 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CIVIL SERVICE CONSTITUTION SPECIAL ELIGIBLE LISTS CIVIL SERVICE LAW APPLICANTS DISQUALIFICATION CITY AMENDMENT MATTER YORK YORK STATE APPEALS CIVIL SERVICE JOBS MERIT FITNESS SUBDIVISION EMPLOYMENT CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS HUMAN RIGHTS RESPONDENTS JUDICIAL ACTION LEGISLATURE SDHR NY2D LEGISLATION APPELLANTS APPELLATE DIVISION CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION DETERMINATION |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. NEW YORK STATE
DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
93 N.Y.2d 768 (1999).
October 19, 1999
1 No. 163
(99 NY Int. 0134)
Decided October 19, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Julian L. Kalkstein, for appellants.
Michael K. Swirsky, for respondents.
BELLACOSA, J.:
This appeal as of right (CPLR 5601(b)(1)) by the City of New York
raises the question whether subdivision 3 of Civil Service Law
56, added by amendment in 1994, is constitutional. The new subdivision
requires municipal employers to create special eligible lists that
benefit a particular class of civil service job applicants. The
benefitted group includes aspirants whose disqualification from
consideration for employment is nullified through administrative or
judicial action after an initial eligible list has already expired.
The statutory amendment attempts to provide a meaningful remedy, lest
the nullification result in a hollow victory.
Because we conclude that the challenged statute is an unconstitutional
impingement on the merit and fitness clause of the State constitution
(art V, § 6), we must modify the judgment of the Appellate Division.
The judgment is reversed insofar as it upholds the legislative
creation of a new right -- a special eligible list and retroactive
seniority upon appointment from that list. We thus annul the
determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights
(SDHR) to the extent that it directed a special eligible list and
retroactive seniority pursuant to the challenged statute. However,
this Court leaves undisturbed that portion of the determination and
judgment awarding compensatory damages to the aggrieved applicant.
The case arises from the refusal by New York City to place Ricks on a
civil service eligible list. In 1973, the applicant took and passed
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
