Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Jurisdictional classification

Jurisdictional classification
Grosh v City of Troy, 246 A.D.2d 235

The failure to properly process a request to jurisdictionally classify an otherwise classified service position in the exempt, noncompetitive or labor class means that the position continues to be a position in the competitive class.* This point is made clear by the Appellate Division in Grosh.

Susan H. Grosh was initially employed as a confidential secretary by the City of Troy in October 1982. Although the records of the city, as well as those of the Troy Municipal Service Commission, indicate that the position was in the exempt class, the procedural steps set out in Section 20 of the Civil Service Law never were completed.

Section 20.1 provides that each municipal commission shall prescribe rules for the jurisdiction classification of positions and for the position classification of positions under its jurisdiction. Rules of a county commission or personnel officer are subject to the approval of the State Civil Service Commission; rules of a municipal commission or city personnel officer require the approval of mayor, or a designated deputy mayor, the municipal commission having jurisdiction and the State Civil Service Commission. The Appellate Division concluded that under the circumstances present Grosh?s case, her position remained in the competitive class.

The situation came to light after Grosh was terminated in February 1996. She sued, contending that her position was in the competitive class and thus she was entitled to notice and hearing pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law before she could be terminated.

A State Supreme Court justice decided that Troy should reinstate Grosh ?until such time as she was afforded a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 75 or [Troy] properly classified the position held by her as exempt. The Appellate Division disagreed, holding the Grosh?s position was in the competitive class but she was not entitled to any pre-termination hearing pursuant to Section 75.

The court pointed out that only persons in the competitive class holding permanent appointment are entitled to the protections afforded by Section 75. Clearly Grosh had not taken any civil service test for ?confidential secretary? nor had she been appointed from any civil service list. As to the type of appointment she held: Grosh was a provisional employee, as she had always served in a competitive class position and had not qualified for permanent appointment to it.

The Appellate Division also pointed out that Grosh?s situation was not a ?cover-in? of a permanent incumbent of a noncompetitive class [or, for that matter, of a position in the exempt or labor class] position jurisdictionally reclassified to the competitive class. Upon such a jurisdictional reclassification, said the court, the incumbent is entitled to the benefits of the ?covered-in? doctrine, citing Bell v Warren County, 111 AD2d 428.

* Jurisdictional classification and jurisdictional reclassification involve determinations placing positions in the classified service in the competitive, exempt, noncompetitive or labor classes [Section 2.10, Civil Service Law]. In contrast, position classification involves the evaluation of the duties and responsibilities of a position and placing it in a group of positions with a common and descriptive title [Section 2.11, Civil Service Law]. Positions in the unclassified service, consist essentially of elected officials, department heads and educators, and are listed in Section 35 of the Civil Service Law.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on September 22, 2009 (boomark / email).