Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong, Associate Justice Alexandra Foster and Part-Time Associate Justice Katherine A. Maraman in a nine-pages opinion order on Monday held that Evelina Ngiralmau was not entitled to the protections of the National Public Service System.
Ngiralmau was hired in 1994 as Administrative Assistant II but was terminated in January 2007. She filed a civil action against the Ministry of Health in March of 2007 and claimed that she was a permanent public service system employee and firing her violated her rights. MOH claimed that Ngiralmau was not a permanent employee and alleged that she was exempted under 33 PNC§ 205 (a) (11).The trial court held a trial and granted MOH motion for directed verdict and entered judgment in favor of MOH.The trial court ruled that Ngiralmau failed to meet her burden of proof that she is a public service employee entitled to the protections of 33 PNC §205.Ngiralmau challenged the trial court’s order and argued that the trial court failed to apply 33 PNC §205 and the trial court’s analysis of her exempt status was erroneous.The Supreme Court in affirming the trial court’s decision said that they find the Administrative Assistant II a position of a temporary nature.The position is temporary because it expired every year and the position was funded by grants that had to be renewed every year.“The appellant was literally hired and fired at least twelve times. Each Personnel Action Forms (PAF) said that appellant’s position was not to exceed a year,” the Justices order stated.The Justices said the “Administrative Assistant II is exempt from the National Service System under 33 PNC §205 (a)(11).”“Finally we find that Administrative Assistant II involved a special project. Appellant maintains that her position did not involve special projects because Behavioral Health Division of the Ministry of Health programs were ongoing and because her duties considered of routine administrative tasks.”“It is true that appellant’s duties were not particularly special, on the other hand, her administrative work involved substance abuse, tobacco prevention and mental health programs subsidized by the United States Department of Health and Human Services and Center for Disease Control. These projects which have specific objectives and are funded by outside sources can reasonably be considered special especially given that the term is undefined in the statute,” the Justices said in their order affirming the trial court’s decision.
