Disciplinary action should proceed regardless of layoff of the accused
Rubtchinsky v. Moriah Central School District, 82 A.D.2d 960
A teacher was suspended with pay pending the outcome of a disciplinary hearing on charges of incompetency and misconduct. He was then advised that a position in his department was to be abolished and as he was the teacher with the least seniority, his services would be discontinued.
The Education Law §3020-a disciplinary hearing, however, was never held.
Rubtchinsky sued and Supreme Court held that the teacher had to be given “the economic benefits of his position before (the District) can proceed with a hearing under Section 3020-a.”
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s ruling, indicating that Rubtchinsky could get back salary upon reinstatement only if his claim that he was improperly excessed is upheld, and that it knew of no reason to abort the disciplinary hearing.
As Section 2510.3 of the Education Law gives the teacher reinstatement rights for six years, it seems prudent that the discipline action should go forward regardless of the layoff, even if the individual is, in fact, the teacher with the least seniority.
