Board of Regents v. Roth
408 U.S. 564 (1972) Cited 14,660 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that where a public employee's appointment terminated on a particular date and there was no provision for renewal after that date, the employee "did not have a property interest sufficient to require . . . a hearing when [the officials] declined to renew his contract of employment."
Tractebel Energy Marketing, Inc. v. AEP Power Marketing, Inc.
487 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 366 timesHolding that motive is relevant under New York law, as well
Matter of Swinton v. Safir
93 N.Y.2d 758 (N.Y. 1999) Cited 188 timesHolding that a probationary employee could be terminated at will but only absent a showing that he was dismissed in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason
Matter of Johnson v. Katz
68 N.Y.2d 649 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 173 timesDecided June 10, 1986 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Lawrence E. Kahn, J. William F. Sheehan for appellant. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (William J. Kogan, Robert Hermann and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondents. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Judicial review of the determination to discharge this probationary employee is limited to an inquiry as to whether the termination was made
Kahn v. New York City Dep't of Educ.
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1098 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 68 timesAffirming Appellate Division ruling that probationary teacher did not have a valid claim under Section 1983 because she did not have a property interest in her position
Matter Cohoes v. Teachers Assn
40 N.Y.2d 774 (N.Y. 1976) Cited 176 timesUpholding bargained-for procedural protections for probationary employees although finding provision granting tenure unenforceable
Duncan v. Kelly
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 181 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 39 timesNo. 47 SSM 36. Decided January 15, 2008. APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered August 9, 2007. The Appellate Division affirmed an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which had dismissed a petition to annul respondents' determination terminating petitioner's employment as a probationary police officer
Venes v. Community School Bd.
43 N.Y.2d 520 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 95 timesHolding under New York law a probationary employee has no property interests in his employment and may be discharged for "almost any reason or no reason at all"
Matter of Cynthia York v. McGuire
99 A.D.2d 1023 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984) Cited 75 timesMarch 29, 1984 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (A.F. Klein, J.), entered October 13, 1982 referring the matter for a trial of issues of fact whether petitioner's dismissal was arbitrary and capricious, is reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition is dismissed. ¶ Petitioner as a probationary police officer could be dismissed without an "administrative hearing concerning the reasons for [her] dismissal absent proof, not present in this record, that the dismissal was for an improper
Gumbs v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of N.Y.
125 A.D.3d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) Cited 8 times02-17-2015 In re Darlene GUMBS, Petitioner–Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Respondents. Office of Richard E. Casagrande, New York (Lori M. Smith of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Emma Grunberg of counsel), for respondents. Office of Richard E. Casagrande, New York (Lori M. Smith of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Emma Grunberg of counsel)