Opinion ID: 774990
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Salary Increase

Text: 43 Leventhal's discretionary salary increase was not a form of property protected by the Constitution against deprivation without due process of law. On September 28, 1998, the DOT notified Leventhal that, because of the pending disciplinary charges against him, he would not receive the 3.5% salary increase granted to most other management employees. The salary increase could, by law, be withheld from any employee who, in the opinion of the director of the budget, had substandard job performance or when the increase was otherwise unwarranted. 1995 N.Y. Laws Ch. 314 § 3(11). 7 44 Because Leventhal cannot satisfy the threshold requirement that the salary increase was his property, the claim that he was deprived of the increase without due process of law must fail. See Bernheim, 79 F.3d at 323 ([W]here the complained-of conduct concerns matters that are within an official's discretion, entitlement to that benefit arises only when the discretion is so restricted as to virtually assure conferral of the benefit.).