Termination of a teacher during her serving an extension of her probation period pursuant to written agreements.
The teacher claimed the discontinuance of her probation was unconstitutional or unreasonable. In addition, the teacher contended that she had attained "tenure by estoppel". She sought, among other relief, an order directing New York City Board of Education “to either grant tenure to [her] or to declare that she has received tenure by estoppel.”
The Commissioner opined that the appointing authority may "discontinue the services of a probationary teacher 'at any time and for any reason, unless the teacher establishes that the termination was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, violative of a statute, or done in bad faith'”. The Commissioner's noted "bad faith” has been defined as “[d]ishonesty of belief, purpose, or motive”, citing Appeals of Prisinzano, 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,195, citing Black’s Law Dictionary [11th ed. 2019].
Noting that the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief, the Commissioner concluded "Petitioner has not proven that [appointing authority] discontinued her probation in bad faith" and dismissed the teacher's appeal.
Click HERE to access Commissioner Rosa's decision posted on the Internet.
Challenges to actions of a Board of Education related to school district expenditures and petitions seeking the removal of the superintendent, assistant superintendent, and the president of the school board.
The Commissioner dismissed one of the Petitioner's two appeals,* explaining the Petitioner failed to join a necessary party. A necessary party, said the Commissioner, is a person or entity "whose rights would be adversely affected by a determination in favor of a petitioner and must be joined as such."
The Commissioner also denied the Petitioner’s second appeal in which he sought the removal of certain named school district officials.
Noting that "The Commissioner of Education may remove a school officer or member of a board of education from office when it is proven to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the officer or board member has engaged in a willful violation or neglect of duty under the Education Law or has willfully disobeyed a decision, order, rule, or regulation of the Board of Regents or the Commissioner," the Commissioner opined that "Petitioner alleges, without proof" that named school district personnel engaged in a “concerted effort to cover up [their] many transgressions” related to the fundraiser."
As an example, the Commissioner's decision notes Petitioner admitted that he “do[es] not know for certain” that the board president acted improperly, but complains that she “was absolutely no aid in seeking the truth ....” This speculation, said the Commissioner, "does not constitute proof that any respondent violated the Education Law" and denied the Petitioner's application for removal.
In addition, the Commissioner issued individuals named in the removal application certifications pursuant to Education Law §3811(1). Such s certification authorizes a board of education to indemnify "a respondent for costs incurred in defending against a proceeding arising out of the exercise of the respondent’s powers or the performance of the respondent’s duties as a board member or other official listed in §3811 (1)".
* Because the appeals present similar issues of fact and law, they were consolidated for decision [See 8 NYCRR 275.18]
Click HERE to access Commissioner Rosa's decision posted on the Internet.