July 12, 2019

A probationary employee is entitled to serve for a specified minimum period of time to demonstrate his ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position to which he was appointed


Plaintiff brought this CPLR Article 78 to review a determination of the New York City Department of Correction terminating Plaintiff from employment as a correction officer prior to the end of his probationary period. Supreme Court denied the Plaintiff's petition and dismissed the action, which ruling was affirmed by the Appellate Division.

The Appellate Division explained that a probationary employee may "be dismissed for almost any reason, or for no reason at all," citing Matter of Venes v Community School Bd. of Dist. 26, 43 NY2d 520." In the words of the Appellate Division, "The employment of a probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing and without a statement of reasons in the absence of a demonstration that the termination was in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law."

The Appellate Division's reference to "decisional law" points to significant exception to its statement that "... a probationary employee may be terminated without a hearing and without a statement of reasons....."

In York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rule concerning the dismissal of probationary employees as follows: “After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad faith.”

The rationale underlying this exception, requiring "notice and hearing in the event a probationer is being terminated prior to the completion of his minimum probationary period, is that the individual is entitled to serve for a minimum period to demonstrate his ability to satisfactorily perform the duties of the position to which he was appointed.

Addressing the merits of Plaintiff's, the Appellate said he failed to demonstrate, or even adequately allege, that his employment was terminated in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_04706.htm
____________________

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State. To order your copy of The Discipline Book, please go to: http://thedisciplinebook.blogspot.com/