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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Term appointments of employees in the Classified Service

Term appointments of employees in the Classified Service
Wheeler v Washington Co., 259 AD2d 902

Term appointments are rare in the classified service. The Wheeler case involves such a type of appointment and considers the rights of an incumbent upon the expiration of his or her term of office.

Section 100 of the Highway Law provides that a county Superintendent of Highways is appointed for a four-year term and ?may be removed from office for malfeasance or misfeasance before expiration of the term.?*

Kenneth F. Wheeler was initially appointed to the position of Superintendent of Highways for a four-year term in 1987 and was reappointed to an additional four-year term, beginning on January 1, 1993. In 1991, his job title was changed to Superintendent of Public Works. At the conclusion of his term on December 31, 1996, Wheeler was not reappointed but remained as Superintendent until a successor was appointed by the Board of Supervisors on February 3, 1997.

Claiming that his termination was unlawful, Wheeler sued.

According to the decision, Wheeler?s most recent term of office as Superintendent of Public Works commenced on January 1, 1993 and expired on December 31, 1996. The issue, as the Appellate Division saw it, was ?whether the rights afforded a permanent, competitive employee under Civil Service Law Section 75 extended to [Wheeler] after the expiration of his term of office.?

Wheeler contended that his position was wrongfully reclassified in 1996 from competitive to ?unclassified? or noncompetitive status and that his position did not meet the requirements for ?unclassified? status. Relying on his alleged permanent, competitive status in the classified service, Wheeler argued that Section 75 barred his termination except for misconduct or incompetence.

The court said that contrary to Wheeler?s contention, he was not terminated or removed from office but rather, his four-year term pursuant to Highway Law Section 100 merely expired. Since he was not reappointed and his successor had not yet been chosen, the position became vacant at the expiration of his term on December 31, 1996.

However, until his successor took office in February 1996, Wheeler was a holdover and an at-will employee as provided by Section 5 of the Public Officers Law. Therefore, the court concluded, Section 75 was inapplicable and thus Wheeler was not entitled to a review of the County?s decision not to reappoint him after completion of his then current term of office.

As to the question of whether Wheeler?s position was wrongfully reclassified from the competitive class to another jurisdictional classification, the Appellate Division said that the change in jurisdictional classification was irrelevant since Wheeler was not removed from his position prior to the expiration of his term of office.

The decision implies that a person holding a term appointment authorized by law, unless reappointed, is to be deemed terminated upon the expiration of his or her term ?by operation of law? notwithstanding the fact that he or she may otherwise be protected against removal except for incompetence or misconduct by the provisions of Section 75 of the Civil Service Law.

* Among others in the classified service holding a ?term appointment? is the personnel officer of a county, suburban town, or a city where such a position has been established. Such a personnel officer is appointed for a term of six years [Section 15.1.(b), Civil Service Law].
NYPPL

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on November 04, 2010 (boomark / email).