IN THE MATTER OF GEORGE HANCHARD, APPELLANT, v. FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
85 N.Y.2d 638, 651 N.E.2d 872, 628 N.Y.S.2d 4 (1995).
May 4, 1995
3 No. 92 (1995 NY Int. 107)
Decided May 4, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Steven U. Teitelbaum, for Appellant.
John McConnell, for Respondent.
TITONE, J.:
In this article 78 proceeding, petitioner claims that his termination
from employment was arbitrary and capricious because respondent failed
to follow its own pre-termination procedures established in its
Employee Handbook. Because respondent has substantially complied with
its stated policies, and any departure therefrom is attributable to
petitioner's own failure to cooperate, we affirm the Appellate
Division's order dismissing the petition.
Petitioner George Hanchard, a licensed architect, began his employment
with respondent Facilities Development Corporation on September 8,
1982 as an architect holding the title of Development Administrator
II. Petitioner was terminated from that position on June 28, 1991. At
the time of his termination, petitioner was 57 years old. Petitioner
was notified of the termination orally on June 14, 1991, and by letter
dated June 13, 1991, which stated: "this is to notify you that you are
being charged with being materially deficient in your work as a result
of recurring performance problems." The letter proceeded to list the
areas of deficiency charged against petitioner.
Petitioner instituted this article 78 proceeding to set aside his
termination as arbitrary and capricious and for reinstatement and back
pay, alleging that respondent failed to follow internal
pre-termination procedures as outlined in its Employee Handbook and
supplements thereto. Specifically, petitioner claimed that respondent
failed to give him an opportunity to respond to the charges against
him and to provide him with a hearing, which, under company policy, is
to be afforded prior to the discipline of "covered employees" such as
petitioner who have held full-time employment with respondent for 5
SNIPPETS:
John McConnell, for Respondent.
In this article 78 proceeding, petitioner claims that his termination from employment was
Because respondent has substantially complied with its stated policies, and any departure
Petitioner George Hanchard, a licensed architect, began his employment with respondent
Specifically, petitioner claimed that respondent failed to give him an opportunity to respond
Specifically, the court found that respondent's supervisors attempted to notify petitioner of
Respondent's stated policy is to assist troubled employees to improve work performance rather
The supervisor is advised to keep his or her own supervisor apprised of the employee's
The handbook provisions permit the employee to submit documentation during any of the
The policies establish that while noncovered employees have no right to a hearing prior to
a section entitled "Prerequisite Language" states that the supplemental Progressive
Respondent's position on appeal is that this language means that where an employee is charged
In compliance with the 1987 disciplinary procedures, prior to issuing the letter charging
Petitioner Hanchard, a licensed architect, was employed as a Development Administrator from
Twice in early 1991, Hanchard's supervisor sent various reports to FDC's Human Resources
|
