A probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons (seeMatter of Griffin v. MTA N.Y. City Tr. Auth., 127 A.D.3d 1083, 1084, 7 N.Y.S.3d 481 ). "However, this broad discretion is not ‘unlimited’ " ( Matter ofLake v. Town of Southold, 189 A.D.3d 1588, 1591, 140 N.Y.S.3d 95, quoting Matter ofMaynard v. Monaghan, 284 App.Div. 280, 283, 131 N.Y.S.2d 556 ). "The employment of a probationary employee may not be terminated ‘in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law’ " ( Matter ofLake v. Town of Southold, 189 A.D.3d at 1591, 140 N.Y.S.3d 95, quoting Matter ofLane v. City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 786, 786, 938 N.Y.S.2d 597 ).
A probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons (see Matter of Griffin v MTA N.Y. City Tr. Auth., 127 A.D.3d 1083, 1084). "However, this broad discretion is not 'unlimited'" (Matter of Lake v Town of Southold, 189 A.D.3d 1588, 1591, quoting Matter of Maynard v Monaghan, 284 A.D. 280, 283). "The employment of a probationary employee may not be terminated 'in bad faith, for a constitutionally impermissible or an illegal purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law'" (Matter of Lake v Town of Southold, 189 A.D.3d at 1591, quoting Matter of Lane v City of New York, 92 A.D.3d 786, 786).
A bad faith determination is one based upon a constitutionally impermissible or illegal purpose, or "in violation of statutory or decisional law. " Mtr of Lake v. Town of Southhold, 189 A.D.3d 1588, 1591 (2d Dept. 2020) ; Mtr of Lane v. City of NY 92 A.D.3d 786 (2d Dept.) ; Card v. Sielaff, 154 Mic. 2d 239, 244 (Sup. Ct., NY Co., 1992). The petitioner has the burden of proving bad faith by producing competent evidence, rather than mere speculation.
The lack of documentation establishes pretext. Lake v Town of Southold, 189 A.D.3d 1588, 1593 [2d Dept 2020]; Lyman v New York and Presbyt. Hosp., 30 AD Cases 1113 [SDNY July 14, 2014]); Flores v Buy Buy Baby, Inc., 118 F.Supp.2d 425, 431 [SDNY 2000]; Chambers v. TRM Copy Centers Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 39 (2d Cir. 1994). It is reasonable to assume that a medical provider as large as ACP would maintain a paper trail when it terminates multiple employees at once.