Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Probationary employee challenging his or her termination must show bad faith or an improper or impermissible reason underlies the termination

Probationary employee challenging his or her termination must show bad faith or an improper or impermissible reason underlies the termination
Matter of Mathis v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 2011 NY Slip Op 01190, Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Probationary correction officer Demar Mathis filed an Article 78 petition challenging his termination from his employment for ?failure to complete his probationary period in a satisfactory manner.?

Supreme Court granted Mathis? petition, annulled the appointing authority's determination and reinstated him to in his former position with back pay. Although Supreme Court thereafter granted the Correction Department?s motion to reargue its opposition to Mathis? petition, it ultimately adhered to its prior decision.

The Department appealed and the Appellate Division overturned Supreme Court?s ruling.

First, the Appellate Division said that it agreed with the Department?s argument that at the time of his termination, Mathis was a probationary employee who could be terminated for ?almost any reason or for no reason at all," citing Matter of Swinton v Safir, 93 NY2d 758.

It then noted that although Mathis? probationary term was to expire on October 29, 2007, it was extended by 92 days in accordance with the provisions set out in 4 NYCRR 4.5(g) in the event a probationer is absent during his or her probationary period.*

The Appellate Division said that Supreme Court erred when it concluded that Mathis was no longer a probationary employee on the date he was terminated because Supreme Court calculated the extension required by 4 NYCRR 4.5(g) using calendar days rather than workdays.

In the words of the Appellate Division, ?Where, as here, a probationary term is extended pursuant to 4 NYCRR 4.5 (g), the extension is "one workday for every workday" the employee has missed.?

The Appellate Division than opined that "As a probationary employee, [Mathis] had no right to challenge the termination by way of a hearing or otherwise, absent a showing that he was dismissed in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason." Mathis, said the court, made no such showing here and that the record indicated that he had excessive absenteeism, disobeyed a direct order to return to work and continued to have absenteeism problems after being counseled about his absenteeism.

The court agreed with the Department that "[c]hronic absenteeism is a sufficient basis for terminating a probationary employee" as is the refusal to comply with a direct order.?

* 4 NYCRR 4.5(g), in pertinent part, provides that with respect to absence during probationary term, Any periods of authorized or unauthorized absence aggregating up to 10 workdays during the probationary term, or aggregating up to 20 workdays if the probationary term or maximum term exceeds 26 weeks, may, in the discretion of the appointing authority, be considered as time served in the probationary term. ? Any such periods of absence not so considered by the appointing authority as time served in the probationary term, and any periods of absence in excess of periods considered by the appointing authority as time served in the probationary term pursuant to this subdivision, shall not be counted as time served in the probationary term. The minimum and maximum periods of the probationary term of any employee shall be extended by the number of workdays of his absence which, pursuant to this subdivision, are not counted as time served in the probationary term.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2011/2011_01190.htm
.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 24, 2011 (boomark / email).