Hiring policy prohibiting the appointment of teachers "above Step 5" found unlawful discrimination because of age

Hiring policy prohibiting the appointment of teachers "above Step 5" found unlawful discrimination because of age

Geller v. Markham, 635 F.2d 1027.

In Geller a School Board policy of not initially employing teachers above “Step 5” (i.e. teachers having more than 5 years of teaching experience) was held to constitute unlawful discrimination because of age by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

The rejected teachers were able to show that 93% of teachers over age 40 had more than 5 years of teaching experience but only 60% of teachers under age 40 had more than 5 years of such experience.

Failure to testify concerning the event permits a disciplinary hearing officer to draw the strongest inference against the individual permitted by the record

Failure to testify concerning the event permits a disciplinary hearing officer to draw the strongest inference against the individual permitted by the record

Varriale v City of New York, 148 AD3d 650 

The New York City Board of Education terminated Suzanne Varriale's employment as a tenured school teacher.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Board of Education's determination noting that although Varriale "was a thirteen-year employee with no prior disciplinary history, and no charges had ever previously been preferred against her, the penalty of termination was not shocking to one's sense of fairness" in light of the seriousness of the charges filed against her and the fact that the record showed that Varriale "had strayed from her duties as a school teacher by deliberately escalating a confrontation with a student by yelling expletives and threatening him with violence."

Noting that Varriale "showed no remorse nor appreciation for the seriousness of her conduct to support a finding that she would not engage in similar conduct if faced with such circumstances in the future," the Appellate Division held that as she declined to take the stand to testify concerning the event, "the hearing officer was permitted to draw the

strongest inference against her permitted by the record."

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_02513.htm

The anatomy of a discrimination action

The anatomy of a discrimination action
Clarke v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 04421, Appellate Division, Second Department

In processing an employment discrimination claim "A plaintiff alleging discrimination in employment has the initial burden to establish . . . that (1) he or she is a member of a protected class; (2) he or she was qualified to hold the position; (3) he or she was terminated from employment or suffered another adverse employment action; and (4) the discharge or other adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination"

If the individual makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of going forward shifts to the employer "to rebut the presumption of discrimination by clearly setting forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, legitimate, independent, and nondiscriminatory reasons to support its employment decision."

The burden of going forward then shifts back to the plaintiff "to establish every element of intentional discrimination, and if the employer had advanced a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions," to show that the employer's explanation or explanations were pretextual.

In this action seeking to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination Supreme Court, granted the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's [MTA] motion for summary judgment dismissing Edmond Clarke's causes of action alleging employment discrimination on the basis of age and sex, and hostile work environment.

The Appellate Division, in response to Clark's appeal challenging the Supreme Court's ruling, affirmed the lower court's determination.

The Appellate Division explained that in this instance MTA was, prima facie, entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging employment discrimination on the basis of age and sex by offering legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions and demonstrating the absence of material issues of fact as to whether their explanations were pretextual.

A hostile work environment exists where the workplace is "permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment." However, said the court, "Various factors, such as frequency and severity of the discrimination, whether the allegedly discriminatory actions were threatening or humiliating or a "mere offensive utterance," and whether the alleged actions "unreasonably interfere[ ] with an employee's work" are to be considered in determining whether a hostile work environment exists."

Further, noted the Appellate Division, "The allegedly abusive conduct must not only have altered the conditions of employment of the employee, who subjectively viewed the actions as abusive, but the actions must have created an "objectively hostile or abusive environment—one that a reasonable person would find to be so."

MTA, said the court, "established [its] prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging the existence of a hostile work environment by demonstrating that the conduct and remarks about which Clark complained were not sufficiently severe or pervasive as to permeate the workplace and alter the conditions of his employment at MTA.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_04421.htm

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board may apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel to a disciplinary determination made after a hearing in determining if an individual is disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits

 

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board may apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel to a disciplinary determination made after a hearing in determining if an individual is disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits
Matter of Telemaque (Commissioner of Labor), 2017 NY Slip Op 02109, Appellate Division, Third Department

Veronica Telemaque appealed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Telemaque had been found guilty and dismissed from her position after a hearing on disciplinary charges filed against her pursuant to Education Law §3020-a for allegedly engaging in misconduct, conduct unbecoming and/or prejudicial, insubordination and violating the employer's rules.

The Appellate Division said that Telemaque's primary challenge concerns the disciplinary Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations and alleged evidentiary errors were made at the disciplinary hearing. The Board noted that it did not appear that Telemaqueappealed that disciplinary determination and "her challenges to the merits of that determination may not be raised in this unemployment insurance proceeding."

As Telemaque had "a full and fair opportunity to litigate the charges of misconduct at [her §3020-a disciplinary] hearing, the Appellate Division said that the Board had "properly gave collateral estoppel effect to the Hearing Officer's factual determinations" in that proceeding and sustained the Board's determination.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_02109.htm 

As the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education's does not define full-time status for the purpose determining compensation, a collective bargaining agreement may control such a determination

As the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education's does not define full-time status for the purpose determining compensation, a collective bargaining agreement may control such a determination

Decisions of the Commissioner of Education, Decision No. 17,062

Susan Ford-Gambee Wilhelm filed a appeal with the Commissioner of Education challenging the action of the Board of Education of the Eden Central School District assigning her to teach five classes following a reduction in her position from a full-time position to a .83 full time equivalent [FTE] position. 

Wilhelm contended that she was a full-time teacher within the meaning of §00.2(i) of the Commissioner’s regulations "because she continued to teach five classes each day, which she contended is a 1.0 FTE." She claimed that Eden has improperly treated her position as a .83 FTE and compensated her on that basis, even though she contended that she was a full-time teacher.

The Commissioner said that the essence of Wilhelm's argument appeared to be that §100.2(i) defines a full-time teaching load as five classes and thus that she is entitled to compensation as a full-time teacher based on the classes she was assigned to teach by the school district.

§100.2(i), relating to teaching assignments, provides that, with respect to teaching staff in public schools, the number of daily periods of classroom instruction for a teacher should not exceed five. Further, said the Commissioner, pursuant to the regulation, "a school requiring of any teacher more than six teaching periods a day, or a daily teaching load of more than 150 pupils, should be able to justify the deviation from this policy."

The Commissioner said that a petitioner, here Wilhelm, has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and the burden of establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief.

Wilhelm, however, did not contend that her number of daily periods of classroom instruction exceeds five, admitted that she only taught five classes for the 2016-2017 school year and did not claim that she was assigned a daily teaching load in excess of 150 students. 

Rather she argued that §100.2(i) defines a full-time teaching load as five classes and thus she was entitled to compensation as a full-time teacher. 

The Commissioner disagreed, explaining that §100.2(i) "merely establishes a policy that teachers should not be assigned more than five classes or a teaching load of 150 pupils and requires that a board of education be able to justify any such assignment, for the purpose of maintaining quality instruction for students." Further, said the Commissioner, the regulation does not define full-time status for purposes of compensation, noting that in Wilhelm's case, was governed by the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume56/d17062