Labor & Employment Law

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Exhaustion of administrative remedies
Formica v Huntington, App. Div., 2nd Dept., 295 A.D.2d 400

The exhaustion of the administrative remedies available to an individual is generally viewed as a condition precedent to the individual being able to bring a law suit challenging some act or mission by an administrative agency. The Formica case demonstrates that the same rule is applied by the courts in cases involving alleged violations of a col­lective bargaining agreement.

Peter C. Formica sued the Town of Huntington, to recover damages for its alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement. Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed Formi­ca's complaint.

The Appellate Division sustained the lower court's dismissal of Formica's petition, commenting that because Formica's cause of action was premised upon an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement it was properly dismissed because Formica had failed to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.

However, the Court of Appeals has held that the exhaustion rule is not inflexible and in Watergate II Apartments v Buffalo Sewer, 46 NY2d 52, indicated that the rule need not be followed where an agency's action is challenged as either unconstitutional or wholly beyond its grant of power.

Another exception to the general rule: an individual is not required to exhaust the avail­able administrative remedy where such action would constitute an exercise in futility. Typically the courts apply this exception in situations where it determines that the admin­istrative decision "is a foregone conclusion."

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on June 03, 2008 (boomark / email).