Any state employee with provisional, probationary, or permanent status who feels aggrieved
by an action of an appointing authority resulting in a demotion, suspension, layoff,
or dismissal or by any personnel action which an appointing authority might take which
causes the person to believe that he or she had been discriminated against because
of his or her race, sex, age, disability, or his or her political or religious beliefs,
may, within thirty (30) calendar days of the mailing of the notice of that action,
appeal in writing to the personnel appeal board for a review or public hearing. Within
thirty (30) days after conclusion of the hearing the personnel appeal board shall
render a decision and shall notify the affected employee and other interested parties
of the decision which may confirm or reduce the demotion, suspension, layoff, or dismissal
of the employee or may reinstate the employee and the board may order payment of part
or all of the salary to the employee for the period of time he or she was demoted,
suspended, laid off, or dismissed. The decision of the board shall be final and binding
upon all parties concerned, and upon the finding of the personnel administrator, or
upon appeal, in favor of the employee, the employee shall be forthwith returned to
his or her office or position without loss of compensation, seniority, or any other
benefits he or she may have enjoyed, or under such terms as the appeal board shall
determine. The employee who is returned to his or her office or position by the appeal
board following a review or public hearing shall be granted by the state of Rhode
Island counsel fees, payable to his or her representative counsel, of fifty dollars
($50.00) for each day his or her counsel is required to appear before the appeal board
in the behalf of the aggrieved employee.
Notes of Decisions
Aniello v. Marcello, 162 A.2d 270 (R.I. 1960).
· cites it 13× “This petition for a writ of mandamus seeks to compel the respondent in his capacity as director of the department of public works to reinstate the petitioner as an employee of that department in accordance with the pertinent provisions of general laws 1956, §36-4-42. The case is…”
Houde v. State, 973 A.2d 493 (R.I. 2009).
· cites it 4× “” The board dismissed this action for lack of jurisdiction under G.L. 1956 § 36-4-42 because the plaintiffs did not meet the definition of an “aggrieved party.”
Rohrer v. Ford, 425 A.2d 529 (R.I. 1981).
· cites it 3× “In its pertinent portions, § 36-4-42 (1980 Cum.Supp.) requires the board to render a decision within thirty days after the conclusion of its hearing and specifies: “The decision of the board shall be final and binding upon all parties concerned, and upon the finding of the…”
Malachowski v. State, 877 A.2d 649 (R.I. 2005).
· cites it 2× “We, therefore, are satisfied that plaintiff’s appeal to the PAB pursuant to the terms of § 36-4-42 was not proper. 15 Consequent- ly, the petition for certiorari is denied and the decision affirmed.”
Graziano v. Rhode Island State Lottery Comm'n, 810 A.2d 215 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 2× “During the pendency of the court actions, plaintiff Hawkins sought relief from the Personnel Appeals Board pursuant to G.L.1956 § 36-4-42. The board denied jurisdiction on the ground that similar relief had been sought in the judicial forum.”
Cipriano v. Pers. Appeal Bd., 330 A.2d 71 (R.I. 1975).
· cites it 4× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) §36-4-42, or a 1969 amendment thereof, is controlling.”
Rhode Island Bd. of Governors for Higher Educ. v. Newman, 688 A.2d 1300 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 3× “) *1302 The defendant further contends that § 36-4-42, which applies to “[a]ny state employee,” provides the appeal board with jurisdiction to resolve the discrimination claims of all state employees.”
Lynch v. Gontarz, 386 A.2d 184 (R.I. 1978).
“§§36-4-42, 36-3-10(3). This indicates to us a legislative intent *155 that unclassified employees serve at the pleasure of their appointing authority absent an allegation of discrimination.”
Forbes v. Rhode Island Bhd. of Corr. Officers, 923 F. Supp. 315 (D.R.I. 1996).
· cites it 2× “In a letter dated May 22,1989, Rivard filed an appeal, pursuant to R.I.Gen.Laws § 36-4-42, on Forbes’ behalf with the Appeal Board.”
Great Am. Nursing Centers, Inc. v. Norberg, 439 A.2d 249 (R.I. 1981).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 36-4-42 that the decisions of the board shall be “final and binding upon all parties * * The trial-court judge had found this argument persuasive; in reversing, we did not.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.