Former educator alleges breach of the duty of fair representation, breach of contract and other wrongdoings by her former employer and her former union

In an action to recover damages for alleged breach of contract and fraud, the Plaintiff in the instant action appealed an order of the Supreme Court granting the motions of a Teachers Association. and a School District [Respondents] and other education entities dismissing Plaintiff's complaint's insofar as asserted against each of them. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling "with one bill of costs to the [Respondents] appearing separately and filing separate briefs".

The superintendent of schools for the defendant Union Free School District [District] had reassigned the Plaintiff, a tenured elementary school teacher, from teaching duties to administrative duties. Subsequently the District found that probable cause existed to file disciplinary charges against the Plaintiff pursuant to Education Law §3020-a alleging professional misconduct. Pursuant to a stipulation of settlement of the disciplinary action, Plaintiff agreed to retire and "to release any and all claims against the district defendants in consideration for, among other things, continued receipt of her salary and certain benefits".

Thereafter the District and the Teachers Association [Association] entered into a "memorandum of agreement" providing a retirement incentive of payment of unused sick leave to certain full-time teaching faculty members. The Plaintiff applied for the retirement incentive.

The District rejected her request and in her notice of claim Plaintiff alleged the District's denial of her application constituted a breach of the stipulation of settlement. Plaintiff then commenced the instant action seeking to recover damages for "breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, and negligent misrepresentation".

Plaintiff alleged that prior to the execution of the stipulation of settlement, the Respondents "fraudulently misrepresented, in substance, that no further negotiations affecting the collective bargaining agreement governing the [Plaintiff's] benefits were pending; that the stipulation of settlement entitled her to the retirement incentive offered in the memorandum of agreement; and that the district defendants breached the stipulation of settlement by denying her application".

The Association and the District separately moved to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. Supreme Court granted these motions and Plaintiff appealed.

Sustaining the Supreme Court's rulings, the Appellate Division explained:

1. To state a cause of action to recover damages for a breach of contract, the plaintiff's allegations must identify the provisions of the contract that were breached and here no provision in the stipulation of settlement entitles the Plaintiff to the retirement incentive. The decision further notes that Plaintiff "was not a party to the memorandum of agreement." Thus, opined the Appellate Division, Supreme Court "properly directed dismissal of the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract";

2. To establish fraud, a plaintiff must prove a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by the defendant and when a plaintiff brings a cause of action based upon fraud, the circumstances constituting the wrong must be stated in detail. Here the Plaintiff's complaint failed to properly plead all of the requisite elements of fraud against the Respondents with sufficient particularity and the complaint, taken at face value, "failed to support the allegation that the defendants misrepresented any facts. For the same reason, the complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for negligent misrepresentation". Accordingly, the Appellate Division found "the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of the causes of action to recover damages for fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation";

3. Supreme Court, said the Appellate Division, properly directed dismissal of the cause of action sounding in breach of the duty of fair representation as a "Breach of the duty of fair representation occurs only when a union's conduct toward a member of the collective bargaining unit is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith". Plaintiff's complaint failed to set forth such conduct. On its face, the exclusion of union members who had previously retired or submitted a letter of resignation for purposes of retirement from the retirement incentive was rational; and

4. To the extent that the Plaintiff's complaint asserted causes of action to recover damages for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or breach of fiduciary duty, the Appellate Division held "Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of those causes of action".

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.