Richardson v. New York City Board of Education
711 F. App'x 11
2d Cir.2017Background
- Rosemarie Richardson was a tenured DOE CPSE administrator who retired on July 1, 2012 while under investigation by the DOE’s Office of Special Investigations (OSI) for alleged mishandling of an IEP review and related failures to respond to parents/providers.
- OSI substantiated the allegations in an August 14, 2012 report recommending Richardson be placed on an Ineligible List for future DOE employment; Richardson learned of that designation when a 2015 vendor job application was denied based on the report.
- Richardson challenged the DOE’s denial and the findings administratively; the DOE affirmed the original determination in October 2015.
- Richardson sued in federal court asserting a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and related New York law claims; defendants moved to dismiss.
- The district court dismissed the federal due process claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims; Richardson appealed.
- The Second Circuit took judicial notice of three public documents (a Chancellor regulation and two collective bargaining agreements) and affirmed dismissal, holding Richardson lacked a protected property interest after voluntarily retiring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Richardson had a protected property interest in continued DOE employment after retirement | Richardson argued retirement preserved her tenure/procedural protections and that statutory, regulatory, or contractual sources (N.Y. Educ. Law §3020‑a, Chancellor Reg. C‑205, and the union CBA) created an entitlement to future employment or process | Defendants argued voluntary retirement terminated tenure and any entitlement; retirees have no constitutional property interest in prospective employment and the cited sources do not create a legitimate entitlement | Held: Retirement foreclosed claiming employment protections; no protected property interest existed, so procedural due process claim fails |
| Whether N.Y. Educ. Law §3020‑a applied post‑retirement | Richardson contended §3020‑a guarantees a hearing and thus due process even after retirement | Defendants argued §3020‑a applies only to employees enjoying tenure and not to retirees | Held: §3020‑a protections do not survive retirement and do not create a substantive property interest in future employment |
| Whether Chancellor Reg. C‑205 or the CBA created a contractual entitlement to future employment or mandatory timelines binding after retirement | Richardson claimed C‑205 and the CBA impose rights (substitute service, reinstatement, investigation timing/notice) that give rise to an entitlement | Defendants argued these provisions are discretionary/conditional, apply to active employees, and do not create a legitimate claim of entitlement | Held: C‑205 is permissive and discretionary; CBA timelines do not obligate notice/closure for retirees; neither creates a protectable property interest |
| Whether the district court erred in declining supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing federal claim | Richardson argued remaining state claims should proceed in federal court | Defendants argued dismissal of federal claim warranted declining supplemental jurisdiction | Held: Court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3) after dismissing the sole federal claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Finley v. Giacobbe, 79 F.3d 1285 (2d Cir. 1996) (resignation/retirement can foreclose a procedural due process claim because it short‑circuits disciplinary process)
- Girard v. Bd. of Educ., 168 A.D.2d 183 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (tenure protections do not persist after retirement/resignation)
- Abramson v. Pataki, 278 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2002) (prospective government employment is generally not a protected property interest)
- MacFarlane v. Grasso, 696 F.2d 217 (2d Cir. 1982) (applicant must have a legitimate claim of entitlement, not mere expectation, to show a property interest)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (establishes standard for property interests protected by procedural due process)