Religious freedom and employment

Religious freedom and employment
Marchi v BOCES, 2nd Cir., 173 F.3d 469

A school risks violating the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution if any of its teachers’ activities give the impression that the school endorses a religion.

But how far can a school board go in limiting a teacher’s classroom speech on religious issues before it tramples on another Constitutional guarantee: the right to free expression? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes New York State, wrestled with those issues in the Marchi case.

Dan Marchi, a certified special education teacher in the Capital Region BOCES, taught socially and emotionally disturbed high school students. Marchi said he “underwent a dramatic conversion to Christianity,” and admitted that he shared this experience with his students.

In the fall of 1991 he modified his instructional program to discuss topics such as forgiveness, reconciliation, and God. He used a tape, Singing the Bible, in class and voiced his thankfulness to God in at least one letter to a parent.

After Marchi ignored letters directing him to refrain from using religion as part of his instructional program, the BOCES filed charges of insubordination and “conduct unbecoming a teacher” against him. A state Department of Education hearing officer found that Marchi had committed an act of insubordination and imposed a penalty of six months’ suspension without pay.

However, Marchi’s return to teaching was conditioned on his commitment, in writing, to adhere to a directive that he would not discuss religion in class. Upon advice of his attorney, Marchi said that he would adhere to the directive.

Marchi then filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 USC 1983, alleging that:

1. By suspending him in 1995, BOCES violated his rights to academic freedom, free association, free speech, and free exercise of religion, as well as his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act;

2. BOCES violated his right to due process and retaliated against him when deciding his classroom assignment upon his return to teaching;

3. The directive he accepted was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; and

4. The directive “proscribe(d) protected speech between Marchi and students’ parents.”

A federal district judge dismissed his complaint, saying “thousands of teachers of common intelligence are able to distinguish between their instructional program and their personal life and do so without violating the establishment clause.” In addition, the District Court found that the challenged directive “addresses only [Marchi’s] instructional program and no other aspect of [his] personal life”.

Marchi appealed the ruling. The Circuit Court agreed with the lower court, holding that while “the directive is unquestionably a restraint on Marchi’s First Amendment rights,” not all restraints on free exercise and free speech rights are invalid. The court said that the validity of a particular restraint depends on the context in which the expression occurs.

The Circuit Court noted that the decisions that governmental agencies make in determining when they are at risk of Establishment Clause violations are difficult.

In dealing with their employees, public employers cannot be expected to resolve so precisely the inevitable tensions between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause “that they may forbid only employee conduct that, if occurring, would violate the Establishment Clause and must tolerate all employee conduct that, if prohibited as to non-employees, would violate the Free Exercise Clause.”

In discharging its public functions, said the Court, the governmental employer must be given some latitude and the employee must accept that he or she does not retain the full extent of free exercise rights that he or she would enjoy as a private citizen.
NYPPL

The right to appeal an arbitration

The right to appeal an arbitration
Wilson v NYC Bd. of Ed., 261 AD2d 409

The Wilson decision illustrates a basic tenet to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement: the “owners” of the arbitration are the parties to the Taylor Law agreement. Those parties typically are the employer and the union.

The individual employee whom the grievance involves is not a party to the arbitration. Accordingly, the union has the right to decide whether to appeal an arbitration decision. The individual union member is not a party to the arbitration and lacks this right, as Nancy Wilson discovered.

Wilson was a teacher in New York City from 1984 until 1996, when the Board of Education decided to terminate her. Wilson’s union initiated a grievance proceeding on her behalf to challenge her termination. After the grievance was denied, the union filed a demand for arbitration as provided for in the collective bargaining agreement.

The arbitrator rejected the appeal, upholding the school board’s decision to terminate Wilson.

Wilson then filed a petition seeking to have the arbitrator’s award vacated pursuant to Section 7511 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The Appellate Division dismissed Wilson’s petition on the grounds that Wilson did not have any standing to challenge the arbitration award. The court noted that she was neither a “party” to the collective bargaining agreement nor a “party” to the arbitration.

Under the circumstances, ruled the court, only an employer or a union has standing to ask a court to vacate an arbitration award or have it confirmed. The employee involved cannot do this on his or her own behalf unless he or she is able to demonstrate that the union’s decision not to proceed was made in bad faith.
NYPPL

Right to counsel during administrative disciplinary action

Right to counsel during administrative disciplinary action
Elmore v Plainview-Old Bethpage CSD, 273 AD2d 307, motion for leave to appeal denied, 99 NY2d 509

Employees against whom disciplinary charges have been filed typically have the right to (1) testify on their own behalf and (2) the right to representation by an attorney. Such rights are standard in the disciplinary provisions of collective bargaining contracts as well as disciplinary statutes such as Section 75 of the Civil Service Law and Section 3020-a of the Education Law.

The Elmore decision illustrates that an employer who seeks to limit an employee’s access to counsel during a disciplinary proceeding can be viewed by the courts as committing a fatal error.

The Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District filed disciplinary charges against one of its teachers, Elmore, pursuant to Section 3020-a. Elmore’s personal testimony took place on various dates over a period of ten weeks.

At the district’s request, the hearing officer ordered Elmore not to “confer with his attorney about his testimony over the breaks in the hearing.” Nor could Elmore “review transcripts of his testimony during breaks in his testimony.”

Found guilty of the charges, Elmore asked the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to vacate the award pursuant to Section 7511 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules [CPLR].*

Elmore contended the hearing officer’s order constituted “misconduct by the arbitrator” within the meaning of Article 75 of the CPLR because the order effectively denied him the right to counsel.

The district cited a ruling in a criminal matter where the Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s “restriction of conferencing between a defendant and his attorney during a recess in the course of a criminal trial” [People v Enrique, 80 NY2d 869] in support of its position. But Justice Geoffrey J. O’Connell was not persuaded Enrique was analogous because that ruling pertained only to a single, brief recess period.

The court said that a closer approximation of Elmore’s situation was addressed in People v Carracedos, 89 NY2d 1059. In Carracedos the Court of Appeals ruled that the preclusion of communications between counsel and client during a single overnight recess was a violation of the accused’s right to counsel. Elmore had demonstrated that he was prevented from communicating with his attorney for “weeks at a time” in the middle of his testimony.

Holding that Elmore’s rights were prejudiced by the hearing officer’s order barring him from speaking with his attorney, Justice O’Connell vacated the arbitration award in its entirety. The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling.

[For decisions addressing Elmore’s being placed on leave without pay in concert with this disciplinary action, see Elmore v. Mills, 296 AD2d 704 and Elmore v. Plainview Old Bethpage Central School Dist., 299 AD2d 545].

* N.B. Section 3020-a, as amended, provides that appeals from a Section 3020-a hearing officer’s determination must be filed within ten days pursuant to Section 7511, CPLR.
NYPPL

Appealing a disciplinary termination

Appealing a disciplinary termination
Stevens v McGraw CSD, 261 AD2d 698, motion for leave to appeal denied, 93 NY2d 816

McGraw Central bus driver Arthur Stevens’ failure to comply with Education Law Section 3813 proved fatal to his challenging his dismissal from his position following a disciplinary hearing pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law.

Section 75 disciplinary charges were filed against Stevens alleging that he permitted unacceptable behavior on his bus, was absent without leave, inaccurately reported his work time, and failed to comply with his supervisor’s directives as well as with district rules and procedures.

The hearing officer found Stevens guilty of seven of the charges preferred against him and recommended that he be discharged. The district accepted the hearing officer’s findings and recommendation.

When Stevens challenged his termination, the district raised the technical defense that he had failed to comply with notice requirements set out in Section 3813 of the Education Law.

Section 3813 requires that the individual, before going to court, give the school district an opportunity to respond. The individual must file an affidavit that the district was given timely notice of the claim and that it failed to act within 30 days of such notice.

The Appellate Division affirmed a lower court’s ruling dismissing Stevens’ Article 78 action, holding that “the mere fact that he seeks only reinstatement to his former position, as opposed to reinstatement coupled with back pay and benefits, does not exempt him from the requirements of Education Law Section 3813, as a review of the petition makes clear that [Stevens] nonetheless primarily is seeking to enforce a private right.”

Section 76 of the Civil Service Law gives a person found guilty of charges brought pursuant to Section 75 a statutory right to appeal the penalty imposed to the responsible civil service commission or, in the alternative, to the courts pursuant to Section 78 of the CPLR. However, the Appellate Division’s ruling in Stevens holds that an employee of a school district or a BOCES, as a condition precedent to his or her filing an Article 78 appeal challenging the disciplinary action, must file a timely notice of claim with the district or BOCES.

In contrast, in Sephton v Board of Education of the City of New York, 99 AD2d 509, the Appellate Division ruled that “the ‘tenure rights’ of teachers are ... considered a matter in the public interest and therefore Section 3813 is not applicable to cases seeking to enforce such rights.”

Presumably this means that although a teacher who is terminated for cause pursuant to Section 3020-a of the Education Law is not required to file a notice of claim as a condition precedent to his or her filing an appeal pursuant to Article 75 of the CPLR, [see Education Law Section 3020-a.5], a school district employee in the classified service who is terminated after a Section 75 hearing must satisfy the requirements of Section 3813 in order to file an Article 78 action challenging the disciplinary action.

It would seem that the fact that the Civil Service Law provides an aggrieved employee with a statutory right to appeal an adverse disciplinary action to a civil service commission or to the courts should have the same standing with respect to such an employee’s “tenure rights” as does Section 3020-a.5 insofar as the “tenure rights” of educators are concerned.

Another type of case in which the school district attempted to invoke the provisions of Section 3813 involved a teacher’s application for retroactive membership in a public retirement system pursuant to Section 803 of the Retirement and Social Security Law.

In Elmsford UFSD v Alfred G. Meyer, (Supreme Court, Albany County), State Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kane rejected the district’s argument that the employee’s application had to be dismissed because he failed to file a timely Section 3813(1) claim with the school district, citing Matter of DeMeurers, 243 AD2d 54, motion for leave to appeal denied, 92 NY2d 807.

While it appears that exceptions to the Section 3813 “notice of claim” requirement exist, it would seem prudent for an aggrieved party to file a timely notice of claim with a school district as set out in Section 3813 rather than try to persuade a court that it was not necessary to do so in a particular situation at some later date.
NYPPL

Tenure by estoppel

Tenure by estoppel
Matter of Andrews v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 2010 NY Slip Op 32963(U), October 15, 2010, Supreme Court, New York County. Judge Joan A. Madden [Not selected for publication in the Official Reports]

Dana Andrews sought a court order declaring that she had attained tenure by estoppel as a result of her being continued in service after the end of her probationary period and direct the New York City Board of Education to reinstate her to her former position with back salary.*

Although a newly appointed teacher is required to serve a three-year probationary period, because Andrews was entitled to two years of so-called “Jarema credit toward the completion of her probationary period.** Accordingly, Andrews’ probationary period was to end August 30, 2008.

When Andrews was advised that she would not be given tenure at the end of her probationary period, she requested, and was granted, “another chance to improve and perform satisfactorily,” and Andrews signed an agreement extending her probationary period for one year, i.e., through August 30, 2009. The agreement provided that Andrews would either be granted tenure, if she satisfactorily completed the additional year of probation, or she could be terminated on or before that date.

On or about June 18, 2009 Andrews was sent a letter advising her that her overall rating as a probationary teacher was “unsatisfactory.”

On September 8, 2009, the first day of the 2009-2010 school year, Andrews reported for duty. Her principal advised her that she should not be there because she had been terminated. Andrews replied that she had “never received written notice of her termination and left the school, only to return later that day, indicating that her union representative had told her that she should remain at the school for that day.

Andrews’ union representatives subsequently met with school officials. The union's representatives asserted that Andrews’ principal had stated that she had "messed up" by failing to provide Andrews with timely written notice that she was to be discontinued.

The Board of Education, contending that Andrews had not attained tenure by estoppel, withdrew its argument that she was not entitled to back pay, conceding that she had not been be provided with a written notice of her discontinuance more than 60 days before her probationary period expired.

Noting that a teacher can acquire tenure either through appointment or by acquiescence and estoppel. Typically tenure by estoppel is acquired when a school board “accepts the continued services of a teacher or administrator, but fails to take the action required by law to either grant or deny tenure prior to the expiration of the teacher’s probationary term.”

An individual claiming tenure by estoppel has the burden of demonstrating that his or her “post-probationary” services were performed with the knowledge and consent of the responsible board of education. However, said Judge Madden, “The mere failure to provide a teacher with the required amount of notice of an intention not to recommend tenure does not confer tenure," citing Matter of Brunecz v City of Dunkirk Bd. of Educ., 23 AD3d 1126.

Noting that the Board of Education terminated Andrews on or about September 11, 2009, the court said that in Educ. of Cohoes City School Dist., 59 AD2d at 807, the Appellate Division held that a teacher who taught for a few days after his probationary period ended had not attain tenure by estoppel “where prompt action was taken to discharge the teacher as soon as his presence was discovered.”***

Accordingly, Judge Madden dismissed Andrews’ petition seeking a judgment that she had attained tenure by estoppel but commented that her request for alternative relief – back pay for failure to provide the statutory notice that she was not to be given tenure at the end of her probationary period -- was not in dispute and would be provided by the Board of Education.

* In the alternative, she contended that she was entitled to 60 days of back pay because she was not given the requisite pre-termination notice as to he failure to satisfactorily complete her probationary period.

** Section 2509.1(a) [the "Jarema Act"] provides that the statutory three-year probationary period for teachers may be reduced by up to two years if the teacher rendered service as a "regular substitute" for a full term or more prior to the teacher's probationary appointment by the school district. In determining the duration of the probationary period, if a teacher is absent during his or her probationary period, the district may extended the probationary period for a period of time equal to the absence.

*** Similarly, as the Appellate Division held in Mendez v Valenti, 101 AD2d 612, as long as the termination of a probationer [in the classified service] is effected within a reasonable time, such as set to coincide with the end of the next payroll period, the courts will not deem the probationer to have obtained tenure by estoppel because of his or her continuation on the payroll following the last day of his or her probationary period. Stated another way, the appointing authority has until the last day of the individual's probationary period to decide whether to retain the employee, extend the employee's probationary period, or to terminate the employee from his or her position. Although the effective date of the employee's removal from the payroll may occur after this date, the required notice of the termination must be delivered to the employee before close of business on the last day of his or her probationary period.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/pdfs/2010/2010_32963.pdf
NYPPL