An educator who resigned from his or her tenured position is not automatically given tenure status upon his or her subsequently employment by the school district
Brennan v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08905, Appellate Division, First Department
Supreme Court sustained the New York City Department of Education's determination terminating Philomena Brennan employment, and dismissed her petition.
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling explaining that Brennan’s termination from her position as a probationary teacher was not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law. Further, said the court, Brennan, as a probationary teacher, was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing pursuant to New York Education Law §3020-a.
Brennan was previously a tenured employee with the City’s Department of Education. However, she had resigned from her employment in June 2007, and thus forfeited her tenure. When she was reemployed by the Department she failed to comply with Chancellor's Regulation C-205(29) which governs withdrawal of a resignation and restoration to tenure. Accordingly, Brennan did not regain her tenured position.
Significantly, the Appellate Division noted that Brennan had filed a written application for reinstatement and the removal of her name from the ineligibility list in 2009. In the course of an earlier Article 78 proceeding involving these actions, commenced in 2010, the court granted ‘s request to have her name removed from the Department’s “ineligible for employment list” but declined to reinstate her tenure until Brennan satisfied the additional steps required for reinstatement.
The Appellate Division said that Brennan “failed to comply with the court's directive and her tenure was not constructively restored by her rehiring.”
As to her removal from her probationary appointment, the court ruled that Brennan has not demonstrated that her unsatisfactory performance rating was arbitrary and capricious or made in bad faith as the Department’s decision was supported by the record based on detailed observation reports by her principal and assistant principal describing her poor performance and her failure to implement “step-by-step strategies for improvement.”
In addition, the Appellate Division commented that Brennan was aware of the stated deficiencies as reflected in the reports of her principal and assistant principal and “{still failed to improve.”
The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_08905.htm