Opinion ID: 483247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Accrual of Landi's Claim for Loss of Employment

Text: 121 Federal law governs the question of when a federal claim accrues, even if a state statute of limitations is to be applied. E.g., Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d at 613. Under federal principles, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of the action. Pauk v. Board of Trustees, 654 F.2d at 859. 122 The district court found that there was no genuine question of fact as to the date of accrual of Landi's claims because Landi knew or should have known in October 1973 that his employment would be terminated because of his failure to pass the Civil Service examination. While this ruling appears to have missed the thrust of Landi's affidavit submitted in opposition to summary judgment, we conclude that the affidavit failed to show that there was a genuine issue as to whether or not Landi should have known by October 1973 that he had a claim based on the alleged coercive practices. 123 Landi's affidavit, in order to demonstrate that loss of employment on account of a failure to pass the Civil Service exam was not automatic, asserted in part as follows: 124 It was a well-known fact that the Civil Service systm [sic ] in Nassau County was perverted to the ends of the Republican party under the leadership of Margiotta to coerce and pressure governmental employees. The mere fact that a person failed or passed an exam had no bearing whatsoever on whether he would be fired or get the job. All job appointments were approved by Margiotta. If one flunked he would, if he paid the one (1%) percent, be transferred to another job. 125 (Affidavit of Michael Landi dated December 1, 1983, at 1.) Although the affidavit tends to negate the inference that Landi would automatically have been dismissed on account of his test failure, it does not make the claim based on his loss of employment any more timely, for the affidavit made no semblance of a suggestion that Landi believed he would avoid termination by making the requested payment. Rather, it suggested that Landi himself had no intention of paying the demanded one percent, stating that he was asked for the contribution and refused to make it. Landi's acknowledgment that defendants' coercive and pressure tactics were well-known and that one who failed the exam could remain in the County's employ if he paid the one (1%) percent  (emphasis added) revealed that he had reason to know in October 1973, in light of his lack of any intent to make that payment, that he would be dismissed. 126 Accordingly, the district court's conclusion that Landi's claim based on his 1973 loss of job accrued in October 1973 was correct. 127