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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Individual has the burden of demonstrating that the decision to abolish his or her position was made in bad faith

By Harvey Randall, Esq.

Individual has the burden of demonstrating that the decision to abolish his or her position was made in bad faith
Matter of Linney v City of Plattsburgh, 2008 NY Slip Op 02076, Decided on March 13, 2008, Appellate Division, Third Department

In December 2005 the City of Plattsburgh told its Human Resources Director, John R. Linne that funding for his position would not be included in the 2006 budget due to the fiscal difficulties facing the City. Subsequently the position of Human Resources Director was converted to a part-time position.1

Linney challenged this change, contending that such action violated Section 80 of the Civil Service Law. Supreme Court dismissed his petition, finding that Linney had failed to demonstrate that Plattsburgh had acted in bad faith and Linney appealed.

Observing that "[A] public employer may, in the absence of bad faith, collusion or fraud, abolish positions for purposes of economy or efficiency" and that ?a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating bad faith or an effort to circumvent the Civil Service Law in the elimination of a position,? the Appellate Division dismissed Linney?s appeal. According to the ruling, in such cases the "petitioner must eliminate bona fide reasons for the elimination of his [or her] position, show that no savings were accomplished or that someone was hired to replace him [or her]."

In contrast to Plattsburgh?s showing that it was faced with a financial crisis and the outsourcing of many of the job duties of the human resources director resulted in significant savings, Linney ?did not initially contend that the elimination of the full-time position failed to equate to a savings for respondent.? Rather, Linney contended that Plattsburgh?s claim of cost reduction was a subterfuge, arguing that his position was eliminated in retaliation for filing sexual harassment claims on behalf of a coworker against city councilors in 2004, for inquiring about unionizing other managers in 2001 and other interactions between himself and various city officials. The Appellate Division said that ?we find these conclusory and unsupported allegations to be insufficient to overcome [Plattsburgh?s] bona fide reasons for eliminating petitioner's full-time position.?

1 Ultimately Plattsburgh completely eliminated its human resources director position.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on March 31, 2008 (boomark / email).