Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In 2004 the Scarsdale Union Free School District (hereinafter the School District) implemented a "single point of entry system" in each of its elementary schools. Pursuant to that system, a school's doors would be locked from the time the students arrived until the time they were dismissed. In order for a visitor to get inside, the visitor had to go to the school's main entrance, which was monitored by a video camera, and ring a doorbell. The individual plaintiffs-petitioners, who were secretaries and typists working at the schools, were given the responsibility of granting the visitors access to the schools. Thus, upon hearing the doorbell, the individual plaintiffs-petitioners would look at a monitor, see that a visitor wanted to come inside, and press a "buzzer" to remotely unlock the door to the main entrance.
In 2006 the School District implemented a system whereby contractors who were performing work within the elementary schools were required to wear badges identifying themselves as contractors. The individual plaintiffs-petitioners were given the responsibility of providing the contractors with the badges.
In the instant hybrid action and proceeding, the plaintiffs-petitioners allege that their new responsibilities were not required by their job descriptions, and thus, those responsibilities constituted "out-of-title" work within the meaning of the Civil Service Law.
Civil Service Law § 61 (2) prohibits out-of-title work except during an emergency situation ( see Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME v Angello, 277 AD2d 576, 578). However, work is not considered out-of-title if it is related to, similar in nature to, or a reasonable outgrowth of, the employee's "in-title" work ( see Matter of Healy v County of Nassau, 18 AD3d 873, 874). The job specifications for any given title will dictate what duties are properly performed under that title ( see Matter of Gavigan v McCoy, 37 NY2d 548, 551; Donegan v Nadell, 113 AD2d 676, 681-682).
Here, the record demonstrates that the directives requiring the individual plaintiffs-petitioners to use the surveillance monitors and buzzers to admit visitors, and to supply contractors with identification badges, are a reasonable outgrowth of their in-title work. Indeed, according to the job specifications for typists, a typist's job duties include, inter alia, "receiv[ing] visitors, ascertain[ing] their business and direct[ing them] to appropriate staff members." In addition, the job specifications for secretaries contemplate, inter alia, secretaries having "a considerable amount of contact with the public." The mere overlap of the individual plaintiffs-petitioners' job responsibilities with the responsibilities set forth in the job specifications of the schools' security workers does not mandate the conclusion that the individual plaintiffs/petitioners are performing out-of-title work ( see Matter of Fitzpatrick v Ruffo, 110 AD2d 1032, 1033-1034, affd 66 NY2d 647; Matter of Woodward v Governor's Off. of Empl. Relations, 279 AD2d 725, 726).
The School District's determination that those responsibilities did not constitute out-of-title work has a rational basis. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding ( see CPLR 7803; Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME v Angello, 277 AD2d at 578).