in cities where, as here, vacancies are not always filled immediately, but must be postponed for any number of valid reasons.
Plaintiffs claim that Rule IV (4) contravenes the reason for establishing an expiration date for civil service lists, which is to insure that all candidates have been recently tested for eligibility requirements. They are concerned by the fact that this allows for selection from candidates who had been tested well over two years previously. The passage of time may have effected their mental or physical prowess and reduced their eligibility. This risk is inherent in the whole civil service system and can easily occur within the strict two year time period that plaintiffs support. This is easily rectified and guarded against by the requirement of the six month probationary status prior to permanent hiring. Any deficiencies may be detected during this period and any lacking candidate will not be hired on a permanent status.
The saving provision of Rule IV(4) does not defeat the purpose of civil service eligibility lists, nor is it arbitrary or capricious. The provision is rationally related to the mandates of the civil service system.
Plaintiffs second allegation, that the absence of an expiration date allows defendants unbridled opportunities in selecting which list to use in filling pre-expiration vacancies, is totally without merit. The provision itself states that the vacancy must be filled from the list in effect at the time the vacancy occurred. The lack of an expiration date does not create any ambiguity whatsoever. The defendants are bound by the regulation.
Finally, as intervening defendants point out, the city ordinance which sets out the normal life of a civil service list as being two years, is not inconsistent with Civil Service Board Rule IV (4). The two can easily be read together. Under the civil service system now in effect, a list will expire after two years from the date of certification. Any vacancies which occur during the life of that list must be filled from that list. Once that list expires, any vacancies that occur thereafter must be filled from a new list. If one has not yet been compiled, the Board must give the examination and prepare a new list. It is clear, therefore, that under the present system, a civil service list does have a definite expiration date which proscribes the Board or defendants from discretionary hiring.
Intervening defendants have also moved for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim that the City's application of veteran's preference was unlawful. This court feels that the issue of the constitutionality of veteran's preference was clearly established by the United States Supreme Court in Personnel Administration of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 99 S. Ct. 2282, 60 L. Ed. 2d 870 (1979). Veteran's preference is lawful even where it is alleged that its application results in discrimination against women. Any claim that the defendants acted unlawfully when applying veteran's preference is without merit.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.