Court Opinion

ID: 9962532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:10.969331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.559219
License: Public Domain

Hughes v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31347(U)
                     April 17, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 159747/2020
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 159747/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                               14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.           159747/2020
                NAZZARI HUGHES,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE             N/A1
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.          001
                                                 -v-
                CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT
                OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN RESOURCES
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
                ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS
                SERVICES                                                                                 MOTION

                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1 -4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10,
            11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
            were read on this motion to/for                                                        Article 78                       .

                      The petition to reinstate petitioner to her position as a caseworker for respondent New

            York City Department of Social Services/Human Resources Administration, Department of

            Homeless Services is denied.

            Background

                      Petitioner insists she worked for the Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”)2 as a

            caseworker starting in May 2019. She was assigned to a shelter facility in Brooklyn. Petitioner

            claims that she told her supervisors that she had no experience doing casework in a shelter and so

            she would need training in order to do her job. Petitioner maintains that despite this plea, she

            never received any training and so it was difficult to meet her job responsibilities. Petitioner

            1
              The Court is well aware that this proceeding has been pending for years. Although it was only reassigned to the
            undersigned this week, the Court profusely apologizes, on behalf of the Court system, for the long delay in the
            resolution of this proceeding.
            2
              DHS is an administrative unit within the Department of Social Services.
                159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                                      Page 1 of 4
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 159747/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

            acknowledges that she received an unsatisfactory performance rating in April 2020 and that her

            supervisor refused to meet with her about this evaluation. She alleges that she was a permanent

            employee at DHS and that she completed her one-year probationary period.

                   In opposition, respondents contend that petitioner never achieved permanent status and,

            instead, was still a probationary employee. They observe that petitioner’s probationary period

            was extended to September 2, 2020 and she was terminated on that day. Respondents detail the

            extensions of petitioner’s probationary period, which included annual and sick leave as well as

            an agreement between petitioner’s union and respondents relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.

            This agreement included an extension of three months and 17 days to the probationary periods of

            eligible employees.

                   Respondents maintain that they had a good faith reason to fire petitioner—her poor

            performance review. They point out that she received unsatisfactory ratings for both the August

            through November 2019 time period as well as the November 2019 through February 2020

            evaluation period. Respondents claim that petitioner’s supervisor then recommended her

            termination, after which respondents began an investigation into petitioner’s performance.

            Respondents then decided to terminate petitioner’s employment.

                   Petitioner explains in reply that she was not provided with due process procedures under

            Section 75 of New York’s Civil Service Law. She insists that DHS knew she had no prior

            experience performing the duties of a caseworker and that she was treated unfairly by her

            supervisors. Petitioner claims that the agreement between her union and the city did not affect

            her right to seek protection under the Civil Service Law. She argues that although her

            probationary period was extended, that did not change the fact that she completed a year of

            service.

             159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                    Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 159747/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

                   Petitioner also submits a reply affidavit in which she insists that her supervisors created a

            hostile work environment and harassed her. She contends that these supervisors did not make

            any effort to help her and instead just offered criticism.

            Discussion

                   The central question in this proceeding is whether or not petitioner was a probationary

            employee. Respondents included an agreement that provided, in pertinent part, that:

                   “The probationary period for all employees who were in their probationary period
                   (including competitive, non-competitive, and Labor class employees) shall be
                   tolled during this period. Therefore, any employee who was in their probationary
                   period as of March 13, 2020, will have their probationary period automatically
                   extended by 3 months and 17 days. Performance evaluations for probationary
                   employees shall be held in abeyance during this period, and probationary
                   employees will not be issued evaluations from the date of this side letter through
                   June 30, 2020” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 16).

                   A plain reading of this agreement provision supports respondents’ position that petitioner

            was still a probationary employee on the day she was terminated. Petitioner does not directly

            dispute that she was still, technically, a probationary employee. Instead, she appears to argue

            that even though she was still on probation, she was nevertheless entitled to the protections of

            Civil Service Law § 75 because she had worked for a year. Put another way, petitioner seems to

            suggest that she met the criteria for certain process protections under the Civil Service Law by

            working for a year even though she remained a probationary employee.

                   The Court disagrees with petitioner’s interpretation of this extension. She did not cite

            any caselaw for the proposition that an extension of a probationary period does not

            simultaneously delay the right to protections under the Civil Service Law (such as a hearing). In

            fact, courts have often concluded that employees are not entitled to hearings under the Civil

            Service Law where their probationary periods have been extended (e.g., Tomlinson v Ward, 110

            AD2d 537, 538, 487 NYS2d 779 [1st Dept 1985] [rejecting a claim for a hearing under the Civil

             159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                     Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159747/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

            Service Law on the ground that petitioner remained a probationary employee]). Simply put,

            because petitioner was a probationary employee at the time she was terminated, this Court must

            evaluate her termination under that standard.

                    “A probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement

            of reasons in the absence of any demonstration that the dismissal was for a constitutionally

            impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law” (Thomas v City of New

            York, 169 AD2d 496, 497-98, 169 AD2d 496 [1st Dept 1991]). Here, there is no basis to find that

            petitioner was fired in bad faith. Petitioner readily admits that she received underwhelming

            performance reviews; this constitutes a permissible basis to end petitioner’s employment as a

            probationary employee. That she blames DHS for not properly training her is not a basis to find

            that her termination was improper.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed without costs or

            disbursements.

                    4/17/2024                                                           $SIG$
                      DATE                                                      ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:               X   CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                  □
                                          GRANTED          X    DENIED   GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                  □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT        REFERENCE

             159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                      Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                            4 of 4
[* 4]