Presentation Overview Wha t is E duc a tio n L a w 3020-a Be fo - - PDF document

1

Update on Education Law Sections 3020‐a and 3020‐b Discipline of Tenured Teachers and Administrators

Pre se nte d b y:1

Sha ron N. Be rlin, E sq. Howa rd M. Mille r, E sq.

L a mb & Ba rno sky, L L P Bo nd, Sc ho e ne c k & K ing , PL L C

. 1With Spe c ia l T

ha nks to Na tha nie l J. Kuzima , E sq., Joe l C. Moore , E sq., Je ffre y D. Hone ywe ll, E

• sq. for

allowing us to use and to update the ir mate r ials.

Presentation Overview

• Wha t is E

duc a tio n L a w § 3020-a

• Be fo re the Cha rg e s
• Se ttle me nt Stra te g ie s
• Cha rg e s
• E

a rly Stra te g ie s & I ssue s

• He a ring
• Odds & E

nds

• E

duc a tio n L a w § 3020-b

2

Basics of 3020‐a

• E

duc a tio n L a w Se c tio n pro viding te nure d te a c he rs a nd a dministra to rs with the rig ht to a he a ring b e fo re b e ing disc ipline d.

• Ne e d “just c a use ”
• Gro unds fo r disc ipline inc lude :

1. Insub o rdina tio n, immo ra l c ha ra c te r o r c o nduc t unb e c o ming a te a c he r, 2. Ine ffic ie nc y, inc o mpe te nc y, physic a l o r me nta l disa b ility, o r ne g le c t

• f duty, o r

3. F a ilure to ma inta in c e rtific a tio n

• Be mindful o f F

irst Ame ndme nt re ta lia tio n c la ims a nd disc rimina tio n c la ims.

Build a Record – Evaluation Tools/Process

• T

he Counse ling L e tte r

• Counse ling Se ssion with E

mploye e

• APPR E

valuations for T e ac he r s and Pr inc ipals

• Pe r

for manc e E valuations (no n-APPR e mplo ye e s) –

sho uld b e c o nduc te d b y dire c t supe rviso rs a nd do c ume nte d. E mplo ye e s ma y ha ve the rig ht to re spo nd pursua nt to the CBA.

Test is whether a stranger (e.g., hearing officer) reading the letter a year or more later will know what happened, why it was wrong and what were the District’s expectations of the employee.

3

Build a Record – Investigate Employee Misconduct

• Rig ht to Unio n Re pre se nta tio n
• E

mplo ye e must b e info rme d in writing prio r to the me e ting tha t the inte rvie w ma y re sult in disc ipline

• Ma y a djo urn me e ting to a c c o mmo da te unio n

re pre se nta tio n

• Wha t if e mplo ye e re q ue sts a tto rne y re pre se nta tio n?
• Unde r E

duc a tio n L a w § 3020-a , the e mplo ye e ha s a rig ht to re ma in sile nt. But, the re a re e xc e ptio ns.

Build a Record – Witness Interviews

• F

ir st: Doc ume nt Complaint/ Obtain and Pr e se r ve any E vide nc e

(inc luding ma ke sure c o mpla int is in writing , sc re e n sho t so c ia l me dia po sts, g a the r vide o , re c o rding s, e tc .)

• Inte r

vie w Witne sse s/ Complainant (E mploye e s) –

• Ma ke no pro mise s re : a c tio n to b e ta ke n.
• Co nduc t individua l no t g ro up inte rvie ws.
• Ma ke no sta te me nts a b o ut a c c use d's c ha ra c te r, jo b

pe rfo rma nc e , e tc .

• De te rmine wha t c o mpla ina nt wa nts.
• Wha t to do with a witne ss who re fuse s to c o o pe ra te .
• Inte r

vie w Stude nts – no t le g a lly re q uire d, b ut yo u ma y wa nt to

• b ta in pa re nta l c o nse nt/ invo lve me nt.
• Disc uss with Counse l whe the r

to take Witne ss State me nts.

• Ke e p in mind that all doc ume nts will be disc ove r

able .

4

Build a Record – Interview Subject of Investigation

• Rig ht to Unio n Re pre se nta tio n
• Che c k CBA fo r Additio na l

Pro c e dure s

• Pursua nt to E

duc a tio n L a w § 3020-a , the e mplo ye e ha s a rig ht to re ma in sile nt (c o mmo nly re fe rre d to b y e mplo ye e s a s (“Cade t rig hts”). But, the re a re e xc e ptio ns.

Settlement Strategies

• Co nside ra tio ns:
• I

s the se ttle me nt pre -Cha rg e s o r po st-Cha rg e s?

• Pe na lty a sse ssme nt fa c to rs:
• Se rio usne ss o f o ffe nse
• L

e ng th o f se rvic e

• Any prio r misc o nduc t
• I

f the e mplo ye e ha s a lre a dy b e e n disc ipline d fo r this sa me type o f misc o nduc t

• Ho w simila r misc o nduc t ha s b e e n ha ndle d b y the Distric t in

the pa st

• I

f c o nduc t invo lve s a c rime – sho uld the Distric t wa it fo r c rimina l c ha rg e s o r a Pa rt 83 he a ring ?

5

Drafting Charges

• Ne e d to b e spe c ific , b ut do n’ t

“o ve rc ha rg e ” o r a lle g e fa c ts tha t yo u c a nno t pro ve .

• Be wa re o f va g ue c a te g o rie s (i.e .,

inc o mpe te nc e , misc o nduc t, e tc .) tha t do no t ha ve sta tuto ry e le me nts.

• Cha rg e s must b e b ro ug ht within thre e ye a rs
• f the o c c urre nc e , e xc e pt whe n the c ha rg e

is misc o nduc t tha t c o nstitute d a c rime whe n c o mmitte d.

• De te rmine d b y ma jo rity vo te in e xe c utive

se ssio n, he ld during the e mplo ye e ’ s re g ula r wo rk ye a r.

• Co nside r timing – diffic ult to g e t witne sse s
• ve r the summe r.

Early Strategies & Issues – Hearing Officers

• Ava ila b ility o f g o o d He a ring Offic e rs
• Pa ying He a ring Offic e rs
• Ba c kg ro und/ c o lle a g ue s’ e xpe rie nc e s with c e rta in

He a ring Offic e rs

6

Early Strategies & Issues – Pre‐hearing Motions

• Disc o ve ry unde r the ne w rule s – g e tting mo re fro m

the e mplo ye e

• Mo tio ns in L

imine

• Co nfide ntiality c o nside ratio ns – ha ndling re q ue sts

fo r pe rso nne l a nd stude nt file s

• Co nside r se ttle me nt be for

e the he aring

3020‐a Hearing

• E

mplo ye e ha s the rig ht to :

• A re a so na b le o ppo rtunity to de fe nd him/ he rse lf
• An o ppo rtunity to te stify o n his/ he r o wn b e ha lf
• Re pre se nta tio n b y c o unse l
• T
• sub po e na a nd c ro ss-e xa mine witne sse s
• Disc o ve ry issue s with stude nt witne sse s

7

3020‐a Hearings – Some Things To Know

• Ne w pro c e dure :

T he he ar ing must be c omple te d and a de c ision r e nde r e d within 155 days (5 months) of the pr e fe r r al

• f the c har

ge s.

• Pub lic o r priva te he a ring – up to the e mplo ye e
• T

e stimo ny is unde r o a th

• Co mplia nc e with the te c hnic a l rule s o f e vide nc e is

no t re q uire d

3020‐a Hearing – Recent Amendments

• Suspe nsions without pay – c a nno t inc lude “o the r

b e ne fits a nd g ua ra nte e s” a nd c a nno t la st lo ng e r tha n 120 da ys

• “Pr
• bable Cause ” he ar

ings – 10 da ys rule

• Disc ove r

y by the e mploye r – se t a t pre -he a ring

c o nfe re nc e

• Child witne sse s – tho se le ss tha n 14 ye a rs o f a g e

ma y te stify via a live , two -wa y c lo se d-c irc uit T V

• E

xpe dite d he ar ings for alle gations of c hild abuse

• Adjour

nme nts – g e ne ra lly c a nno t e xte nd the

he a ring b e yo nd 60 da ys

8

Hearing – Standard Employee Defenses

• L

a c k o f “c a use ”

• Pro c e dura l de fe nse s
• L

a c k o f “no tic e ” – “I didn’ t kno w I c o uldn’ t do tha t”

• L

a c k o f “he lp”

• Pe rso na lity c o nflic t
• Se le c tive disc ipline de fe nse – “e ve ryo ne e lse

do e s this a nd it’ s o ka y”

• F

a ilure to fo llo w APPR o r the de fe nse o f g o o d e va lua tio ns

Hearing – Progressive Discipline

• T

he He a ring Offic e r ma y c o nside r the e xte nt to whic h the Distric t ma de a n e ffo rt to c o rre c t the e mplo ye e ’ s b e ha vio r

• Re me dia tio n
• Pe e r I

nte rve ntio n

• E

mplo ye e Assista nc e Pla n (E AP)

• Pe na ltie s inc lude :
• Writte n Re prima nd
• F

ine ($)

• Suspe nsio n Witho ut Pa y
• Dismissa l
• Re me dia l a c tio n – e .g ., le a ve o f a b se nc e with
• r witho ut pa y, c o ntinuing e duc a tio n/ study,

c o unse ling , me dic a l tre a tme nt

9

3020‐a Charges – District Success Rate

• I

n a T e a c he r Disc ipline Surve y c o nduc te d b y NYSSBA in 2016, it wa s re po rte d tha t with re g a rds to 3020-a pro c e e ding s initia te d sinc e Oc to b e r 1, 2014 -

• 57.5% (23 c a se s) re sulte d in te r

mination/ dismissal;

• 15% (6 c a se s) re sulte d in suspe nsion without pay;
• 20% (8 c a se s) re sulte d in a fine ;
• 15% (6 c a se s) re sulte d in a wr

itte n r e pr imand.

• In only T

WO (2) r e por te d c ase s for this time pe r iod we r e all c har ge s/ spe c ific ations dismisse d by the He ar ing Offic e r .

(Altho ug h in 15% o f c a se s so me c ha rg e s/ spe c ific a tio ns we re dismisse d.)

Post‐Decision Timeline

• Within 15 days o f re c e ipt o f the

He a ring Offic e r’ s de c isio n, the Bo a rd must imple me nt the de c isio n

• E

mplo ye e ha s 10 days a fte r re c e ipt

• f the de c isio n to ma ke a n

a pplic a tio n to a ppe a l

Co urt’ s re vie w is limite d to :

1. F inding s o f c o rruptio n, fra ud o r misc o nduc t; 2. Pa rtia lity o f the He a ring Offic e r; 3. He a ring Offic e r e xc e e de d his/ he r po we r; 4. F a ilure to issue a fina l a nd de finite a wa rd.

10

Disciplinary Decision Alters the Burden of Proof

• I

f a te rmina tio n is uphe ld b y a n a rb itra to r, a sub se q ue nt disc rimina tio n c la im “must pre se nt stro ng e vide nc e tha t the [a rb itra to r’ s] de c isio n wa s wro ng a s a ma tte r o f fa c t” o r tha t the “impa rtia lity

• f the pro c e e ding wa s so me ho w c o mpro mise d.”
• Co llins v. N.Y.C. T

ransit Autho rity, 305 F .3d 113 (2d Cir. 2002); Dig g s v. Niag ara Mo hawk Po we r Co rp., 2016 U.S.

• Dist. L

E XI S 50035 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2016)

• Sanzo v. Unio ndale Unio n F

re e Sc h. Dist., 381 F .Supp.2d 113 (E .D.N.Y. 2005) (finding tha t a n e mplo ye e ’ s disc rimina tio n c la im wa s pa rtic ula rly unc o nvinc ing in lig ht o f the e mplo ye e ’ s c la im tha t the 4-da y Se c tio n 75 he a ring whe re the e mplo ye e wa s de fe nde d b y a unio n a tto rne y, whe re 32 e xhib its we re o ffe re d a nd 12 witne sse s te stifie d, wa s a ll a “pre te xt” fo r disc rimina tio n).

Collateral Estoppel

• Ro e me r v. Bo ard o f E

duc atio n o f City Sc ho o l, 150 F .App’ x 38 (2d Cir. 2005).

• He lle r v. Be dfo rd Ce nt. Sc h. Dist., 2015 U.S. Dist. L

E XI S 155060 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), aff’ d, I nde x No . 16-242 (2d Cir. No v. 4, 2016):

“Unde r Ne w Yor k law, a he ar ing offic e r ’s fac tual findings pur suant to a § 3020-a pr

• c e e ding ar

e give n pr e c lusive e ffe c t whe r e the par tie s have had a full and fair

• ppor

tunity to be he ar d.”

11

New Life to an Old Doctrine

I n William F lo yd Unio n F re e Sc h. Dist. v. Wrig ht (2d De p’ t 2009), the c o urt

• rde re d two Distric t e mplo ye e s who

ha d sto le n mo ne y fro m the Distric t to fo rfe it the c o mpe nsa tio n pa id to the m sinc e the ir first disloya l a c t, a nd a ll o f the ir life a nd he a lth insura nc e pre miums tha t the Distric t wo uld

• the rwise b e o b lig a te d to pa y the m

into re tire me nt. T his re sulte d in a judg me nt o f a lmo st $1.6 millio n in the Distric t’ s fa vo r.

• City o f Bing hamto n v. Whale n, (3d De p’ t 2016) –

finding tha t the purpo se o f the do c trine is no t me re ly to c o mpe nsa te the wro ng e d e mplo ye r, b ut to disinc e ntivize dislo ya l a c ts b y o the r e mplo ye e s – the City wa s a wa rde d da ma g e s in the a mo unt o f $316,535

• L
• c ust Valle y Ce nt. Sc h. Dist. v. Be nsto c k (2d De p’ t

2016) - sc ho o l distric t re q uire d to a rb itra te whe the r its fa ithle ss se rva nt la wsuit b re a c he d a c o lle c tive b a rg a ining a g re e me nt

Faithless Servant Doctrine

12

Education Law Section 3020‐b

Stre a mline d re mo va l pro c e dure fo r tho se with APPR “I ne ffe c tive ” ra ting s.

• Applie s to te nure d c la ssro o m te a c he rs a nd b uilding

princ ipa ls.

• Who re c e ive two o r mo re c o nse c utive APPR

ine ffe c tive ra ting s in re vie ws c o nduc te d in a c c o rda nc e with § 3012-c o r § 3012-d.

Education Law Section 3020‐b (cont’d)

• Distric t ma y b ring inc o mpe te nc e c ha rg e s pursua nt

to § 3012-b whe re two c o nse c utive I ne ffe c tive ra ting s.

• Cha rg e s must a lle g e the Distric t ha s de ve lo pe d

a nd sub sta ntia lly imple me nte d a te a c he r o r princ ipa l impro ve me nt pla n fo llo wing the first ine ffe c tive e va lua tio n a nd the imme dia te ly pre c e ding e va lua tio n if the e mplo ye e wa s ra te d De ve lo ping .

• Must b ring inc o mpe te nc e c ha rg e s whe re thre e

c o nse c utive I ne ffe c tive ra ting s.

13

Hearing Officer Selection

• T

wo ine ffe c tive APPR ra ting c a se s – se le c t he a ring

• ffic e r fro m AAA list. I

f pa rtie s fa il to a g re e , the Co mmissio ne r will a ppo int the he a ring o ffic e r.

• T

hre e c o nse c utive ine ffe c tive APPR ra ting c a se s – Co mmissio ne r a ppo ints he a ring o ffic e r fro m AAA list.

Time Frames

• Re mo va l pro c e e ding no t lo ng e r tha n 90 da ys fro m

the da te the e mplo ye e re q ue sts a he a ring to the fina l he a ring da te fo r two c o nse c utive ine ffe c tive APPR ra ting c a se s.

• Re mo va l pro c e e ding no t lo ng e r tha n 30 da ys in

thre e c o nse c utive ine ffe c tive APPR ra ting c a se s.

14

Evidence ‐ Just Cause for Removal

• T

wo ine ffe c tive APPR ra ting s a re prima fac ie e vide nc e o f inc o mpe te nc e tha t c a n b e o ve rc o me o nly b y c le a r a nd c o nvinc ing e vide nc e tha t the e mplo ye e is no t inc o mpe te nt in lig ht o f a ll surro unding c irc umsta nc e s. I f this e vide nc e is no t o ve rc o me , the n a b se nt e xtra o rdina ry c irc umsta nc e s, the finding will b e de e me d just c a use fo r re mo va l.

• T

hre e ine ffe c tive APR ra ting s a re prima fac ie e vide nc e

• f inc o mpe te nc e tha t c a n b e o ve rc o me o nly b y c le a r

a nd c o nvinc ing e vide nc e tha t the c a lc ula tio n o f o ne o r mo re o f the te a c he r’ s o r princ ipa l’ s unde rlying c o mpo ne nts o f the APPR wa s fra udule nt (fra ud inc lude s mista ke n ide ntity). I f no t o ve rc o me , the n a b se nt e xtra o rdina ry c irc umsta nc e s, the finding is de e me d just c a use fo r re mo va l.

Any Questions?