act.
Among the arguments advanced by the Petitioner in this Article 78 proceeding challenging her termination was that her dismissal violated the Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency.
The Appellate Division, however, rejected Petitioner’s contention that the agency's determination violated the Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency, “without merit,” as the position from which she had been removed had not been abolished, implying that she had not been "laid off" withing the meaning of Civil Service Law §§80 or 80-a.*
The Appellate Division, however, rejected Petitioner’s contention that the agency's determination violated the Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency, “without merit,” as the position from which she had been removed had not been abolished, implying that she had not been "laid off" withing the meaning of Civil Service Law §§80 or 80-a.*
Turning to another element in this case, according to the Appellate Division’s ruling, Petitioner was terminated from her position without first being accorded any "quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing."** Accordingly, said the court, its review was subject to the standard set out in §7803(3) of the Civil Practice law and Rules:
[1] Was the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure;
[2] Was the determination affected by an error of law;
[3] Was the determination arbitrary and capricious; or
[4] Was the determination an abuse of discretion.
Citing Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 15 NY3d 275, the Appellate Division said that pursuant to this standard courts will "examine whether the action taken by the agency has a rational basis" and will overturn that action only "where it is taken without sound basis in reason' or regard to the facts." Further, explained the court, "courts must defer to an administrative agency's rational interpretation of its own regulations in its area of expertise," citing Peckham v Calogero, 12 NY3d at 431.
The Appellate Division ruled that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that the determination made by the County of Nassau Department of Assessment terminating her employment lacked a rational basis or was arbitrary and capricious.
As to Petitioner’s contention that the agency's determination violated the Doctrine of Legislative Equivalency, the court rejected this argument as “without merit,” as the position from which she had been removed had not been abolished.
* The Attorney General has concluded that there must be an actual and lawful abolishment of a position in order to lawfully remove an employee from his or her position pursuant to §§80 or 80-a (1976 Opinions of the Attorney General 7).
** Presumably Petitioner was not entitled to a pre-termination disciplinary hearing otherwise available pursuant to the Civil Service Law, a collective bargaining agreement or so other statutory procedure.
* The Attorney General has concluded that there must be an actual and lawful abolishment of a position in order to lawfully remove an employee from his or her position pursuant to §§80 or 80-a (1976 Opinions of the Attorney General 7).
** Presumably Petitioner was not entitled to a pre-termination disciplinary hearing otherwise available pursuant to the Civil Service Law, a collective bargaining agreement or so other statutory procedure.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: