1st Dept. Rulings to Restore Fired NYC Teachers Were Judicial 'Overreach,' Court of Appeals Says
The New York State Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the terminations of three teachers by the New York City Department of Education did not "shock the conscience" and should not have been set aside by a state appellate court in Manhattan.
January 09, 2018 at 01:41 PM
3 minute read
The New York State Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the terminations of three teachers by the New York City Department of Education did not “shock the conscience” and should not have been set aside by a state appellate court in Manhattan.
In an unsigned opinion reversing the decisions of the Appellate Division, First Department, in three separate cases, the Court of Appeals restored rulings entered by hearing officers who concluded the firings were appropriate. The judges said the First Department justices improperly reweighed the evidence in each case and substituted its judgment for that of the hearing officers.
The Court of Appeals' unanimous ruling backed the Department of Education's decisions to terminate the jobs of Terrell Williams, a gym teacher who the department said asked eighth-grade girls for the phone numbers of their older siblings; Almira Beatty, a special education teacher who the department said falsified time sheets for meeting with a student; and Ericka Bolt, a fifth-grade teacher who the department said encouraged her students to cheat on a statewide exam.
Court of Appeals Judge Jenny Rivera said in a concurring opinion that the First Department failed to apply well-settled case law in deciding the cases.
“There is no doctrinal complexity or novel issue presented in these appeals that cannot be resolved by reference to existing precedent,” Rivera wrote, saying the First Department partook in an “obvious misapplication of the law” and that the justices' analyses in the cases were “so clearly at odds with uncontroversial, established legal standards.”
Rivera said her decision to write separately in the case was driven in part by the Department of Education's argument that the Court of Appeals should clarify the scope of review in school discipline cases to prevent judicial overreach.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Melanie West represented the city in Bolt's case and Assistant Corporation Counsel Kathy Chang Park appeared in Beatty's and Williams' cases.
“The unanimous and pointed decision of the Court of Appeals speaks volumes, reaffirming that independent labor arbitrators, and not judges, are best-positioned to decide whether teachers should be dismissed or otherwise disciplined for misconduct,” said Law Department spokesman Nicholas Paolucci in an email.
Bryan Glass of Glass Krakower represented Beatty and Williams and Richard Washington, a Manhattan solo attorney, appeared for Bolt.
Washington said in an interview that evidence against his client was insufficient and noted that, before the First Department ruled in the matter, a state Supreme Court justice had also found that firing Bolt was an excessive penalty.
“It's unfortunate that those decisions were reversed and, while I respect the court's decision, I believe Ms. Bolt was innocent and that the system failed her in this matter,” Washington said.
David Saxe, a retired First Department justice who was not involved in the three cases and who is now a partner at Morrison Cohen, said Rivera's concurrence appears to recommend an “enhanced hurdle” for teachers to challenge an administrative decision for their termination.
“It was a shot across the bow for the standards to overcome discipline for teachers,” Saxe said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDOJ Supports Appointing US Judge Backed By Trump to Review Mar-a-Lago Documents
3 minute readJay-Z, Quinn Emanuel Say AAA Offers Only 'Token' Black Arbitrators
Trending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250