Leonard v. Sugarman
| Decision Date | 15 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 43,Docket 72-1238.,43 |
| Parties | Frank LEONARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jule SUGARMAN, Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the City of New York, individually, and in his official capacity, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Alexander A. Kolben, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Beatrice Rothman, New York City (J. Lee Rankin, Corp. Counsel, Stanley Buchsbaum, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.
Before FRIENDLY, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Frank Leonard, a social worker, was formerly employed by the New York City Department of Social Services. In January 1971, his immediate superior ordered him, pursuant to New York Civil Service Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 7, § 72, to report for a psychiatric examination to determine his fitness to continue in his position. Leonard refused and was suspended. A hearing followed, as provided for by Civil Service Law § 75, to establish the fact of his insubordination, and when Leonard persisted in his refusal to undergo the psychiatric examination after the hearing he was dismissed from his job. He subsequently sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the New York statutory procedure violated his rights of privacy and free speech and denied him due process of law. Plaintiff sought damages, injunctive relief and the convening of a three-judge court to hear his case. Judge Bonsal dismissed the complaint on the ground that it presented no substantial federal question.
The New York provisions, which authorize an "appointing authority" to order a civil service worker to undergo "a medical examination" when, in the authority's judgment, the "employee is unable to perform the duties of his position by reason of a disability . . .," apply to all such employees. If the medical report is adverse, an administrative appeal is available to test whether that determination "is arbitrary or unreasonable." Plaintiff's main argument is that before a section 72 order may even issue there must always be a preliminary adversary administrative hearing as to the justification for the examination. We do not believe that the United States Constitution requires such a hearing within a hearing. Potentially more serious is plaintiff's further allegation that in his particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. Dominique
...to be conducted by a medical officer selected by the civil service department ... having jurisdiction.”); Leonard v. Sugarman, 466 F.2d 1366, 1366–67 (2d Cir.1972). The same goes for the aspect of Clark's claim that her rights were violated when Dr. Ciulla requested and received information......
-
Snead v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF CITY OF NY
...our Court of Appeals upon a claim that it violated an employee's rights of privacy, free speech and due process of law. Leonard v. Sugarman, 466 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir., 1972). The essential contention there was that before a § 72 order may even issue there must always be a preliminary adversary......
-
Clark v. Dominique
...to be conducted by a medical officer selected by the civil service department ... having jurisdiction."); Leonard v. Sugarman, 466 F.2d 1366, 1366-67 (2d Cir. 1972). The same goes for the aspect of Clark's claim that her rights were violated when Dr. Ciulla requested and received informatio......
-
Lombard v. Board of Ed. of City of New York
...40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974) (noting right to plenary post-termination hearing). Summary judgment was inappropriate. Cf. Leonard v. Sugarman, 466 F.2d 1366, 1367 (2d Cir. 1972) (plaintiff did not 'seriously contest' charges of misconduct). In reversing the judgment, we remand for further considerat......