PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE
Civil service reassignment of employee.
SEC. 6. Other Personnel Movements. The following personnel movements which will not require issuance of an appointment shall nevertheless require an office order by duly authorized official. a. Reassignment – movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary. If reassignment is without the consent of the employee being reassigned, it shall be allowed only for a maximum period of one year. Reassignment is presumed to be regular and made in the interest of public service unless proven otherwise or if it constitutes constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal exists when an employee quits his work because of the agency head’s unreasonable, humiliating, or demeaning actuations which render continued work impossible . Hence, the employee is deemed to have been illegally dismissed. This may occur although there is no diminution or reduction of salary of the employee. It may be a transfer from a position of dignity to a more servile or menial job. No reassignment shall be undertaken if done indiscriminately or whimsically because the law is not intended as a convenient shield for the appointing/disciplining authority to harass or oppress a subordinate on the pretext of advancing and promoting public interest. Reassignment of small salaried employees is not permissible if it causes significant financial dislocation. Sufficient reasons to warrant the continued reassignment of the employee and performance of functions other than those attached to the position must be established. (Emphasis in the original; bold italics supplied.)
Section 10, Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, to wit: "Sec. 10. A reassignment is the movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary and does not require the issuance of an appointment."
Popular Posts
Law to allow civil service exam passers to use 'CSE' suffix
The four-fold test in labor law
Elements of frustrated homicide
Can mistress be held liable under RA 9262?
Penalties for theft (Art 309)
DOLE: Employees NOT to pay for company uniforms
Elements of an obligation
Advanced Search (Items only)
CSC MC 02, s. 2005: Revised Rules on Reassignment
- ← Previous Item
- Next Item →
June 3, 2019 G.R. No. 200170 Petitioner
LEONEN, Reassignments differ from transfers, and public employees with appointments that are not station-specific may be reassigned to another station in the exigency of public service. This resolves a Petition for Review on assailing the July 28, 2011 Decision and January 4, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117679. Marilyn R. Yangson (Yangson) was Principal III at the Surigao Norte National High School (Surigao National). On April 30, 2008, Yangson was personally served a Memorandum dated April 14, 2008 issued by then Assistant Schools Division Superintendent Officer-in-Charge Fidela Rosas (Rosas). In the Memorandum, Yangson was reassigned from Surigao National to Toledo S. Pantilo Memorial National High School (Toledo Memorial): Please submit your clearance as to money and property accountability before reporting to your new station. Your First Day of Service must also be submitted to this Office for our reference and file. It is expected that you do your best in the interest of the service. Please be guided accordingly. Yangson refused to accept the Memorandum without first consulting her counsel. Two (2) days prior to the effectivity of her reassignment on May 5, 2008, Yangson filed before the Regional Trial Court a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Damages against Rosas and Dulcesima Corvera (Corvera), who was supposed to replace Yangson as the new principal of Surigao National. Yangson alleged that the Memorandum violated Department of Education Circular No. 02, series of 2005, because it failed to specify the duration of her reassignment and because it was issued without her prior consultation. She also claimed that there was no vacancy in the position, and the reassignment would cause diminution in her rank. On May 5, 2008, the Regional Trial Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order. However, in its May 24, 2008 Order, the Regional Trial Court denied Yangson's prayer for preliminary injunction. It held that Yangson did not have a vested right over her position at Surigao National because her appointment as Principal III was not station-specific. It also found that the Temporary Restraining Order was sufficient to vindicate her rights even if the Memorandum was not served properly. Furthermore, the trial court ruled that Yangson was not singled out as other principals were also reassigned. It held that the reassignments were in good faith and within Rosas' authority. It ruled that the issuance of an injunction was improper as Yangson could still appeal to the Director of Public Schools under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 4670, or the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. While this was pending resolution, the trial court explained, her transfer could be held in abeyance. Thus, Yangson appealed before the Department of Education CARAGA Regional Office. In her June 11, 2008 Resolution, Regional Director Jesusita Arteche (Regional Director Arteche) denied Yangson's appeal. Citing Section 26 of the Administrative Code, which differentiated transfers from reassignments, she found that Yangson was reassigned, not transferred. Thus, Section 6 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, which only provided for transfers, was inapplicable. Yangson's reassignment, then could not be held in abeyance while her appeal was pending resolution. Regional Director Arteche also ruled that Yangson was not constructively dismissed because her reassignment was done in good faith. Further, it held that Rosas had the discretion to reassign principals and teachers under DECS Order No. 7, series of 1999, which directed the reassignment of teachers and principals every five (5) years. Yangson elevated her case to the Department of Education Central Office, but her appeal was denied in the August 13, 2008 Resolution. The Department of Education Central Office affirmed that Yangson was reassigned, not transferred, since her movement did not involve the issuance of an appointment. It held that since Yangson's appointment was not station-specific, her reassignment was within the prerogative of the head of office for the exigency of service. Hence, Yangson could be assigned to any school. Moreover, the Department of Education Central Office found that since her reassignment was done to promote efficiency in government service, her consent was not necessary. Thus, the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers was not violated. Even if the movement was a transfer, the Department of Education Central Office found that Yangson's consent was not required since her appointment was not station-specific. It explained that when the appointment is not station-specific, one's consent is not required when he or she is merely assigned or temporarily appointed. The Department of Education Central Office ruled that there was no malice in Yangson's reassignment just because she was unable to consult her lawyer to question it. It found that Rosas made several earnest efforts to serve Yangson the Memorandum on time, beginning April 22, 2008. In all those instances, Yangson refused to receive the Memorandum, and only accepted it on May 2, 2008. Thus, it ruled that Yangson could not feign ignorance of the action as it was she who employed delaying tactics. Maintaining that Yangson was not singled out, the Department of Education Central Office explained that her reassignment was part of the reshuffling of all school heads and principals within the division under DECS Order No. 7. The Department of Education Central Office, likewise, ruled that Yangson's reassignment to a smaller school was neither a demotion nor constructive dismissal. It held that government projects, programs, efforts, and resources could not be subordinated to individual preferences of Civil Service employees as it would defy the notion that "a public office is a public trust." The Department of Education Central Office further found that Yangson's Appeal before the Regional Director was filed out of time. It found: SO RESOLVED. Yangson filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the Department of Education Central Office in its October 13, 2008 Resolution. Thus, she elevated her claims to the Civil Service Commission. In its June 15, 2010 Resolution, the Civil Service Commission reversed both Resolutions of the Department of Education Central Office and ruled in favor of Yangson. It found that her reassignment did not comply with the requirements of Section 6 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. The Civil Service Commission affirmed that Yangson could be assigned anywhere in the school division. However, It noted that while the movement would be in the same region, Yangson would be placed in a different division. It found that Surigao National is under the Division of Surigao City, while Toledo Memorial is under the Division of Surigao del Norte. Thus, it ruled that Yangson's consent was necessary. The Civil Service Commission also concluded that the Memorandum only stated the exigency of service, but "failed to show that [Yangson's] transfer was premised on the ground of completion of five (5) years . . . at [Surigao National]." The dispositive portion of the Resolution read: Thus, the Department of Education elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals. In its July 28, 2011 Decision, the Court of Appeals set aside the rulings of the Civil Service Commission. The Court of Appeals maintained that while reassignments are different from transfers, both are covered by Section 6 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. However, though it was applicable, the Court of Appeals found that the provision was not violated. It explained that Yangson was being reassigned under the Division Office's plan to reshuffle school administrators in the exigency of service, as the last reshuffling had happened more than five (5) years earlier. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the reassignment was valid without Yangson's consent, and the notice served to her sufficiently complied with the requirement under the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. It agreed with the Civil Service Commission that Yangson had not been demoted as there was no reduction in Yangson's rank, status, or salary. The Court of Appeals further found that Yangson was reassigned to a school in the same division as Surigao National. It noted that she was appointed at the Department of Education, Division of Surigao del Norte, and not any specific station or school. Citing , it held that since her appointment was not station-specific, Yangson could be assigned to any school. Her security of tenure does not entitle her to permanently stay in only one (1) school. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision read: SO ORDERED. Yangson filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied in its January 4, 2012 Resolution. Thus, Yangson filed this Petition for Review on . Petitioner insists that the Court of Appeals did not address the issue of whether her movement was a reassignment or a transfer. She claims that her reassignment contravenes Section 6 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, which provides that her consent must first be obtained before she is transferred. She asserts that she should have been given prior notice. She also posits that the reassignments should not have been implemented while the appeal was pending. Petitioner further questions the reason and motivation for her transfer. She alleges that Rosas merely shuffled the assignments of three (3) principals after previous attempts to remove her from Surigao National had failed. Likewise, she assails the Division Office's reason that it was for the exigency of service, maintaining that there was no extraordinary occurrence in Toledo Memorial that will require her expertise and qualifications. Moreover, petitioner claims that there is no reason to remove her from Surigao National as she had an exemplary record at the school. She notes, among others, that the school excelled during her administration and that she was recognized by the Department of Education as Most Outstanding Principal for school year 2005 to 2006. Further claiming that the reassignment diminished her rank and status, petitioner points out that she will only have 31 personnel at Toledo Memorial against her 165 personnel at Surigao National. Since Toledo Memorial is smaller, her supervisory authority will be considerably diminished, as such size is for the position of Principal I, not Principal III. Petitioner further argues that even if there was no new appointment, her movement was still a demotion. She claims that demotion does not have to be evidenced by a change of appointment, and it may be shown by the size of the school where she is being transferred. Petitioner suggests that her appointment to Surigao National is station-specific, as her appointment papers indicate that she would replace Mamerto Racaza (Racaza), who had been assigned to Surigao National before he retired. Petitioner explains that she does not claim any property right over her present position. She is simply refusing her transfer because her constitutional right to security of tenure was violated. Finally, petitioner argues that even if the movement was a reassignment, not a transfer, it should not be for an indefinite period and should not last longer than one (1) year. In its Comment, respondent Department of Education argues that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that petitioner's reassignment is valid. It asserts that petitioner's appointment was not station-specific since her appointment papers indicate that she was appointed as "Principal III of [the Department of Education] Division of Surigao del Norte." It contends that Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2005, provides that employees without specific stations may be reassigned indefinitely. Respondent further argues that petitioner need not be served prior notice or an explanation for her reassignment to be valid. Similarly, her consent is not necessary as her transfer was done in good faith and in the interest of government service. It argues that petitioner cannot demand as a right that she remain the principal of Surigao National just because she withheld her consent. Respondent claims that under Section 26(7) of the Administrative Code, Rosas is vested with management prerogative to effect reassignments. It argues that Section 6 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers cannot impinge on the policy that school staff would be reassigned after a five (5)-year service in a station. It explains that the policy was made to prevent situations where school officials tend to be complacent after staying in a station for too long, which causes administrative problems. Asserting that the reassignment was made in accordance with law, respondent argues that the act cannot be deemed a removal without lawful cause or a violation of petitioner's right to security of tenure. It reiterates that petitioner has no vested right to serve at Surigao National, pointing out that she would retain the same rank, status, and salary as Principal III of Toledo Memorial. Furthermore, respondent claims that petitioner raises factual issues improper in a Rule 45 petition. It asserts that the findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive as they were supported by substantial evidence. Respondent also points that petitioner failed to comply with the requirement under Rule 45, Section 5 of the Rules of Court because it was petitioner herself who certified the documents attached to the Petition as true copies. In her Reply, petitioner reiterates that even if she can be transferred or reassigned, it should not be for an indefinite period. For this Court's resolution is the issue of whether or not petitioner Marilyn R. Yangson's reassignment was valid. In connection with this, we resolve the following issues: First, whether or not petitioner's appointment is station-specific; Second, whether or not Section 6 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers applies to petitioner's movement; Third, whether or not petitioner's reassignment violated her security of tenure; Fourth, whether or not petitioner's reassignment was for the exigency of service and in accordance with policy; Fifth, whether or not petitioner was demoted; and Finally, whether or not petitioner's appointment may be indeterminate. The Petition lacks merit. Petitioner's reassignment is valid.
This Court affirms the finding that petitioner's appointment was not station-specific. Petitioner suggests that her appointment is station-specific because her appointment papers state that she would replace Racaza, who, before his retirement, had been assigned at Surigao National. This contention is untenable. An appointment is station-specific if the employee's appointment paper specifically indicates on its face the particular office or station the position is located. Moreover, the station should already be specified in the position title, even if the place of assignment is not indicated on the face of the appointment. Here, respondent alleges that petitioner was appointed as "Principal III of [the Department of Education] Division of Surigao del Norte." Petitioner did not deny this in her pleadings. Evidently, petitioner's appointment is not solely for Surigao National or for any specific school. There is no particular office or station specifically indicated on the face of her appointment paper. Neither does her position title specifically indicate her station. Furthermore, the Regional Trial Court, the Department of Education, and the Court of Appeals, all found that petitioner's appointment was station-specific. It is settled that the factual findings of lower tribunals are entitled to great weight and respect absent any showing that they were not supported by evidence, or the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. There is no showing of any of these exceptions here.
Moreover, Section 6 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers does not apply here. The provision states: . — Except for cause and as herein otherwise provided, no teacher shall be transferred without his consent from one station to another.Where the exigencies of the service require the of a teacher from one station to another, such may be effected by the school superintendent who shall previously notify the teacher concerned of the and the reason or reasons therefor. If the teacher believes there is no justification for the , he may appeal his case to the Director of Public Schools or the Director of Vocational Education, as the case may be. Pending his appeal and the decision thereon, his shall be held in abeyance: , That no whatever shall be made three months before any local or national election. Necessary transfer expenses of the teacher and his family shall be paid for by the Government if his transfer is finally approved. (Emphasis supplied) The text of the law is clear and unequivocal: Section 6 applies to transfers, not reassignments. Petitioner's movement from Surigao National to Toledo Memorial was a reassignment, not a transfer. The legal concept of transfer differs from reassignment. Most notably, a transfer involves the issuance of another appointment, while a reassignment does not. Section 26 of the Administrative Code provides: . — . . .As used in this Title, any action denoting the movement or progress of personnel in the civil service shall be known as personnel action. Such action shall include appointment through certification, promotion, , reinstatement, re-employment, detail, reassignment, demotion, and separation. All personnel actions shall be in accordance with such rules, standards, and regulations as may be promulgated by the Commission. . . . . (3) Transfer. — A transfer is a movement from one position to another which is of equivalent rank, level, or salary without break in service . It shall not be considered disciplinary when made in the interest of public service, in which case, the employee concerned shall be informed of the reasons therefor. If the employee believes that there is no justification for the transfer, he may appeal his case to the Commission. The transfer may be from one department or agency to another or from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency: , That any movement from the non-career service to the career service shall not be considered a transfer. . . . . (7) . — An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the same agency: , that such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary. Transfer and reassignment are defined in Section 24 of Presidential Decree No. 807, or the Civil Service Law: . — All appointments in the career service shall be made only according to merit and fitness, to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examinations. A non-eligible shall not be appointed to any position in the civil service whenever there is a civil service eligible actually available for and ready to accept appointment.As used in this Decree, any action denoting the movement or progress of personnel in the civil service shall be known as personnel action. Such action shall include appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, re-employment, detail, reassignment, demotion, and separation. All personnel actions shall be in accordance with such rules, standards, and regulations as may be promulgated by the Commission. . . . . (c) — A transfer is a movement from one position to another which is of equivalent rank, level, or salary without break in service involving the issuance of an appointment. It shall not be considered disciplinary when made in the interest of public service, in which case, the employee concerned shall be informed of the reasons therefore. If the employee believes that there is no justification for the transfer, he may appeal his case to the Commission. The transfer may be from one department or agency to another or from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency: , That any movement from the non-career service to the career service shall not be considered a transfer. . . . . (g) . — An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the same agency: , That such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary. They are also defined in Sections 11 and 13(a) of Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 1800692, otherwise known as the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions. The provisions state: . — The nature of appointment shall be, as follows:. . . . c. Transfer — the movement of employee from one position to another which is of equivalent rank, level or salary without gap in the service involving the issuance of an appointment. The transfer may be from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency or from one department or agency to another: Provided, however, that any movement from the non-career service to the career service and vice versa shall not be considered as a transfer but reappointment. . . . . SECTION 13. . — The following human resource actions which will not require the issuance of an appointment shall nevertheless require an Office Order issued by the appointing officer/authority: a. Reassignment — movement of an employee across the organizational structure within the same department or agency, which does not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary. differentiates a reassignment from a new appointment, which is necessary in a transfer: On the other hand, a reassignment is merely a movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary and does not require the issuance of an appointment. (Citations omitted) In , a secondary school principal, whose appointment was not station-specific, contested her reassignment to another school. She cited the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, arguing that her consent is necessary for the reassignment's validity. There, this Court differentiated transfer from reassignment and held that the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers is not applicable: . Thus: : . Such that the rule which proscribes transfers without consent as anathema to the security of tenure is predicated upon the theory that the .". (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) Here, the Memorandum petitioner questions specifically stated that she was being reassigned: This was a simple reassignment. Section 6 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, then, does not apply.
Moreover, petitioner's reassignment did not violate her right to security of tenure. In , another principal contested her assignment to a school, alleging that she was being removed without cause and her consent. This Court found her contentions unmeritorious: to a particular school are inseparable, plaintiff maintains that her unconsented transfer to another school by virtue of an administrative directive amounts to a removal — prohibited by the Constitution and the Civil Service Act — which cannot be done unless for causes specified by law.Plaintiffs confident stride falters. She took too loose a view of the applicable jurisprudence. Her refuge behind the mantle of security of tenure guaranteed by the Constitution is not impenetrable. She proceeds upon the assumption that she occupies her station in Sinalang Elementary School by appointment. But her first appointment as Principal merely reads, thus: "You are hereby appointed a ," without mentioning her station. She cannot therefore claim security of tenure as Principal of Sinalang Elementary School or any particular station. She may be assigned to any station as exigency of public service requires, even without her consent. She thus has no right of choice. The rule pursued by plaintiff only goes so far as the appointment indicates a specific station. Otherwise, the constitutionally ordained security of tenure cannot shield her. In appointments of this nature, this Court has consistently rejected the officer's demand to remain—even as public service dictates that a transfer be made—in a particular station. (Citations omitted) discusses several more cases where it was ruled that the right to security of tenure is not violated when a public officer or employee, whose appointment is not station-specific, is reassigned: , the Court addressed appointments of petitioners as "Mediators-Arbiters in the National Capital Region" in dismissing a challenge on to resolutions of the CSC and orders of the Secretary of Labor. The Court said: . Consequently, where, in the opinion of respondent Secretary, their services may be used more effectively. As such . As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, petitioners' reassignment is not a transfer for they were not removed from their position as med-arbiters. They were not given new appointments to new positions. It indubitably follows, therefore, that Memorandum Order No. 4 ordering their reassignment in the interest of the service is legally in order."In , the Court, dealing with an appointment in the Bureau of Public Schools of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, ruled as follows: "Again, in , the Court had before it petitioners' appointments as "Election Registrars in the Commission of Elections," without any intimation to what city, municipality or municipal district they had been appointed as such. The Court held that since petitioners "were not appointed to, and consequently not entitled to any security of tenure or permanence in, any specific station," "on general principles, they [could] be transferred as the exigencies of the service required," and that they had no right to complain against any change in assignment. The Court further held that assignment to a particular station after issuance of the appointment was not necessary to complete such appointment: . A contrary rule will erase altogether the demarcation line we have repeatedly drawn between and as two distinct concepts in the law of public officers.". . . . Also noteworthy is which involved the appointment of petitioner Sta. Maria as "Dean, College of Education, University of the Philippines." Dean Sta. Maria was transferred by the President of the University of the Philippines to the Office of the President, U.P., without demotion in rank or salary, thereby acceding to the demands of student activists who were boycotting their classes in the U.P. College of Education. Dean Sta. Maria assailed his transfer as an illegal and unconstitutional removal from office. In upholding Dean Sta. Maria's claim, the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Sanchez, laid down the applicable doctrine in the following terms: . Thus, one who is appointed 'principal in the Bureau of Public Schools' and is designated to head a pilot school may be transferred to the post of principal of another school. And as anathema to security of tenure . Such a rule does not proscribe a transfer carried out under a specific statute that empowers the head of an agency to periodically reassign the employees and officers in order to improve the service of the agency. . . . . To be stressed at this point, however, is that the appointment of Sta. Maria is that of ." (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) Here, it has been established that petitioner's appointment is not station-specific. While she is entitled to her right to security of tenure, she cannot assert her right to stay at Surigao National. Her appointment papers are not specific to the school, which means she may be assigned to any station as may be necessary for public exigency. Because she holds no vested right to remain as Principal III of Surigao National, her security of tenure was not violated.
Clearly, petitioner's reassignment was for the exigency of service. Prior to the issuance of the Memorandum, in a March 31, 2008 letter, Rosas recommended the reshuffling and/or reassignment of secondary administrators and teachers to the Regional Director of the Department of Education CARAGA. The Regional Director did not object. Furthermore, on March 7, 2008, a special meeting of secondary school administrators was held to inform the teachers of the planned reshuffling of school administrators to comply with MEC Circular No. 26. This allegation was supported by Affidavits from those in attendance. While petitioner was absent on the day of the meeting, she does not deny that the meeting took place. Neither can she assert that she was insufficiently notified of her reassignment, since she had refused the Memorandum precisely entailing her reassignment to be served upon her. Section 26(7) of the Administrative Code allows any government department or agency that is embraced in the civil service prerogative to reassign employees: . — . . .As used in this Title, any action denoting the movement or progress of personnel in the civil service shall be known as personnel action. Such action shall include appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, re-employment, detail, reassignment, demotion, and separation. (7) — An employee may be , That such reassignment shall . (Emphasis supplied) discusses that reassignments by virtue of this provision are neither deemed as removals without lawful cause nor seen as violations of the right to security of tenure: In , this Court affirmed the reshuffling of principals in the exigencies of service: In the case at bar, the reasons given by Azurin in recommending Navarro's reassignment were far from whimsical, capricious or arbitrary. Navarro had been assigned as principal of Carlos Albert High School for more than ten (10) years. She was ripe for reassignment. That she was a model principal was precisely one of the reasons for recommending her for reassignment so that her management and expertise could be availed of in her new assignment. Apart from the presumption of good faith that Azurin enjoys, We believe that her recommendation for Navarro's reassignment — for the latter to share the benefits of her expertise in her new assignment plus the recognizable fact that a relatively long stay in one's station tends towards over-fraternization with associates which could be injurious to the service — has a substantial factual basis that meets the requirements of the exigencies of the service. (Citations omitted) Similarly, here, we cannot conclude as a matter of established fact that petitioner was reassigned by whim, fancy, or spite, as she would like this Court to believe. It is presumed that reassignments are "regular and made in the interest of public service." The party questioning its regularity or asserting bad faith carries the burden to prove his or her allegations. In : . Without a clear and persuasive evidence of bad faith, the presumption of good faith in favor of private respondent stands.
Petitioner's reassignment cannot be considered a demotion or constructive dismissal. A demotion means that an employee is moved or appointed from a higher position to a lower position with decreased duties and responsibilities, or with lesser status, rank, or salary. Constructive dismissal occurs whether or not there is diminution in rank, status, or salary if the employee's environment has rendered it impossible for him or her to stay in his or her work. It may be due to the agency head's unreasonable, humiliating, or demeaning actuations, hardship because geographic location, financial dislocation, or performance of other duties and responsibilities inconsistent with those attached to the position. A reassignment may be deemed a constructive dismissal if the employee is moved to a position with a more servile or menial job as compared to his previous position. It may occur if the employee was reassigned to an office not in the existing organizational structure, or if he or she is not given a definite set of duties and responsibilities. It may be deemed constructive dismissal if the motivation for the reassignment was to harass or oppress the employee on the pretext of promoting public interest. This may be inferred from reassignments done twice within a year, or during a change of administration of elective and appointive officials. However, demotion and constructive dismissal are never presumed and must be sufficiently proven. Again, petitioner failed to rebut this reasonable presumption. Petitioner's position at Toledo Memorial is still Principal III. She retains the same rank, status, and salary, and is expected to exercise the same duties and responsibilities. There is no movement from a higher position to a lower position. She was not given a more servile or menial job. Similarly, she was not humiliated, demeaned, or treated unreasonably. She did not allege that it was impossible for her to continue her work due to the geographic location. There is no showing that she was financially dislocated or that she was being made to perform duties and responsibilities that contravene those of her position. Moreover, Toledo Memorial is a high school within her area of appointment. She was given a definite set of duties and responsibilities. This is not the second reassignment within a year, or a reassignment during a change of administration of elective and appointive officials. Moreover, petitioner explains that she was demoted because her supervisory authority has been diminished considering the school she was reassigned to is smaller than Surigao National. This argument is specious. In , a principal insisted that she was demoted because the school she was assigned to was not a pilot demonstration school, was six (6) kilometers from her hometown, and only had 13 teachers. She compared this to her old school which was a pilot school in her hometown with 23 teachers. This Court noted that her rank was maintained as Principal I and that her preferences could not be prioritized over the demands of public service and the interest of the public that may benefit from her experience.
Finally, petitioner argues that assuming she was only reassigned, her reassignment should not be for an indefinite period and should not last longer than a year. Again, petitioner's argument fails. When an employee's appointment is station-specific, his or her reassignment may not exceed a maximum period of one (1) year. This is not the case for appointments that are not station-specific. In such instances, the reassignment may be indefinite and exceed one (1) year —as in petitioner's case. On a final note, this Court is aghast that grammatical errors pervade the Memorandum of the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent Officer-in-Charge. Such errors committed by a public employee, whose position affects the education of the youth, is disturbing. Certainly, it appears that there is a need to better the quality of education in our country and impose higher standards on the competence of public officers, in keeping with the constitutional provision to promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels —unless, of course, this unforgivable lack of proficiency in the English language is unique to Rosas. For the good of the country, we advise that she brush up her skills using the lessons that our public schools teach our children. , this Court the Petition. The July 28, 2011 Decision and January 4, 2012 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117679 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner Marilyn R. Yangson's reassignment is valid and consistent with law and jurisprudence. , and concur. on wellness leave. , pp. 9-31. at 32-44. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, and concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the First Division, Court of Appeals, Manila. at 45-46. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, and concurred in by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Former First Division, Court of Appeals, Manila. at 32. at 32-33. at 47. at 33. Id. at 54. at 33 and 54-55. at 56-58. at 56-57. at 57. at 33-34 and 57-58. at 34. at 64-66. The Resolution was penned by Regional Director Jesusita L. Arteche, CESO, of the Department of Education CARAGA Regional Office. at 64-65. at 65. Id. at 34-35 and 75-82. The Resolution was recommended by Undersecretary Atty. Franklin C. Suñga and approved by Secretary Jesli A. Lapus of the Department of Education. at 77. at 80-81. at 78. at 79-80. at 80. Id. at 81. at 82. at 35. at 91-97. The Resolution was signed by Commissioners Mary Ann Z. Fernandez-Mendoza and Cesar D. Buenaflor and Chairman Francisco T. Duque III, and attested by Director IV Dolores B. Bonifacio of the Civil Service Commission. at 39-40. at 95. The Civil Service Commission based its finding on the master list of schools of the CARAGA Region. at 96. Id. at 97. The Resolution dated June 15, 2010 was penned by Civil Service Commissioner Mary Ann Z. Fernandez-Mendoza, signed by Chairman Francisco T. Duque III, and Commissioner Cesar D. Buenaflor, and attested by Director IV of the Civil Service Commission Secretariat and Liason Office Dolores B. Bonifacio, of the Civil Service Commission. at 36. at 32-44. at 43. at 40 citing The Superintendent of City Schools for Manila v. Azarcon, 568 Phil. 273 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First Division]. Id. Id. at 40-41. at 42. at 41. 312 Phil. 235 (1995) [Per J. Feliciano, En Banc]. , p. 42. at 43. at 46. at 9-28. at 18. at 16. at 19. at 22. at 24. at 23-24. at 23. at 24. at 25. at 19. at 25. at 184-211. at 195. at 198. at 195. at 200. at 201. at 200. at 201. at 205. at 205-206. These factual issues allegedly include: (1) whether Yangson's movement was a transfer; (2) whether the notice is necessary to enable her appeal; (3) whether her reassignment is for an indefinite period; (4) whether there is a valid reason for her reassignment; (5) whether it amounts to a diminution in her rank and status; (6) whether she was appointed solely to Surigao National; and (7) whether her reassignment was warranted considering her excellent performance at Surigao National. Id. at 207. at 266-270. at 266. at 24. CSC Resolution No. 1800692 (2018), sec. 13(1). 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions (Revised 2018). , p. 198. at 56. at 80. at 41. , 558 Phil. 235, 254 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]. Presidential Decree No. 807 (1975), sec. 24, Civil Service Decree of the Philippines or Civil Service Law of 1975. 425 Phil. 920 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc]. at 926. 262 Phil. 608 (1990) [Per J. Paras, Second Division]. at 614-615. , p. 33. 136 Phil. 315 (1969) [Per J. Sanchez, En Banc]. at 321-322. 312 Phil. 235, 254-258 (1995) [Per J. Feliciano, En Banc]. , pp. 75 and 91. In accordance with the 1st Indorsement dated April 2, 2008 signed by Dr. Isabelita M. Borres, CESO IV, Assistant Regional Director and Officer-in-Charge, Department of Education CARAGA. at 212. at 212-229. at 33. , 312 Phil. 235 (1995) [Per J. Feliciano, En Banc]. 312 Phil. 235, 251 (1995) [Per J. Feliciano, En Banc]. 262 Phil. 608, 616 (1990) [Per J. Paras, Second Division]. , 688 Phil. 282, 292 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc] citing CSC Resolution No. 1800692 (2018), sec. 13(a)(3). , 423 Phil. 30, 43 (2001) [Per J. De Leon, Jr. Second Division]. 423 Phil. 30 (2001) [Per J. De Leon, Jr. Second Division]. at 43. , 322 Phil. 649, 667 (1996) [Per J. Davide, Jr., Third Division], citing Rule VII, Section 11 of the Civil Service Commission Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, and , 304 Phil. 713 (1994) [Per J. Regalado, En Banc]. , G.R. No. 185938, September 6, 2017, 838 SCRA 680-681 (2017) [Per J. Reyes, Jr., Second Division] and CSC Resolution No. 1800692 (2018), sec. 13(a)(3). CSC Resolution No. 1800692 (2018), sec. 13(a)(3). CSC Resolution No. 1800692 (2018), sec. 13(a)(3). Id. p. 23. 136 Phil. 315, 325-327 (1969) [Per J. Sanchez, En Banc]. , pp. 19 and 25-26. , 688 Phil. 282, 290 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc]. CSC Resolution No. 1800692 (2018), sec. 13 (a), par. 1-2. , p. 33. CONST., art. XIV, sec. 1. | |
5 CFR § 317.901 - Reassignments.
(a) In this section, reassignment means a permanent assignment to another SES position within the employing executive agency or military department. (See 5 U.S.C. 105 for a definition of “executive agency” and 5 U.S.C. 102 for a definition of “military department.”)
(b) A career appointee may be reassigned to any SES position for which qualified in accordance with the following conditions:
(1) Reassignment within a commuting area. For reassignment within a commuting area, the appointee must receive a written notice at least 15 days before the effective date of the reassignment. This notice requirement may be waived only when the appointee consents in writing.
(2) Reassignment outside of a commuting area. For reassignment outside of a commuting area, (i) the agency must consult with the appointee on the reasons for, and the appointee's preferences with respect to, the proposed reassignment; and (ii) following such consultation, the agency must provide the appointee a written notice, including the reasons for the reassignment, at least 60 days before the effective date of the reassignment. This notice requirement may be waived only when the appointee consents in writing.
(c) A career appointee may not be involuntarily reassigned within 120 days after the appointment of the head of an agency , or within 120 days after the appointment of the career appointee's most immediate supervisor who is a noncareer appointee and who has the authority to make an initial appraisal of the career appointee's performance under subpart C of part 430 of this chapter.
(1) In this paragraph—
(i) Head of an agency means the head of an executive or military department or the head of an independent establishment.
(ii) Noncareer appointee includes an SES noncareer or limited appointee, an appointee in a position filled by Schedule C, or an appointee in an Executive Schedule or equivalent position that is not required to be filled competitively.
(2) These restrictions do not apply to the involuntary reassignment of a career appointee under 5 U.S.C. 4314(b)(3) based on a final performance rating of “Unsatisfactory” that was issued before the appointment of a new agency head or a new noncareer supervisor as defined in paragraph (c)(1) of this section. If a moratorium is already underway at the time the final rating is issued, then that moratorium must be completed before the reassignment action can be effected.
(3) A voluntary reassignment during the 120-day period is permitted, but the appointee must agree in writing before the reassignment.
(4) For the purpose of calculating the 120-day period, any days , not to exceed a total of 60, during which the career appointee is serving on a detail or other temporary assignment apart from the appointee's regular position shall not be counted. Any days in excess of 60 days on one or more details or other temporary assignments shall be counted.
(5) The prohibition in this paragraph on involuntary reassignments may be applied by an agency , at its discretion, in the case of a detail of an individual as the head of an agency or of a noncareer appointee as a supervisor, or when a noncareer appointee in a deputy position is acting as the agency head or in a vacant supervisory position. If the individual later receives a permanent appointment to the position without a break in service, the 120-day moratorium initiated by the permanent appointment shall include any days spent in the position on an acting basis.
(d) A 15 or 60-day advance notice described in paragraph (b) of this section may be issued during the 120-day moratorium on the involuntary reassignment of a career appointee described in paragraph (c) of this section, but an involuntary reassignment may not be effected until the moratorium has ended.
Warning: JavaScript is OFF
This website offers functionality that requires JavaScript. To easily turn ON JavaScript you can follow the instructions provided on the following websites: Enable JavaScript and WikiHow
City & County of San Francisco
Department of human resources, search form, permanent civil service appointments.
Permanent Civil Service Appointment Search
Choosing purpose is a reflection of who we are and reminds us of the commitment we make to residents of the City and County of San Francisco. Use the following search tool to view recent appointments.
View data for PREVIOUS appointments
Appointment Date: 08 June 2024
| Appointment Date | Employee Name | Class | Job Title | Department | Rank | List ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08 June 2024 | Aaron S Cope (Aaron) | IS Business Analyst-Senior | AIR | 4 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Albert D Ng (Albert) | Senior Clerk | DPH | 14 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Alberto Rivas (Alberto) | Gardener | REC | 9 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Angelica C Marquez (Angelica) | Hospital Eligibility Worker | DPH | 27 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Antonio Baul Alinea (Tony) | Assistant Storekeeper | DPH | 13 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Augustine Enrique (Augustine) | Licensed Vocational Nurse | DPH | 8 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Beeior I Rov Ikpah (Beeior) | Assoc Engineer | PUC | 3 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Carolyn I Hernandez (Carolyn) | Gardener | REC | 9 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Chong Liang Guo (Jerry) | HSA Sr Eligibility Worker | HSA | 6 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Cristopher F Padilla (Cris) | Gardener | REC | 5 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Danny K Dea (Danny) | HSA Sr Eligibility Worker | HSA | 4 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Edi Mahargono (Edi) | Administrative Analyst | DPW | 9 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Edison Cayabyab Jr (Edison) | Engineer | PUC | 1 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Edwin A Suriano (Edwin) | HSA Sr Eligibility Worker | HSA | 8 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Francisco Hernandez (Francisco) | HSA Sr Eligibility Worker | HSA | 4 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Frank J Largaespada (Frank) | Gardener | REC | 2 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Frankie Chen (Frankie) | HSA Sr Eligibility Worker | HSA | 2 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Giselle E Canada (Giselle) | HSA Sr Eligibility Worker | HSA | 6 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Irene Mei (Irene) | Administrative Analyst | DPW | 6 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Jason Chommanard (Jason) | Senior Administrative Analyst | PUC | 7 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Jelani R Avant (Jelani) | Protective Services Supervisor | HSA | 4 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Jieting Yu (Jieting) | Senior Administrative Analyst | DPH | 9 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | John D Buse (John) | IS Business Analyst-Senior | AIR | 4 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | John Young (John) | Gardener | REC | 16 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Josie Rose Merer (Josie) | Gardener | REC | 6 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Kayla Marquez Velloso (Kayla) | HSA Sr Eligibility Worker | HSA | 2 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Kenna S Pilgrim (Kenna) | Gardener | DPW | 1 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Kevin N Oshea (Kevin) | Senior Clerk | DPH | 23 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Khari G Marshall (Khari) | Health Worker 2 | DPH | 10 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Kit Shan Chow (Phion) | Benefits Analyst | HSS | 1 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Leonardy Widjaja (Leonardy) | Legal Assistant | PDR | 12 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Maria J Tamayo (Maria) | HSA Sr Eligibility Worker | HSA | 7 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Maria M Buyco (Maria) | Manager III | AIR | 1 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Priyanka T Karki (Priyanka) | Instructional Designer | DPH | 3 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Shauna D Bogetz (Shauna) | Pr Administrative Analyst | REC | 5 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Teresa M Woo (Teresa) | Eng/Arch/Landscape Arch Sr | PUC | 3 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Vivian Y Liu (Vivian) | Contract Compliance Officer II | ADM | 4 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Wai Tun Naing (Wai) | Junior Engineer | MTA | 5 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Willis Fong (Willis) | Aviation Security Analyst | AIR | 10 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Yiyuan Huang (Yiyuan) | HSA Sr Eligibility Worker | HSA | 6 | ||
| 08 June 2024 | Zachary Dillon (Zachary) | Pr Administrative Analyst | PDR | 2 |
Appointment Date: 05 June 2024
| Appointment Date | Employee Name | Class | Job Title | Department | Rank | List ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05 June 2024 | Amidia Frederick (Amidia) | Human Resources Analyst | USD | 6 | ||
| 05 June 2024 | Carolina Hernandez (Carolina) | Human Resources Analyst | USD | 6 | ||
| 05 June 2024 | Daniel Diaz (Daniel) | Human Resources Analyst | USD | 8 | ||
| 05 June 2024 | Daniel Vidrio (Daniel) | Human Resources Analyst | USD | 9 | ||
| 05 June 2024 | Reed Levitt (Reed) | Management Assistant | USD | 2 |
Appointment Date: 01 June 2024
| Appointment Date | Employee Name | Class | Job Title | Department | Rank | List ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01 June 2024 | Huiyu Xie (Huiyu) | HSA Social Worker | HSA | 4 | ||
| 01 June 2024 | Karen C Ha (Karen) | HSA Social Worker | HSA | 8 |
Appointment Date: 28 May 2024
| Appointment Date | Employee Name | Class | Job Title | Department | Rank | List ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28 May 2024 | Abhinaya Rangarajan (Abhinaya) | Administrative Analyst | PUC | 8 | ||
| 28 May 2024 | Aleksandr Y Rabinovich (Aleksandr) | Stationary Engineer | WAR | 5 |
Civil Service Commission
Official site of the state of new jersey.
- FAQs Frequently Asked Questions
The State of NJ site may contain optional links, information, services and/or content from other websites operated by third parties that are provided as a convenience, such as Google™ Translate. Google™ Translate is an online service for which the user pays nothing to obtain a purported language translation. The user is on notice that neither the State of NJ site nor its operators review any of the services, information and/or content from anything that may be linked to the State of NJ site for any reason. - Read Full Disclaimer
- Search close --> close
Telework Pilot Program Extension
View Photos From The Event
Job Fair at Ramapo College
Tuesday, June 18, 2024 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Saint Elizabeth University's Nationally Ranked Criminal Justice Program Partners with the State of New Jersey
Saint Elizabeth University (SEU) is partnering with the State of New Jersey to enhance training, education, and career advancement opportunities for individuals seeking to pursue an undergraduate or graduate degree, certificate, or individual classes in the field of criminal justice, at a 50% tuition discount.
Current State Jobs
2024 Entry Level Law Enforcement Examination (LEE)
All of the information you need to apply for a career in law enforcement
New Jersey State As A Model Employer of Persons with Disabilities
The State of New Jersey has implemented the State As A Model Employer of Persons with Disabilities (SAME) Program to increase awareness of employment opportunities for persons with disabilities.
FREE Law Enforcement Examination Preparatory Course Registration
FREE preparatory course and assessment, designed to assist you in preparation for taking the Law Enforcement Aptitude Battery (LEAB).
Apply to public employment jobs by following a step-by-step guide to the job announcement and application process
Current Employees
Access a variety of programs, information and resources to assist current government employees in all aspects of their career and personal lives.
Civil Service Commission Meetings
The next Civil Service Commission meeting is scheduled for June 12, 2024 at 10:00 am . Call USA Toll-Free: (877) 336-1831 Call USA Caller Paid/International Toll: ( 404) 443-6397 Access code is 7379493
Click here for the agenda.
Allison Chris Myers Acting Chair/Chief Executive Officer
- Press Releases
NJ CSC Hosted the New Jersey State Employee Recognition Day Award Ceremony
New jersey state clerical apprenticeship program for excellence (cape) 2024 graduation ceremony tuesday, march 26, 2024, new jersey civil service commission to host statewide job fair april 2024, applications open for new jersey civil service commission’s entry-level law enforcement exam (lee).
- Job Announcements
- Public Safety Testing Information
- General Testing Information
- Eligible List
- Veterans Information and the Rule of Three
- Job Description & Job Title List
- Other State Job Opportunitis
- Address Change
- Customer Service
- Compensation Compendium
- Performance Assessment Review (PAR)
- Employee Benefits
- State Employee Discount Program
- Employee Advisory Service
- Office of the Chair / CEO
- Divisions & Offices
- CSC Board Meetings and Decisions
- Annual Reports
- History of the CSC
- Regulations and Laws
SAME Program
Employers and appointing authorities.
- Team Consultant Map
- Forms and Publications
- CSC Training Programs
- Classroom Training
- All Training Courses
- Training Policies & Procedures
- The Training Post Newsletter
- Contact CSC
- Directions to Testing Centers
- Governor Phil Murphy
- Lt. Governor Tahesha Way
- Services A to Z
- Departments/Agencies
- Privacy Notice
- Legal Statement & Disclaimers
- Accessibility Statement
NYC civil service exam: Here are the salaries for positions open in June
- Published: Jun. 08, 2024, 10:01 a.m.
- Annalise Knudson | [email protected]
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — The New York City civil service exam schedule is open for June, and some jobs pay more than others.
The application period for exams opened June 5.
Exam applications currently open include: auto mechanic; auto mechanic (diesel); automotive service worker; environmental police officer; glazier; traffic enforcement agent; and urban park ranger. The New York City Bridge Exam also opens this month for these careers: child protective specialist; clerical associate; clerical associate (NYC H+H); maintenance worker; maintenance worker (CUNY); maintenance worker (NYC H+H); and secretary.
Open, competitive, computer-based tests are administered throughout each month for various positions. If you meet the basic requirements of the job, you can apply for your exam online at Online Application System (OASys) or at one of the Computer-Based Testing and Application Centers (CTAC).
The deadline for most exams is June 25.
The deadline is July 9 for traffic enforcement agent, and the deadline is Aug. 30 for environmental police officer.
Additionally, the application for police officer remains open through June 28.
Here are the starting salaries, deadlines and job descriptions for each career, according to the city.
Auto mechanic
Salary: $41.96 per hour for a 40-hour work week
Application deadline: June 25
Job description: Auto Mechanics, under supervision, overhaul, repair and maintain engines, motors and motor-powered equipment, component assemblies, and component systems used in automotive, construction and special purpose equipment powered by internal combustion engines. They act as “troubleshooters” in determining mechanical and electrical defects; overhaul, maintain and repair internal combustion engines, motors and motor-powered equipment, including brake systems, transmissions, ignition systems, rear ends, differential assemblies, fuel systems, hydraulic systems, electronic systems, and other related components and systems; align wheels and repair steering equipment; reline and adjust brakes and clutches; make minor repairs and adjustments in the field so that a vehicle may be returned to the garage or repair shop under its own power; may transmit orders to other journeymen as directed; may supervise machinist helpers, automotive service workers, and other personnel as directed; train assigned machinist helpers, automotive service workers, or other related personnel in the performance of various maintenance and/or repair tasks; may make minor auto body repairs; may prepare reports and orders, and maintain records and inventories of parts, components, supplies and materials; operate and test motor vehicles and equipment in the performance of assigned duties.
Auto mechanic (diesel)
Salary: $41.96 per hour for a 40-hour work week.
Job description: Auto Mechanics (Diesel), under supervision, overhaul diesel engines and component assemblies used in diesel powered vehicles. They act as “troubleshooters” in determining mechanical defects; make minor repairs and adjustments in the field so that a vehicle may be returned to the garage or repair shop under its own power; overhaul diesel engines, transmissions and fuel systems; align wheels, adjust tracks and repair steering equipment; reline and adjust brakes; may transmit orders to other journeymen as directed; may supervise machinist helpers, automotive service workers, and other personnel as directed; train assigned machinist helpers, automotive service workers, or other related personnel in the performance of various maintenance and/or repair tasks; may prepare reports and orders, and maintain records and inventories of supplies and materials; operate motor vehicles or equipment in the performance of assigned duties.
Automotive service worker
Salary: $39,857
Job description: Automotive Service Workers, under varying levels of supervision and degrees of difficulty, assist in and perform automotive maintenance services such as inspection, and repair work. At Assignment Level 1: Automotive Service Workers, under direct supervision, perform repairs and automotive maintenance services such as preventive maintenance, inspection, battery service, checking, servicing, patching and changing tires; lubrication and oil change; clean, wash and polish vehicles; clean interior of vehicles; dispense gasoline and oil; check the level, and refill automobile fluids such as coolant, oil, transmission and brake fluids; assist in performing tune ups, in shops and on the road, and in replacement of engine parts, drive-trains, transmissions, steering gear and components, ignition, heating and cooling systems, air conditioning components, brake system, lighting system, sirens and backup warning tone systems, etc; operate motor vehicles to test repairs; may operate a tow truck when duties require; maintain and update vehicle service and repair records. All Automotive Service Workers perform related work.
Environmental police officer
Salary: $49,210
Application deadline: Aug. 30
Job description: Environmental Police Officers perform and supervise staff performing duties involved in protecting the watershed areas, water supply systems and installations maintained by the Department of Environmental Protection of the City of New York; enforce the City’s Watershed Rules and Regulations and other laws; and perform special duties or assignments as may be directed by superior officers. Environmental Police Officers operate motor vehicles and may perform aerial reconnaissance.
Salary: $51.03 per hour for a 35-hour work week
Job description: Glaziers, under supervision, cut, fit, install and replace all types of glass or glass substitutes; remove glass or glass substitutes and putty; prepare openings for installation of glass or glass substitutes; install and secure glass or glass substitutes in aluminum, steel, wood or bronze structures, or other framework; putty and re-putty all types of sash; upon requisition, cut to size and issue glass or glass substitutes; handle mechanical and electrical glass shop machinery and equipment such as fingergrip machines, polishing and grinding machines, electric hammers, glass drills and electric putty softeners; prepare requisitions for material requirements; maintain stores of glass in stockroom; unpack and handle all types of glass and glass substitutes; keep records and make reports; may be required to drive a motor vehicle.
Traffic enforcement agent
Salary: $36,045
Application deadline: July 9
Job description: At Assignment Level I, under supervision, Traffic Enforcement Agents patrol an assigned area in order to enforce laws, rules and regulations relating to movement, parking, stopping and standing of vehicles. They prepare and issue paper and electronic summonses for violations; prepare and issue summonses to vehicles and motorists; testify at administrative hearing offices and court; report inoperative or missing parking meters and traffic conditions requiring attention; prepare required reports; operate a motor vehicle; operate portable and vehicle radios and other electronic equipment; and perform related work.
Urban park ranger
Salary: $48,114
Job description: Urban Park Rangers, under supervision, patrol the City parks and park facilities; provide educational and recreational services through programs, tours, field trips and activities; perform crowd control functions; enforce compliance with City park rules and regulations and health and sanitary codes; issue summonses; make arrests; provide safety services to the public; respond to and perform animal and wildlife rescues; serve as staff assistants to immediate supervisors; serve as dispatchers and communications operators; operate motor vehicles; and staff public nature and visitor center facilities.
Child protective specialist
Salary: $55,463
Job description: Child Protective Specialists, under varying degrees of supervision, with varying degrees of latitude for independent action, investigate and take appropriate action in response to allegations of child neglect and/or abuse received by the Administration for Children’s Services, in accordance with agency policies and procedures. Child Protective Specialists must complete investigations of alleged child neglect and/or abuse within legally mandated timeframes, and as part of their investigation are required to interact with a variety of involved parties, including birth families, the community, law enforcement, hospital and school staff, and the Family Court. Child Protective Specialists are required to observe and take notes during visits and interviews in order to make accurate safety assessments, which will then be entered into the system of record. Child Protective Specialists are required to make recommendations and testify in court. Child Protective Specialists are required to perform extensive typing, utilize electronic devices, such as computers, tablets, and cell phones.
Clerical associate
Salary: $32,886
Job description: Clerical Associates, under supervision, with a limited latitude for independent judgment, perform clerical work in relation to records, files, invoices and reports using alphabetical and numerical procedures including data/control coding; perform ordinary mathematical calculations; operate a telephone call directory, multi-line phone, or switchboard; perform clerical operations in an assigned area, such as the filing of material and the searching of files for difficult to locate material; prepare reports requiring the selection of data from simple records or statistics; check records for accuracy of information and for conformity with established policy and procedures; perform data entry and retrieval using a personal computer, monitor, video display terminal, or other automated office systems; maintain related library files; may perform incidental typing.
Clerical associate (NYC H+H)
Salary: $35,895
Job description: HAT THE JOB INVOLVES: Clerical Associates (NYC H+H), under supervision, with some latitude for independent judgment, perform responsible clerical work in various administrative and operational areas by processing, recording, checking and maintaining records, files and invoices using alphabetical and numerical procedures including data/control coding; furnish information and prepare reports requiring the selection of data from simple records or statistics; perform ordinary mathematical computations; operate a telephone call directory, multi-line phone, or switchboard; perform clerical operations in an assigned area, such as the filing of material and the searching of files for difficult to locate material; check records for accuracy of information and for conformity with established policy and procedures; perform data entry and retrieval using a personal computer, video display terminal, or other automated office systems; may perform incidental typing; perform routine data processing functions in the area of production control; may supervise and instruct a small group engaged in the performance of data entry and retrieval operations or other related clerical functions. They may also perform duties as follows: compile and maintain central file of hospital and clinic patient medical records; compile medical care and census data for statistical reports; maintain indexes on patient, disease, operation and other categories.
Maintenance worker
Salary: $29.98 per hour for a 40-hour work week
Job description: Maintenance Workers, under direct supervision, assist in the routine maintenance, operation and repair of public buildings and structures, and the equipment they contain. They conduct visual inspections of building equipment and conditions; maintain, adjust and make repairs of building hardware, furniture, shelving and equipment; replace broken window and door glass; repair windows and sash; make repairs to masonry, woodwork, flooring and walls; make repairs to building electrical, plumbing and heating systems; assist in relocating building equipment as directed; visually inspect public buildings, structures and equipment to assess and check for defects, malfunctions and hazardous conditions; visually check for and record the observable conditions of the premises; prepare reports; keep records; and may operate a motor vehicle in the performance of assigned duties.
Maintenance worker (CUNY)
Job description: Maintenance Workers (CUNY), under direct supervision, assist in the routine maintenance, operation and repair of public buildings and structures, and the equipment they contain. They maintain, adjust and make repairs of building hardware, furniture, shelving and equipment; replace broken window and door glass; repair windows and sash; make repairs to masonry, woodwork, flooring and walls; make repairs to building electrical, plumbing and heating systems; assist in relocating building equipment as directed; visually inspect public buildings, structures and equipment to assess and check for defects, malfunctions and hazardous conditions; visually check for and record the observable conditions of the premises; prepare reports; keep records; and may operate a motor vehicle in the performance of assigned duties.
Maintenance worker (NYC H+H)
Salary: $32.76 per hour for a 40-hour work week
Job description: Maintenance Workers (NYC H+H), under direct supervision, assist in the routine maintenance, operation and repair of public buildings and structures, and the equipment they contain. They conduct visual inspections of building equipment and conditions; maintain, adjust and make repairs of building hardware, furniture, shelving and equipment; replace broken window and door glass; repair windows and sashes; make repairs to masonry, woodwork, flooring and walls; make repairs to building, electrical, plumbing and heating systems; assist in relocating building equipment as directed; visually inspect public buildings, structures and equipment to assess and check for defects, malfunctions and hazardous conditions; visually check for and record the observable conditions of the premises; complete work orders; prepare reports; keep records; and may operate a motor vehicle in the performance of assigned duties.
Job description: Secretaries, under supervision, perform typing, secretarial and related office work with limited latitude for independent judgment; perform typing work including copy typing from rough or clear drafts, typing statistical tables, and typing transcription from tapes and varityping; perform secretarial work, including scheduling appointments and other general office work; perform basic word processing assignments using a personal computer, word processing equipment or other automated office equipment; may perform basic data entry functions; review and correct typed material to ensure correct spelling, syllabification, punctuation, and proper format; may respond to routine telephone calls; refer calls and visitors to appropriate staff.
Police officer
Salary: $53,790
Application deadline: June 28
Job description: Police Officers perform general police duties and related work in the New York City Police Department including connecting and building relationships with the community. They patrol an assigned area on foot or in a vehicle to prevent crime; apprehend crime suspects; intervene in various situations involving crimes in progress, aided cases, complaints, emotionally disturbed persons, etc.; respond to and investigate vehicular accidents; investigate specific offenses; interact with prisoners; operate and maintain patrol vehicles; issue summonses; obtain information regarding incidents by interviewing witnesses, victims, and/or complainants; safeguard and voucher found, seized or recovered property; provide information to the public; handle situations involving maltreated, abused, or missing children; interact with juveniles; may be assigned to crowd control for large-scale events such as demonstrations, rallies and parades; prepare forms and reports; and testify in court.
If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
- Notice at Collection
- Your Privacy Choices
- Exercise Your Privacy Rights
- Newsletters
- Middle East
President George W. Bush, left, with John Negroponte, center, and Mike Hayden in the Oval Office in April 2005. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images
Stay Connected
Bush-era national security officials warn against politicizing civil service
In a letter to congressional committee staff directors, a cadre of former republican appointees urged lawmakers to pursue a “middle ground” of federal employee accountability that preserves merit systems principles..
Erich Wagner
A cadre of Republican former national security officials on Thursday urged lawmakers to abandon the GOP’s growing embrace of Schedule F , arguing there are better ways to hold poor performing or malfeasant federal workers accountable than politicizing the civil service.
Since the rise of Schedule F—the Trump administration’s abortive effort to convert tens of thousands of federal workers in “policy-related” positions out of the competitive service, effectively making them at-will employees—proponents have described it in one of two ways: as a tool for quickly removing feds who “resist” the policy direction of political leaders, or as a more general need to make it easier to fire poor performers.
But in a letter to congressional leaders, former CIA Director Mike Hayden, former Deputy Homeland Security Secretary James Loy, former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, former Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and former Navy Secretary and NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe, rejected the former president’s approach. Trump, who will again be the Republican nominee for president this fall, has campaigned in part on reviving Schedule F.
“We believe that our career federal civil servants must be accountable to the American people and those that are elected to represent them, but while that core principle is essential to the effective functioning of our democratic system of government, it is simply too hard to hold our civil servants accountable for meeting reasonable standards of performance or conduct,” they wrote. “However, some would establish the political loyalty of those career civil servants as the best way of reassuring that accountability. We strongly disagree.”
The former leaders, all veterans of the George W. Bush administration, said that no matter the motive, creating an opportunity for a president or his politically appointed subordinates to retaliate against federal workers for their political views poses “too great a risk to our national and homeland security.”
“Public service, whether in uniform or otherwise, ought to be based exclusively on qualifications and merit,” they wrote. “Nothing else matters, and in our view, political fealty—however it may be operationalized—does not equate to accountability.”
Ron Sanders has been serving as a technical advisor to the as-yet unnamed group of former officials. Sanders, who himself resigned from his post as chairman of the Federal Salary Council in protest of Schedule F’s implementation, said that although the letter was signed only by former Republican leaders, the group itself is bipartisan.
“Frankly, we’ve been talking with lots of groups who say, ‘A: we agree with you and want a politically neutral but also accountable civil service, and the one we have now falls short of that,’” Sanders said in an interview. “But so many have told us that they were afraid to be public about it. So the only group willing to stand up and be counted now are former national security leaders, but there are many more where that came from.”
Sanders said that if you take the argument that Schedule F is needed to weed out poor performing and malfeasant federal employees, it’s simply bad policy.
“Trying to be as charitable as I can be, I think Schedule F is just inartful,” he said. “The authors will say that [under the proposal], you can’t hire somebody or reassign them under Schedule F for partisan political purposes and there are protections to preclude that. And I don’t necessarily disagree. There are simply other, better ways if accountability is the goal and not politicization.”
The former officials’ letter spells out a three-point plan to try to shore up accountability within the existing civil service system, without infringing on guard rails against politicization. First, they propose “modernizing” the parts of the U.S. Code dealing with federal employee performance appraisals and adverse actions to streamline the firing process.
“You could simply implement time limits for taking and then adjudicating an adverse action,” Sanders said. “Take the VA Accountability Act for example—though not precisely, because its overall legality is in doubt—but the principle is that people should prepared to act quickly, take action, appeal it and get it adjudicated. What the actual time limits are I don’t particularly care about, but just create some time limits.”
Second, the leaders called for a statutory ban on efforts that could undermine merit systems principles, particularly for national security, intelligence community and other law enforcement positions. And finally, they suggested creating a periodic review process to ensure a balance of political and career leaders atop national security and law enforcement agencies.
Sanders said the letter serves as the opening of a conversation he and the other former leaders hope will eventually culminate in language in the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act.
“We can help and are at your disposal,” the officials wrote. “However, let us be clear. We believe that our career civil servants, our civilian employees, are a national resource, and they must be protected by due process,” the letter states. “In our decades of experience overseeing large, complex national security organizations under both Democratic and Republican presidents, these individuals have always brought unrivalled technical expertise, institutional memory, and the ability to navigate complex bureaucracies that are truly priceless.”
Related articles
OPM’s new acting director defends federal telework, anti-Schedule F regulations
Governance experts launch a group to oppose Schedule F
NEXT STORY: DOD CIO resigns to take university post
Help us tailor content specifically for you:
- Notice at Collection
- Your Privacy Choices
- Exercise Your Privacy Rights
- Newsletters
Attorney General Merrick Garland is sworn in while testifying before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on June 4, 2024 in Washington, D.C. Increased threats have targeted the judiciary, prosecutors and law enforcement agents, among others, the attorney general said, including some cases that have resulted in actual violence. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Stay Connected
AG vows prosecution amid ‘unprecedented’ spike in threats against career civil servants
The justice department has set up a task force to investigate "heinous threats of violence" against federal workers..
- Civil Service
- Law Enforcement
The nation’s top prosecutor pledged this week to use his authority to go after anyone making threats against career federal employees, which he said have spiked to previously unseen levels.
The issue has become particularly acute in the wake of various investigations into former President Trump, Attorney General Merrick Garland told members of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, even though many of those probes do not involve federal personnel. He criticized congressional Republicans for adding fuel to the fire with divisive and dangerous rhetoric and said the Justice Department would remain steadfast in pursuing its work.
“We are seeing heinous threats of violence being directed at the Justice Department’s career civil servants,” Garland said. “These repeated attacks on the Justice Department are unprecedented, and they are unfounded.”
Increased threats have targeted the judiciary, prosecutors and law enforcement agents, among others, the attorney general said, including some cases that have resulted in actual violence. He noted Justice has stood up a “threats task force” to investigate relevant matters and the department will “aggressively” seek penalties against those who engage in such behavior.
“We will do everything we can in our power to investigate, deter and prosecute anyone who makes threats against public servants,” Garland said.
Federal officials have warned that threats against civil servants have increased in recent years , including at the Environmental Protection Agency, Internal Revenue Service and FBI. Those agencies, in conjunction with the Homeland Security Department’s Federal Protective Service have taken steps to harden federal buildings and issue warnings to their workforces. The U.S. Marshals Service Director Ron Davis recently told Congress threats against federal judges doubled between 2021 and 2023, with threats against other court staff rising at a similar rate. Threats against members of Congress have mostly risen steadily every year since 2017, according to U.S. Capitol Police data.
Garland said individual federal career agents and prosecutors have been “singled out just for doing their jobs” and “extreme dangerous falsehoods” are being spread regarding how the FBI conducts its operations. That has led to Justice doubling down on its efforts to protect its employees, he said, as the department looks to ensure its work can continue unabated.
“These attacks have not, and they will not, influence our decision making,” Garland said. “I will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations.”
Justice employees will continue to do their work free from political influence, he added.
“I will not be intimidated,” the attorney general said. “And the Justice Department will not be intimidated.”
Related articles
'Stay Vigilant:' Agencies Issue Warnings, Take New Steps to Combat Wave of Threats Against Feds
Unions, Employee Groups and Lawmakers Condemn Threats of Violence Against Feds
NEXT STORY: EPA union ratifies contract to protect employees’ scientific integrity
Help us tailor content specifically for you:
- Find a Lawyer
- Ask a Lawyer
- Research the Law
- Law Schools
- Laws & Regs
- Newsletters
- Justia Connect
- Pro Membership
- Basic Membership
- Justia Lawyer Directory
- Platinum Placements
- Gold Placements
- Justia Elevate
- Justia Amplify
- PPC Management
- Google Business Profile
- Social Media
- Justia Onward Blog
Q: What motion can I file if the defendant is avoiding service in Florida?
I have tried a sheriff and a private process server and both have filed affidavits that state the defendant is avoiding service.
- Freeeport, FL
- Licensed in Florida
- (850) 502-9724
- Email Lawyer
- View Website
A: If the suit is "... arising out of any transaction or operation connected with or incidental to any business or business venture carried on in this state by such [defendant]", you might be able to effect service on the secretary of State pursuant to Florida Statute 48.181 (4).
- Hollywood, FL
- (888) 909-1906
A: One option is to file a motion for extension of time to serve, to extend the 120-day deadline, attaching to the motion the server's affidavits. You likely would need to set that (or any other motion) for hearing. Your other options depend on what type of case it is and whether the defendant is an individual or a business entity. Best to schedule a consultation with a lawyer.
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.
- Bankruptcy Lawyers
- Business Lawyers
- Criminal Lawyers
- Employment Lawyers
- Estate Planning Lawyers
- Family Lawyers
- Personal Injury Lawyers
- Estate Planning
- Personal Injury
- Business Formation
- Business Operations
- Intellectual Property
- International Trade
- Real Estate
- Financial Aid
- Course Outlines
- Law Journals
- US Constitution
- Regulations
- Supreme Court
- Circuit Courts
- District Courts
- Dockets & Filings
- State Constitutions
- State Codes
- State Case Law
- Legal Blogs
- Business Forms
- Product Recalls
- Justia Connect Membership
- Justia Premium Placements
- Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
- Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
- Testimonials
The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news.
The Biden Administration’s Final Rule on Section 1557 Non-Discrimination Regulations Under the ACA
Lindsey Dawson , Laurie Sobel , Kaye Pestaina , Jennifer Kates , Samantha Artiga , and Alice Burns Published: May 15, 2024
This brief provides an overview of the Biden Administration 2024 final rule implementing Section 1557 of the ACA, which is home to the law’s major nondiscrimination provisions. While Section 1557’s protections took effect when the ACA was enacted in 2010, much of its reach has been determined by implementation guidance issued across different Presidential administrations, often reflecting conflicting views. The final rule reinstates and expands upon many of the 2016 regulations from the Obama Administration and is a reversal from much of the 2020 Trump Administration rule. We provide a brief background on 1557 rulemaking and identify key differences between this rule and the 2020 rule. We also highlight two areas of growing interest impacted by the rule – nondiscrimination protections for pregnancy related decisions, past, present and future, including abortion, and for transgender people. Despite the issuance of the final rule, debates about 1557’s protections, and ensuing litigation, continue and will be particularly dependent on the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election.
Introduction
On April 27, 2024, the Biden Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) finalized long-awaited revised regulations implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Section 1557 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, or sex and applies to health programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance (referred to as covered entities). In broad terms, it prevents covered entities from discriminating against certain protected groups in providing health care services, insurance coverage and program participation. The rule has staggered effective dates starting on July 5, 2024. In broad terms, 1557 provides nondiscrimination health care protections to individuals in protected groups, including prohibiting denial of benefits, coverage, program participation, and otherwise unequal treatment based on these factors
The administration also released a FAQ and press release . Section 1557 houses the law’s major nondiscrimination provisions by incorporating protections from existing civil rights laws. These laws include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color, and national origin), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (sex), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (disability). Notably, Section 1557 is the first federal civil rights law to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in health care.
Section 1557’s protections took effect when the ACA was enacted on March 23, 2010, but much of the law’s reach has been determined by implementation guidance issued by different Presidential administrations, reflecting different interpretations and priorities. Across the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, the 1557 implementing regulations have volleyed back and forth in their interpretations, particularly related to the scope of entities covered by the law and the law’s ability to provide nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity and pregnancy related conditions. These debates, and ensuing litigation, are likely to continue, and will be particularly dependent on the outcome of the 2024 Presidential election.
Most of the implementing regulations in the new rule are effective 60 days (July 5, 2024) after publication in the Federal Register (May 6. 2024). Some provisions impacting health insurance plan design won’t become effective until the plan year beginning after January 1, 2025, and other provisions where entities might need additional time to amend current practices also have later effective dates. (The rule and the FAQ provide a table of these dates.)
The FAQ accompanying the rule states it was necessary to issue this guidance “to restore and strengthen civil rights protections for individuals consistent with…the statutory text,” noting that the 2020 Trump Administration rule “covers fewer programs and services and limited nondiscrimination protections for individuals.”
Section 1557 has been subject to a wave of litigation across administrations. Litigation has both centered on rulemaking and on the statue itself. In some cases (e.g. Franciscan Alliance v. Azar ), courts have found narrowly in favor of plaintiffs who have asserted that the requirement to cover or provide certain services, such as those related to termination of pregnancy or gender affirming care, violated their sincerely held religious beliefs and thus religious freedom protections. In other cases, courts have found that Section 1557 protects access to these same services, such as by requiring state Medicaid programs to cover gender affirming care (e.g. Flack v. Wisconsin ). Courts have also weighed in on the legality of aspects of rulemaking (e.g. Whitman-Walker Clinic v. HHS ) and litigation has already been filed in the state of Florida by the attorney general and a Catholic hospital group challenging the new rule (see State of Florida et al v. HHS et al . ) In addition, litigation related to other civil rights protections ( Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia) has implications for Section 1557 and, in particular, this regulation’s interpretation of nondiscrimination based on sex. (Box 1)
Box 1: Impact of Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia on Section 1557
In June 2020, just three days after the Trump Administration rule was finalized, the Supreme Court ruled in Bostock v Clayton County, Georgia that in the context of employment, discrimination based on sex encompasses sexual orientation and gender identity. The Bostock ruling does not directly apply to 1557 because it was based on interpretation of sex protections under Title VII and the 1557 sex protections are pulled in through Title IX. However, courts have historically looked to Title VII in interpreting Title IX, including in cases where plaintiffs challenged the Trump-era rule. As such, prior to issuing the new regulation , the Biden Administration issued guidance in May 2021 stating it would interpret and enforce 1557’s sex nondiscrimination provisions to include protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in light of and consistent with Bostock .
Summary of Major Changes
The final rule closely mirrors a proposed rule issued by the Biden administration in July of 2022 and is, in many ways, a reversal of the final rule issued by the Trump Administration in June of 2020, which itself was a significant departure from the Obama Administration regulations issued in 2016. This final rule reinstates and expands upon much of those 2016 regulations. Compared to the previous rules, key changes in the Biden Administration final rule include:
- Section 1557 applies to health programs or activities that receive direct or indirect federal financial assistance from HHS, health programs and activities administered by HHS, and Therefore, covered entities include state Medicaid agencies, Medicare, many health insurance plans, and most hospitals and providers, among others. The new rule expands on the types of entities subject to 1557 compared to the Trump rule, including by determining that 1557 protections apply to products sold by issuers with plans on the marketplaces (not just the marketplace plans themselves) and by considering Medicare Part B as receiving Federal financial assistance for the first time;
- Provides nondiscrimination protections for those who experience discrimination on the basis of multiple protected characteristics. (A new protection compared to both the Obama and Trump rules);
- Explicitly provides for nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity and sexual orientation, sex characteristics (including intersex traits), and pregnancy related conditions including pregnancy termination, as well as related specific health insurance coverage protections, expanding these moderately compared to the Obama rule and completely compared to the Trump rule;
- Provides specific nondiscrimination protections for transgender people’s access to care and coverage, expanding moderately on those in the Obama rule and completely compared to the Trump rule. The rule requires people be treated consistently with their gender identity, prohibits the denial of gender affirming care when provided for other purposes, if the denial is on the basis of sex, and the categorical exclusion of gender affirming care. (See box 3 for additional details related to this provision);
- Protects patients from discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived abortions but states it is not a violation of Section 1557 if providers do not provide abortions unless the provider does not do so based on an individual’s protected status (e.g. race, age, etc.) (See box 2 for additional details related to this provision);
- Removes explicit blanket abortion and religious freedom exemptions which the Trump rule incorporated through Title IX’s religious exemptions, stating instead that robust religious freedom protections exist outside of Section 1557 and that incorporation of Title IX exemptions through the rule is not necessary;
- Adopts a new religious freedom and conscience protections exemptions process;
- The new rule reinstates explicit prohibitions on discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation that had existed in ten other federal regulations outside Section 1557. The protections were put in place through Obama Administration regulations and related to coverage, access, and marketing, in Medicaid, private insurance, and the Marketplaces but were eliminated in the Trump Administration’s 1557 rule.;
- Expands protections for those with limited English proficiency (including in telehealth) compared to both prior rules;
- Includes new provisions for services requirements and notices related to language access and access to auxiliary aids and services, and adopts new policies and staffing requirements for 1557 compliance;
- Reaffirms most requirements related to disability discrimination from the 2016 rule, which complement a new rule on web accessibility for public entities under the Americans with Disabilities Act and major updates to regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which were last updated in 1977. Section 504 prohibits recipients of federal funding, including publicly-subsidized health payers and health care providers who accept Medicare or Medicaid, from discriminating against people on the basis of disability. Among other changes, the Section 504 health provisions address discrimination in medical treatment, create enforceable standards for medical equipment, address accessible web content and mobile apps, and codify the Olmstead requirement to serve people with disabilities in the most integrated setting that is appropriate.
- Reflecting emerging technologies, for the first time, addresses and applies Section 1557 nondiscrimination protections to the use of telehealth and patient care decision support tools, including in addressing bias in clinical algorithms and other tools and in the use of AI.
Box 2: Abortion – Protections from Sex Discrimination Includes Pregnancy Termination
The ACA protects providers and programs based on their willingness to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in such trainings. The new final Section 1557 rule includes protections for patients on discrimination on the basis of having had actual or perceived abortions. OCR explains that a covered provider’s decision not to provide an abortion is not a violation of Section 1557 unless the provider chooses not to provide abortion for a particular individual based on a protected ground such as race. Some commenters “expressed concern that Dobbs created tension between health providers, and patients, increasing distrust in providers and that it has created chaos in the health care system. They state this has increased the risk that patients will experience discriminatory care and suffer delays in lifesaving treatment as a direct result of legal and medical uncertainty. These commenters said that discrimination in care propagates more distrust, which is a significant barrier for individuals seeking care and is precisely what section 1557 was designed to protect against.” OCR responded to these concerns noting that it is considering revisions to the HIPAA Privacy Rule to strengthen privacy protections for individuals’ protected health information related to reproductive health care.
Box 3: Care and Access for Transgender People – Protections from Sex Discrimination Include Gender Identity
Section 1557’s regulatory treatment of sexual orientation and gender identity has changed considerably over time. The 2016 Obama Administration rule interpreted sex nondiscrimination protections to include gender identity and sex stereotyping (among other identities) but not sexual orientation. At that time, HHS stated it would “evaluate complaints alleging sex discrimination … sexual orientation” on a case-by-case basis and anticipated that case law would evolve as to clarify whether sexual orientation could be covered. The Trump Administration did not define sex in the regulatory text but in the preamble suggested it would interpret sex to mean only biological sex assigned at birth. The Biden Administration interpreted sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity (among other identities), reaffirming its earlier guidance which took the same approach, in light of Bostock (see Box 1). It also extends these protections to include intersex people for the first time.
As noted above, the new rule also reinstates explicit prohibitions on discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in regulations outside of Section 1557 that had been put in by the Obama Administration but eliminated through the Trump Administration’s 1557 rule.
In addition, the rule, in text and preamble, spells out specific protections for transgender people and access to gender affirming care including that entities cannot refuse gender affirming care services that would be provided to an individual for other purposes, if the limitation is based on sex or gender and that the categorical exclusions of gender affirming care is prohibited. It does not prohibit nondiscriminatory denial of services with the preamble noting “OCR has a general practice of deferring to a clinician’s judgment about whether a particular service is medically appropriate for an individual, or whether the clinician has the appropriate expertise.” OCR states any investigations will not focus on clinical judgment per se but rather whether that judgment reflects unlawful bias, The rule also does not prevent a covered entity from availing itself of religious freedom and creates new pathways for asserting such protections. (Additional details in Table 1.)
Some commenters had specific concerns regarding the rule’s application to “State laws that prohibit access to gender-affirming care…” OCR responded that “some States may have laws…that are contrary to the final rule’s nondiscrimination protections, and…section 1557 preempts those laws.” The conflict between state and federal law in this case is unresolved and the Florida Attorney General, along with a Catholic medical group, has filed suit alleging that the rule requires providers to provide gender affirming care and violates protections.
Table 2 summarizes the major provisions of HHS’s new final rule and provides a side-by-side comparison to the Obama (2016) and Trump (2020) administration rules.
- Affordable Care Act
- Women's Health Policy
- Racial Equity and Health Policy
- Consumer Protection
- Access to Care
news release
- KFF Examines New Rule Giving LGBTQ+ People More Protections Against Discrimination in Health Care
Also of Interest
- LGBTQ Health Policy
- The Trump Administration’s Final Rule on Section 1557 Non-Discrimination Regulations Under the ACA and Current Status
- Summary of HHS’s Final Rule on Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Summary of Reassignment. This summary of reassignment covers the following topics: 1. Learning About Reassignment. The reassignment regulations give an agency extensive flexibility in reassigning an employee to a different position. This summary covers the procedures in the reassignment regulations. With this summary, employees, managers, union ...
The reassignment may also be revoked or recalled by the appointing officer/authority or be declared not valid by the Civil Service Commission or a competent court, on appeal. 3. Reassignment is presumed to be regular and made in the interest or exigency of public service unless proven otherwise or if it constitutes constructive dismissal.
Reassignment is a management tool that often goes under-utilized in the federal civil service. Some people think it only applies to reasonable accommodation cases; others believe that it's a way to punish bad employees. ... bona fide reason for the management-directed reassignment, and (2) Show that removal will promote the efficiency of the ...
A reassignment is the movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the same department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, status or salary and does not require the issuance of an appointment." Rule III of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, Series of 1998 (Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other ...
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
The reassignment may also be revoked or recalled by the appointing officer/authority or be declared not valid by the Civil Service Commission or a competent court, on appeal. "3. Reassignment is presumed to be regular and made in the interest or exigency of public service unless proven otherwise or if it constitutes constructive dismissal.
A detail or transfer may not exceed 5 years but may be extended 3 additional years upon the approval of the head of the agency. Employees who transfer are entitled to be reemployed (as provided in ) in his or her former position or; one of like status within 30 days of his or her application for reemployment. Questions and Answers.
A compilation of rules, regulations, policies, guidelines, orders, circulars, statutes and jurisprudence relating to the Philippine Civil Service. CSC MC 02, s. 2005: Revised Rules on Reassignment · CIVIL SERVICE GUIDE: A Compilation of Issuances on Philippine Civil Service
EN BANC. G.R. No. 178021 January 25, 2012. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. MINERVA M.P. PACHEO, Respondent. D E C I S I O N. MENDOZA, J.: Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines ...
The Civil Service Commission also concluded that the Memorandum only stated the exigency of service, but "failed to show that [Yangson's] transfer was premised on the ground of completion of five (5) years . . . at [Surigao National]." ... pending her re-assignment or transfer to another work station, but she refused. The same would not have ...
New York State Civil Service Department. New York State Employees Career Mobility Office. Telephone: (518) 485-6199 OR 1-800-553-1322. E-mail: [email protected].
SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS; PART 317—EMPLOYMENT IN THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE; Subpart I—Reassignments, Transfers, and Details; 5 CFR Subpart I - Subpart I—Reassignments, Transfers, and Details . CFR ; prev | next § 317.901 Reassignments. § 317.902 Transfers.
Notwithstanding section 3394(b) of this title, a limited term appointee may be reassigned to another Senior Executive Service position in the same agency the duties of which will expire at the end of a term of 3 years or less, except that the appointee may not serve in one or more positions in the agency under such appointment in excess of 3 years.
(a) In this section, reassignment means a permanent assignment to another SES position within the employing executive agency or military department. (See 5 U.S.C. 105 for a definition of "executive agency" and 5 U.S.C. 102 for a definition of "military department.") (b) A career appointee may be reassigned to any SES position for which qualified in accordance with the following conditions:
Reassignment: An employee transferring to or from your agency but continuing service from a DCPS payroll. Separation: An employee currently receiving payroll service via DCPS who (1) transfers to a non-DCPS paid agency or leaves federal service (i.e., retirement, disability, death, private sector employment, etc.). Produced by Civilian Pay ...
Office at the Department of Civil Service at 1-800-553-1322 . 3. You will also be asked about counties where you would accept reassignment and/or employment opportunities from preferred lists or reemployment rosters . You may also be asked if you will accept a lower-level position at your current location or another.
New York State agencies are hiring for thousands of critical positions open across the state. To help agencies fill these positions, the Department of Civil Service has developed the NY HELPS program to streamline the appointment process allowing State agencies to hire diverse, qualified permanent employees quickly and without examinations. New ...
Permanent Civil Service Appointments. Permanent Civil Service Appointment Search Choosing purpose is a reflection of who we are and reminds us of the commitment we make to residents of the City and County of San Francisco. Use the following search tool to view recent appointments.
The next Civil Service Commission meeting is scheduled for June 12, 2024 at 10:00 am. Call USA Toll-Free: (877) 336-1831. Call USA Caller Paid/International Toll: ( 404) 443-6397. Access code is 7379493. Learn More.
Civil Service Commission. Publications, Facts and Figures. Latest News, Multimedia, and Public Notices. CONTACT INFO: Administrative Office - 1201 North Third St, Suite 3-280 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802: Mailing Address - P.O. Box 94111, Capitol Station Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9111: [email protected]:
Reassignment: Candidates must have one year of permanent competitive or 55b/c service as an Administrative Assistant 1. Eligible List Appointment: Candidates must be reachable on the Civil Service eligible list for this title. If you are on the Civil Service eligible list for this title, you may receive a canvass letter.
Here are some numbers from the FY2022 CRS report: 1) Retirement coverage of current civilian federal employees: FERS: 98.4% (2,788,000) CSRS 1.6% (44,000) 2) Number of annuitants: 2022: 2,226,760 ...
Eligible for reassignment, transfer, reachable for appointment from the appropriate eligible list or must meet the following minimum qualifications: ... NY HELPS employee is satisfactorily performing in the position, the appointment will be changed from temporary pending Civil Service Commission Action to permanent non-competitive and the ...
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — The New York City civil service exam schedule is open for June, and some jobs pay more than others. The application period for exams opened June 5. Exam applications ...
regard to the competitive requirements of the civil service rules and regulations, and that are not covered by the Senior Executive Service (SES). Instructions for SES appointments are published in Chapter 13.) 2. Definitions a. *** POINTMENT >AP —Any personnel action that brings an individual onto the rolls (staff) of an agency.< b.
By Erich Wagner. June 7, 2024 09:30 AM ET. A cadre of Republican former national security officials on Thursday urged lawmakers to abandon the GOP's growing embrace of Schedule F, arguing there ...
The U.S. Marshals Service Director Ron Davis recently told Congress threats against federal judges doubled between 2021 and 2023, with threats against other court staff rising at a similar rate.
The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
A: If the suit is "... arising out of any transaction or operation connected with or incidental to any business or business venture carried on in this state by such [defendant]", you might be able to effect service on the secretary of State pursuant to Florida Statute 48.181 (4).
These laws include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color, and national origin), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (sex), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Section ...