Supreme Court tells the NYC Department of Education exactly
was it must do to avoid being held in contempt of court
Storman v New York City Dept. of Educ., 2013 NY Slip
Op 50007(U), Supreme Court, New York County
A teacher employed by the NYC Department of Education for approximately 30 years challenged his receiving an unsatisfactory rating as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct and corporal punishment made by a student. The teacher contended that the student's allegations were made in retaliation for his "verbally reprimanding a student."
A teacher employed by the NYC Department of Education for approximately 30 years challenged his receiving an unsatisfactory rating as a result of allegations of sexual misconduct and corporal punishment made by a student. The teacher contended that the student's allegations were made in retaliation for his "verbally reprimanding a student."
Ultimately Supreme Court granted the teacher’s petition to
annul the unsatisfactory rating, explaining "it was irrational for the DOE
to conclude that the alleged conduct amounted to corporal punishment" and
"the penalty imposed was excessive and shocking to the conscience."
This Court ordered that the unsatisfactory rating be annulled and that
"this matter [be] remitted to [DOE] for further proceedings not
inconsistent with the court's decision."
The purpose of remitting the case to DOE was for DOE and
teacher's union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), to take the
appropriate steps to remedy the consequences of the underlying false allegations
so that teacher would be properly compensated and his employment status
restored.
The unsatisfactory rating was annulled by DOE but DOE did
not take any steps to compensate the teacher or to remedy his employment
situation. The teacher then asked the court to hold DOE in contempt. Supreme
Court did hold DOE in contempt for its “willful and contumacious failure to
comply with the Judgment,” but this determination was vacated by the Appellate
Division, which found that the Contempt Order was based on an earlier Judgment
that did not contain a "clear and unequivocal mandate."
In response to the Appellate Division’s granting the teacher
leave to have Supreme Court clarify its Judgment by issuing was it termed "a clear and
unequivocal mandate" to DOE. Supreme Court said that “In order to finally put an
end to this unfortunate saga,” which began in 2004, this Court will be
perfectly clear and unequivocal about what DOE must do and by when it must be
done.
By April 5, 2013, said the court, DOE shall do the following:
1. remove all references to the underlying false accusations
from the teacher’s personnel file; and
2. restore back pay, with interest, that the teacher did not
receive on account of the underlying false accusations, including any seniority
salary adjustments and lost pension benefits.
The court also directed that in the event a dispute arises
between the parties before April 13, 2013, “the parties are to promptly contact
the Court, and if the parties cannot agree on the proper amount of back pay
owed to the teacher, the teacher is granted leave to move to have such
calculation referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.”
Finally, said the court, if DOE fails to comply with this
Order in good faith, which, at a minimum, shall include an in-person meet and
confer with the teacher about back pay, the teacher has leave to move for
contempt, as DOE “can no longer maintain that its mandate is not clear and
unequivocal.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
