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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Changing the job description of a position to include new or additional duties must satisfy a ?rational basis? test to survive judicial scrutiny

Changing the job description of a position to include new or additional duties must satisfy a ?rational basis? test to survive judicial scrutiny
Matter of Criscolo v Vagianelis, 2009 NY Slip Op 01319, Decided on February 24, 2009, Court of Appeals

The NYS Department of Correctional Services provides for three levels of administrative hearings to consider ?inmate misbehavior reports.?

Tier III hearings address the most serious inmate misbehavior implicating the most severe punishment and "may be conducted by the superintendent of the correctional facility, the deputy superintendent, a captain, a commissioner's hearing officer employed by DOCS's central office," or "some other employee" designated by the correctional facility's superintendent "in his or her discretion."

Andrew S. Criscolo challenged the New York Department of Civil Service?s Division of Classification and Compensation?s revising the position descriptions for the titles of Education Supervisor, Plant Superintendent (A and B) and Assistant Industrial Superintendent (A and B) to include conducting Tier III hearings when so designated by a correction facility?s superintendent.

The Court of Appeals sustained the Division?s revision of the job descriptions of these several titles to include "serving as a Tier III hearing officer when so designated by a facility superintendent."

The Court noted that "[a]dministrative determinations concerning position classifications are . . . subject to only limited judicial review, and will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing that they are wholly arbitrary or without any rational basis," citing Cove v Sise, 71 NY2d 910.

In this instance, said the Court, the Division demonstrated a rational basis for adding Tier III hearing duties to the civil service titles at issue as follows:

Before revising the classification standards, the Division:

1. Analyzed the Tier III hearing process;

2. Determined the knowledge, skills and abilities required to conduct these hearings;

3. Determined the knowledge, skills and abilities required for the identified civil service titles; and

4. Concluded that the incumbents of each title performed administrative, supervisory, and managerial tasks, incumbents were required to have good communication skills, and exercised decision-making on issues of consequence to Corrections, including the operation of the physical plant and industrial and educational programs.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Division acted rationally when it decided that Tier III hearing work was no more complex than duties already encompassed within these titles, and that employees in these titles were qualified to conduct Tier III hearings.

In sustaining the Division?s determination the Court pointed out that New York?s Constitution and its Civil Service Law require that promotions be made after competitive examination and that ?reclassification may not be employed as a device to sanction the performance of out-of-title duties and thereby avoid the requirement of a competitive examination for promotion? nor may there be ?a deliberate manipulation of a reclassification simply by first imposing or by assuming new duties and responsibilities, and then thereby avoid the necessity for filling vacancies by promotion by reclassifying the added duties and responsibilities.?

The Court of Appeals cited Gavigan v McCoy, 37 NY2d 548, Niebling v Wagner, 12 NY2d 314, and Mandle v Brown, 4 AD2d 283, affirmed 5 NY2d 51, as cases demonstrating the proposition that an employee cannot achieve a higher grade or salary by being assigned or engaging in out-of-title work ?because this would violate the fundamental civil service tenet of advancement through competitive examination.?

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_01319.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on February 25, 2009 (boomark / email).