Plaintiff, a tenured teacher employed by a New York State school district [Employer] was served with disciplinary charges alleging Plaintiff had failed to accurately document speech services during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years.
Plaintiff and the Employer subsequently entered into a "Last Change Agreement" [LCA] to settle the disciplinary action whereby the parties mutually agreed that "if, at any time prior to the last day of the 2021-2022 school year following written notice and a 45-day period to cure", Plaintiff was determined by a hearing officer "after a hearing pursuant to Education Law §3020-a to have engaged in similar neglect, the [Employer] would be entitled to terminate the [Plaintiff's] employment."
On April 5, 2021, the Employer notified the Plaintiff that she was not in compliance with the LCA due to her failure to accurately document speech services during the 2020-2021 school year and directed her to cure the deficiencies within 45 days.
Plaintiff failed to timely to cure alleged failure as required by the terms of the LCA and the Employer filed disciplinary charges against Plaintiff.
In the course of the Education Law §3020-a disciplinary action which followed, Plaintiff contended that the charged misconduct was not substantially similar to the misconduct giving rise to the LCA "because she had been assigned additional duties and responsibilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that she did enter the required information to accurately document the services she provided".
The hearing officer permitted the Employer to rebut Plaintiff's assertions by demonstrating that the additional entries submitted by Plaintiff "were entered after the 45-day period to cure and that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, she had failed to document her sessions during the 2019-2020 school year, which was outside of the charged period".
The disciplinary hearing officer issued a determination which sustained the charges and specifications alleged by the Employer and authorized the termination of Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff appealed the hearing officer's decision in an effort to have it vacated, contending that the [disciplinary] arbitration did not conform with Education Law §3020-a. Supreme Court denied the Employer's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's appeal and ultimately granted Plaintiff's petition. The Employer appealed the Supreme Court's judgment.
The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court' ruling and granted the Employer's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition; explaining:
1. "The standard of review mandated by Education Law §3020-a (5)(a) is that of CPLR article 75, which provides that an arbitration award may be vacated only on a showing of misconduct, bias, excess of power, or procedural defects";
2. Where, as here, the obligation to arbitrate arises through statutory mandate, the hearing officer's determination is subject to closer judicial scrutiny than it would receive had the arbitration been conducted voluntarily;
3. The award in a compulsory arbitration proceeding must have evidentiary support and cannot be arbitrary and capricious; and
4. In addition, CPLR Article 75 reviews questions whether the decision was rational or had a plausible basis.
Citing Matter of Harvey v Board of Educ. of the Uniondale Union Free Sch. Dist., 221 AD3d 899, the Appellate Division then observed that "When reviewing compulsory arbitrations in education proceedings such as this, the court should accept the hearing officer's credibility determinations, even where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists" and concluded that the determination recommending the termination of the termination of Plaintiff's employment was rational, had evidentiary support, and was not arbitrary and capricious.
The Appellate Division's decision also observed that a "last chance agreement constituted a valid, binding contract, and the neglect complained of [in the instant action], to wit, the failure to accurately document speech services during the 2020-2021 school year, was identical to the previously charged conduct".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.