A tenured teacher [Petitioner] employed by the New York City Department of Education [DOE] was served with disciplinary charges alleging she [1] directed a racially charged insult at a woman off school grounds and [2] exhibited alleged discriminatory conduct directed at students in her classroom.
Following a disciplinary hearing held pursuant to Education Law Section 3020-a, the Hearing Officer sustained the charges and specifications related to the language involving the woman uttered off school ground and recorded in a video of the incident and the Petitioner's discriminatory actions discovered in the course of DOE's investigation of the Plaintiff classroom conduct.
Based on these findings, the Hearing Officer concluded that the Petitioner was guilty of the charges served on her and that Petitioner should be terminated from her position notwithstanding the absence of evidence of any prior discriminatory actions by Petitioner in Petitioner's employment record.
Petitioner appealed but the Appellate Division, sustaining the Hearing Officer's finding and the penalty imposed, opined that the penalty of termination was supported by the record, was not disproportionate to the offense, and does not shock one's sense of fairness.
In the words of the Appellate Division, "Supreme Court properly denied [Petitioner's] amended petition to vacate the arbitration award", and indicated that the Hearing Officer properly considered:
(1) "the gravity of the charges;
(2) "the fact that [Petitioner] had recently participated in implicit bias training and received a copy of Chancellors Regulation A-830 which articulated DOE's anti-discrimination policy, and thus informed [Petitioner] of her duty to conduct herself professionally both inside and outside of the classroom;
(3) "that [Petitioner] should have known that her behavior would violate the DOE anti-discrimination policy which might result in disciplinary action; and
(4) "that [Petitioner] failed to demonstrate remorse or take responsibility for her conduct".
The Appellate Division opined that "Notwithstanding [Petitioner's] effective record during her approximately 18-year career with DOE the penalty does not shock the conscience. Having received prior notice of the consequences of discriminatory behavior, Petitioner nonetheless engaged in a pattern of inappropriate conduct unbecoming a teacher."
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.