The New York City Department of Education [DOE] appointed an individual [Plaintiff] as an educator effective March 2014 subject to the satisfactory completion of a three-year probationary period. In January 2017, Plaintiff agreed an extension of her probationary period for another year, "in order to give her more time to develop additional evidence in support of a grant of tenure" in lieu of termination.
During the 2017-2018 school year Plaintiff received an unsatisfactory observation rating and a disciplinary "letter to file." In January 2018, Plaintiff again agreed to extend her probationary service for another year, again in lieu of termination.
During the 2018-2019 school year Plaintiff received two more "letters to file" and in January 2019 DOE denied Plaintiff a certification of satisfactory completion of probation and discontinued her employment as a probationary teacher.
Petitioner commenced a CPLR Article 78 procedure seeking a review the DOE's dismissing her from her employment as a probationary teacher. Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding and Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's decision.
Citing Matter of Feinerman v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 48 NY2d 491, the Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court's ruling, explaining that that contrary to argument that she "had acquired the right to a hearing pursuant to Education Law §3020-a with respect to the discontinuation of her probationary employment pursuant to the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement [CBA], the record shows that:
1. Plaintiff "freely, knowingly, and voluntarily waived her rights to tenure;
2. DOE "did not coerce or place Plaintiff under duress to induce her to sign the probation extension agreements;" and
3. Although Plaintiff contended that she had acquired the right to a hearing under Education Law §3020-a upon discontinuation of her probationary employment pursuant to the terms of the relevant CBA, the record indicated that Plaintiff failed to file a grievance pursuant to the procedure set forth in the CBA to dispute DOE's failure to provide her with a Education Law §3020-a hearing.
Further, the Appellate Division opined that a probationary teacher "may be terminated during his or her probationary period for any reason, or no reason at all, and without a hearing, unless the teacher establishes that his or her employment was terminated for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, in violation of a statutory proscription, or in bad faith." In any event, said the court, "The [Plaintiff] bears the burden of establishing bad faith or illegal reasons by competent evidence".
Noting that the evidence demonstrated that the Plaintiff "received multiple letters to file, that she received an unsatisfactory observation rating, and that she lacked professionalism during her probationary employment", the Appellate Division concluded that such evidence demonstrated that the DOE's decision denying Plaintiff a grant of tenure and discontinuing her probationary employment was made in good faith and that DOE's determination was rationally based and not arbitrary and capricious.
Thus, said the court, Supreme Court "properly, inter alia, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.