N.B. LINKS appearing in the text of NYPPL summary of this decision of the Commissioner below were inserted by AI Overview.]
In this appeal to the New York State Commissioner of Education Petitioner challenged the determination of a Board of Education [Respondent] to terminate his employment and alleged that Board retaliated against him after he filed a Dignity for All Students Act [Dignity Act] complaint on behalf of his children.
Petitioner and his two children reside within Respondent’s district and Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a substitute teacher’s aide (2017-2022) and a groundskeeper (2022 to 2025).
Petitioner’s children complained of their treatment by a sports coach [Coach], the spouse of a board member, resulting in Petitioner filed a complaint against the Coach pursuant to the Dignity Act.
Respondent’s Dignity Act Coordinator informed Petitioner that it has substantiated some of the allegations concerning the Coach and indicated that "the district would address these findings internally" but was precluded from "shar[ing] [the] … specific action to be taken."
Petitioner also alleged that the members of the Board appeared to observe him working, suggesting a member had arranged to do so in an effort to intimidate or harass him. Respondent denied these allegations, asserting that the simultaneous presence of Petitioner and the board member was coincidental.
Subsequently Respondent voted to terminate Petitioner’s employment with Respondent and Petitioner appealed the Board's action.
Respondent contends that the appeal must be dismissed against the board member as he was neither named in the caption of the appeal nor served with a copy thereof.[1] On the merits, Respondent argued that Petitioner has not articulated a clear legal right to his requested relief.
The Commissioner declined to address Petitioner’s claim of wrongful termination explaining "employee discipline is within respondent’s exclusive jurisdiction and is generally subject to procedures established in statute or in applicable collective bargaining agreements and/or employment contracts”. Accordingly, the Commissioner said that she declined to “sit as a super-personnel department” and second-guess Respondent’s employment decisions.
In contrast, the Commissioner observed that Petitioner’s claim of retaliation for filing a Dignity Act complaint was within her jurisdiction and addressed that aspect of Petitioner's complaint, observing that:
1. "The Dignity Act prohibits school districts and their employees from “tak[ing] ... retaliatory action against any such person” who “makes ... a report” alleging bullying or harassment (see Education Law §16);
2. A claim of retaliation requires a petitioner to show that he or she (a) engaged in protected activity; (b) was subjected to adverse action; and (c) causation" [Citations omitted]; and
3. In an appeal to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested" [Citations omitted]".
The Commissioner concluded that "Petitioner has not met his burden of proving causation between his Dignity Act complaint and his termination", indicating that the precipitating event underlying Petitioner’s termination was his use of a district vehicle to salt his driveway[2] and there is no evidence that the Respondent’s employee who investigated this incident was aware of Petitioner’s Dignity Act complaint.[3]
Based on the results of the Respondent's employee's investigation, the school superintendent recommended that the Board terminate Petitioner’s employment and there is no evidence that the Board member “discuss[ed] his personal history with Petitioner with any other board member, or otherwise attempt[ed] to influence their votes regarding Petitioner’s termination.”
The Commissioner held that Petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proving causation between his Dignity Act complaint and his termination and dismissed Petitioner's appeal.
[1] To the extent the petition could be construed as an application to remove the board member, it does not comply with the applicable procedural requirements [Citations omitted].
[2] Petitioner claimed that he accidentally engaged the salter mechanism.
[3] The investigating employee began her employment in 2025, two years after the Dignity Act determination at issue herein.
Click HERE to access the Commissioner's decision posted on the Internet.