BOARD OF ED. OF DUDEE CENTRAL, MTR. OF
CA 11-01225
N.Y. App. Div.Jun 15, 2012Background
- Petitioner filed Education Law § 3020-a charges with 16 specifications against respondent, a tenured social studies teacher.
- Counseling memoranda in respondent's personnel file warned of consequences of future incidents; the memoranda addressed conduct not repeated before charges.
- Hearing Officer dismissed six specifications based on counseling memoranda; six remained for four incidents involving threats, torture demonstration, derogatory nicknames, and grading favoritism.
- Penalty imposed: six-month suspension without pay with health insurance benefits continued; petition challenged penalty, health-benefit order, and dismissal of six specs.
- Remittal reinstated the six specifications; Hearing Officer later sustained some, but again imposed the same penalty, deeming prior counseling as discipline.
- Petitioner then sought CPLR 7511 relief to vacate the penalty; Supreme Court partially granted relief on health-benefits issue and on the six specs upon remittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal of six specs was arbitrary and capricious | Coleman argues specs should not be dismissed; counseling memoranda are not final discipline. | Dundee contends prior memoranda justified dismissal as not repeated misconduct. | Appeal No. 1: dismissal arbitrary and capricious; reversed on health-benefits issue, merits affirmed on dismissal. |
| Whether the health-insurance continuation during suspension exceeded authority | Education-law penalties limited to enumerated options; health benefits cannot be used as penalty. | Hearing Officer could structure penalty to include health-benefits continuation. | Appeal No. 1: court properly directed reimbursement of health-insurance costs; health-benefit directive vacated. |
| Whether the penalty for respondent was excessively lenient or irrational | Six-month suspension was too lenient given misconduct. | Penalty was within statutory range and supported by prior counseling; remittal issues unresolved. | Appeal No. 2: penalty vacated; remitted for reconsideration by a different officer. |
| Whether remittal on penalty was proper given erroneous legal basis | Hearing Officer relied on incorrect interpretation that counseling memoranda equaled discipline. | No reversible error; remittal appropriate to reexamine penalty. | Appeal No. 2: remittal affirmed; referee to impose new penalty. |
| Whether the underlying rationale for reinstating six specs on remittal was rational | Counseling memoranda can support charges within three years; earlier dismissal irrational. | Counseling memoranda do not constitute discipline and may support later charges only if repeated. | Appeal No. 1: majority held dismissal irrational; dissent disagreed on scope; overall affirmed in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. Board of Educ. of Webutuck Cent. School Dist., 52 N.Y.2d 625 (N.Y. 1981) (counseling memoranda not discipline; may support charges if repeated within 3 years)
- Arlington Cent. School Dist. v. Arlington Teachers Assn., 78 N.Y.2d 33 (N.Y. 1989) (arbiter's power limited; strong public policy scrutiny on awards)
- Mohawk Valley Community Coll. v. Mohawk Valley Community Coll. Professional Assn., 28 A.D.3d 1140 (4th Dept. 2006) (arbitration review requires evidentiary support; not arbitrary or capricious)
- City Sch. Dist. of City of N.Y. v. McGraham, 17 N.Y.3d 917 (N.Y. 2011) (arbitration awards must have evidentiary support and avoid arbitrariness)
- Heslop v. Bd. of Educ., Newfield Cent. Sch. Dist., 191 A.D.2d 875 (3d Dept. 1993) (supports use of counseling memos in disciplinary chronology)
- Lory v. County of Washington, 77 A.D.3d 1265 (3d Dept. 2010) (counseling memoranda as non-disciplinary, with limits)