Albert C. Todaro v. Cecilia E. Norat, Individually and as Executive Director of the State Insurance Fund James Doe, James Doe, Individually and Officially Michael Roe, Individually and Officially Michael Doe, Michael Doe, Individually and Officially George Roe, Individually and Officially the State Insurance Fund State of New York
Docket: 537
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; February 17, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Albert C. Todaro appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Cecilia E. Norat, both individually and as Executive Director of the State Insurance Fund (SIF), following a termination notice he received on April 11, 1995. Todaro claimed he was terminated without adequate due process, asserting he was either a tenured or at-will employee, a point of contention between him and Norat. The district court had previously dismissed his claims against the State of New York, the SIF, and Norat in her official capacity, arguing that Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law provided sufficient due process protection. However, the court did not determine if Todaro had a property interest in his employment. The Second Circuit found that the district court's reliance on Article 78 conflicted with the Supreme Court's ruling in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, which mandates that tenured employees must receive notice and an opportunity to respond to charges before termination. The appellate court emphasized that due process requires certain elements of fairness that are not satisfied by a post-termination hearing, leading to the decision to vacate the district court's dismissal of Todaro's claims against Norat individually.
Norat requests the court to uphold the district court's ruling by addressing an issue it did not consider, specifically claiming that New York law does not grant Todaro a Fourteenth Amendment due process 'property interest' in his employment at the State Insurance Fund (SIF). The court declines this request, emphasizing that property interests arise from rules or understandings rooted in sources like state law. It reviews New York Civil Service Law to ascertain if a public employee has a property interest necessitating a termination hearing. Todaro asserts that, as a veteran, he qualifies for limited tenure under New York Civil Service Law § 75(1)(b), which restricts termination reasons for veterans to incompetency or misconduct and guarantees a hearing. Conversely, Norat argues that Todaro, as the SIF's Director of Fiscal Management and Investments, falls under a judicial exception to this statute due to his high-level responsibilities. Norat also contends that Todaro is a 'deputy' as per the exemption in § 75(1)(b). The court notes it is not the appropriate venue to resolve these issues and that the relevant facts regarding Todaro's status under New York law have not been adequately explored. Consequently, the court vacates and remands the case to the district court to determine whether Todaro possesses a due process property interest in his position, which was renamed Director, Fiscal Management and Investments in 1993.
