Lefebvre v. Kando

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Lefebvre v. Kando

383 A.2d 589, 119 R.I. 780, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 614

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 13, 1978

Docket76-253-Appeal

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 383 A.2d 589 (Lefebvre v. Kando) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lefebvre v. Kando, 383 A.2d 589, 119 R.I. 780, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 614 (R.I. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The Charter of the City of Pawtucket, as well as the rules and regulations in implementation thereof, require that all permanent employees in the personnel system receive annual job efficiency ratings. Notwithstanding, the city solicitor did not rate his two assistants during their respective several years of employment because in his opinion for one attorney to rate another is professionally improper. Thus, when a decreasing work load in the law department dictated the laying-off of one of those assistants, no efficiency ratings were available. Consequently, the defendants ignored the charter requirement that “efficiency rating shall be considered * * * as a factor in determining the order of lay-offs because of lack of * * * work.” Instead, seniority in service was the sole criterion.

[781]*781The plaintiff, the junior of the two assistants in time of service and thus the one terminated, was unable to persuade the Superior Court that defendants’ failure to consider efficiency ratings as a factor in the lay-off process entitled him to relief in the civil action he brought to enjoin termination of his employment. In our judgment, this was error. True, no efficiency ratings were available for consideration at the time of termination, but the city solicitor could have been ordered to evaluate forthwith the services of each of the assistants during their respective terms of employment. The plaintiff was entitled to at least that consideration. Although obviously such an evaluation at this late date will not be an equivalent of what would be available had there been full compliance with the pertinent requirements, it will insure as close an approach to compliance as is now possible in the light of all the circumstances. In addition, it will prevent the city solicitor’s prior noncompliance with one charter requirement from providing an acceptable excuse for noncompliance with another requirement. And finally, this evaluation will not, as the dissent suggests, be an exercise in futility for it is not to be presumed that plaintiff will necessarily be evaluated as less efficient than the other assistant.

The plaintiff’s appeal is sustained, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

Mr. Justice Paolino participated in the decision but retired prior to its announcement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The Charter of the City of Pawtucket, as well as the rules and regulations in implementation thereof, require that all permanent employees in the personnel system receive annual job efficiency ratings. Notwithstanding, the city solicitor did not rate his two assistants during their respective several years of employment because in his opinion for one attorney to rate another is professionally improper. Thus, when a decreasing work load in the law department dictated the laying-off of one of those assistants, no efficiency ratings were available. Consequently, the defendants ignored the charter requirement that “efficiency rating shall be considered * * * as a factor in determining the order of lay-offs because of lack of * * * work.” Instead, seniority in service was the sole criterion.

[781]*781The plaintiff, the junior of the two assistants in time of service and thus the one terminated, was unable to persuade the Superior Court that defendants’ failure to consider efficiency ratings as a factor in the lay-off process entitled him to relief in the civil action he brought to enjoin termination of his employment. In our judgment, this was error. True, no efficiency ratings were available for consideration at the time of termination, but the city solicitor could have been ordered to evaluate forthwith the services of each of the assistants during their respective terms of employment. The plaintiff was entitled to at least that consideration. Although obviously such an evaluation at this late date will not be an equivalent of what would be available had there been full compliance with the pertinent requirements, it will insure as close an approach to compliance as is now possible in the light of all the circumstances. In addition, it will prevent the city solicitor’s prior noncompliance with one charter requirement from providing an acceptable excuse for noncompliance with another requirement. And finally, this evaluation will not, as the dissent suggests, be an exercise in futility for it is not to be presumed that plaintiff will necessarily be evaluated as less efficient than the other assistant.

The plaintiff’s appeal is sustained, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

Mr. Justice Paolino participated in the decision but retired prior to its announcement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 A.2d 589, 119 R.I. 780, 1978 R.I. LEXIS 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lefebvre-v-kando-ri-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack