Policy-maker's terminated after spouse sues State alleges violation of a Constitutional right to associate with others in intimate relationships

Policy-maker's terminated after spouse sues State alleges violation of a Constitutional right to associate with others in intimate relationships
Adler v Pataki, 2nd Circ., 185 F.3d 35

Although the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has allowed a public employer to terminate a “policy-maker” solely for reasons of patronage, the Adler decision indicates that there is at least one possible exception to this general rule -- when the termination is alleged to involve “mixed-motives.” This case involved allegations that the policy-maker’s termination was not based on political considerations but was in retaliation because the policy-maker’s spouse had sued the State.

Alan Adler, a former deputy counsel with the State’s Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities [OMRDD], sued the State, alleging that his First Amendment right of intimate association was violated because OMRDD terminated him because his wife had filed a lawsuit against state officials, including the State Attorney General.

Adler’s wife, a former Assistant Attorney General, was terminated from her position. She commenced a wrongful termination action against the Attorney General alleging that she was fired because she was not a Republican. She filed her lawsuit about a year before Adler was dismissed by OMRDD.

The Circuit Court said that the nature and extent of the right of intimate association is “hardly clear” but concluded that in Roberts v United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized such a right of association with two distinct components:

1. An individual’s right to associate with others in intimate relationships; and

2. A right to associate with others for purposes of engaging in activities traditionally protected by the First Amendment, such as speech and other expressive conduct.

The Circuit Court said that “[i]f simple vindictiveness against the plaintiff on account of his wife’s lawsuit was the defendants’ true motive, a First Amendment violation would be established” [emphasis added], overruling Northern District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr.

Judge Scullin had held that Adler was a policy-maker, and therefore he did not have any First Amendment protection against termination solely because of his political affiliation.

In addition, Judge Scullin said that to the extent that Adler’s claim was based on alleged mixed motives -- his political affiliation and his wife’s initiation of litigation against the state -- such an action “was foreclosed” by the Second Circuit’s decision in McEvoy v Spencer, 124 F.3d 92.”

But the three-judge Second Circuit panel said the district judge misinterpreted McEvoy. Although a policy-maker cannot claim First Amendment protection if he or she is dismissed because of political affiliation, “a policy-maker may not be discharged for such reasons as race, sex, or national origin.” Consistent with that view, the court ruled that:

1. Adler could proceed with his claim that he was fired solely in retaliation for his wife’s lawsuit, and not at all for reasons of political patronage.

2. Since Adler was a policy-maker, the State will prevail only if it can “ultimately demonstrate that he was in fact fired solely for reasons of political patronage”.

3. “To the extent that the [State] acted with a mixed motive, i.e., if they fired [Adler] in retaliation for his wife’s activities and for reasons of political patronage,” the McEvoy decision does not control and that the State has the burden of demonstrating that they would have removed the Adler from his position even if his wife had not been involved in litigation against the State.

The lesson here is that where a policy-maker was dismissed because of his or her political affiliation, the federal courts will uphold the termination if there is proof that the separation was the solely based on patronage considerations. But where “mixed-motives” are present, the public employer must prove that the policy-maker would have been terminated even if there were “no mix to the motive” for the termination to survive judicial scrutiny.

.

Probationary termination

Probationary termination
Green v Board of Education, 263 AD2d 385

Verna Green, a New York City probationary teacher, was terminated from her position. She sued, seeking reinstatement to her former position.

The Appellate Division sustained a lower court’s dismissal of Green’s petition. It pointed out that Green, as a probationary employee, could be terminated without a statement of reasons provided that the termination was not made in bad faith, was not made in violation of statutory or decisional law, or made for unconstitutional or illegal reasons.

Green had the burden of establishing such bad faith or illegal reasons were the basis for her termination. On this issue, the Appellate Division commented that “conclusory allegations of bad faith are insufficient to meet this burden or to warrant a hearing.”
.

Means used to place candidates with tied scores on eligible list may impact on seniority for the purposes of layoff

Means used to place candidates with tied scores on eligible list may impact on seniority for the purposes of layoff
Fiffe v Cohoes Civil Service Comm., 262 AD2d 762, Motion for leave to appeal denied, 93 NY2d 819

Thomas Fiffe was one of seven candidates appointed to firefighter positions in Cohoes, all effective July 25, 1994. He was one of four candidates who had an examination score of 85 and was ranked fifth on the eligible list. But the Cohoes Civil Service Commission later revised this ranking and placed Fiffe seventh on the list. After losing his job in a layoff, Fiffe claimed this change was arbitrary and capricious, and that he had greater seniority than retained employees. The Appellate Division found in favor of the Commission, sustaining its action revising the list as rational and declined to disturb it.

The Commission claimed its original ranking was in error. It explained that at the time Fiffe applied for the examination, its seniority policy for civil service purposes differentiated applicants with the same examination score by ranking the applicants according to the date of receipt of each application and fee. As the result of an error, said the Commission, when the original eligibility list was issued, the candidates with tie scores were randomly placed on the list as among themselves rather than in the order of their application/fee date. In January 1997 -- 11 months before the layoff -- the Commission revised the eligible list “to reflect the correct date of application in accordance with its established policy.”

Fiffe contending that the issuance of a revised eligible list, and the resulting change in his rank and seniority, was arbitrary and capricious. He asked the court to change the date of his application to April 1, 1993. This, of course, would give him greater seniority for the purposes of layoff.

Fiffe argued that the April 1 date should be used because that was the date on which he had originally submitted his application for examination. His application was initially rejected by the Commission because of Fiffe’s date of birth but it was subsequently accepted and processed. The Commission used the later date rather than April 1, when determining his rank on the eligible list.

The Appellate Division sustained the Commission’s action, reflecting the fact that a local civil service commission can use any rational method of ranking to break scoring ties on eligible lists, as long as it is consistent in applying its rule.

============================================
If you are interested in learning more about layoff procedures involving employees in the public service in New York State please click here: http://nylayoff.blogspot.com/
============================================
.