School employee employed in a classified service position may not appeal adverse disciplinary decision to the Commissioner of Education
Guadagnino v Lancaster CSD, CEd 14080
The Lancaster Central School District filed disciplinary charges against Anthony P. Guadagnino pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law. The charges alleged that Guadagnino, a custodian, made false, baseless and damaging statements concerning alleged inappropriate conduct by a building principal, the president of the school board and others to various district officials and staff members.
Found guilty of all charges, Guadagnino was dismissed from his position. His appeal to the Erie County Civil Service Commission pursuant to Section 76 of the Civil Service Law was denied.
Guadagnino next filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Education pursuant to Section 310 of the Education Law contending that the school district violated federal and state law protecting “whistle blowers” by terminating him in retaliation for his making and pursuing his allegations of “inappropriate conduct.”
The Commissioner dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He said that with respect to Guadagnino’s claims concerning “whistle blowing” [Civil Service Law Section 75-b], such claims may be asserted as a defense in a Section 75 hearing. However, nothing in the Education Law authorizes an appeal to the Commissioner from disciplinary action taken under Section 75. The Commissioner noted that “it is well established ... that the suspension or termination of classified employees is not an appropriate subject of an appeal brought pursuant to Education Law Section 310.”
As to Guadagnino’s federal claims, the Commissioner pointed out that the federal law cited, 5 USC 1213, is generally applicable to federal employees and those in federally related employment.
NYPPL