Title: In the Matter of Helen Hickey; In the Matter of Rachel Cohn

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 101  
In the Matter of Helen Hickey,
            Appellant,
        v.
New York City Department of 
Education,
            Respondent.
------------------------------
No. 102  
In the Matter of Rachel Cohn,
            Appellant,
        v.
Board of Education of the City 
School District of the City of 
New York, et al.,
            Respondents.
Case No. 101:
Richard M. Krinsky, for appellant.
Dona B. Morris, for respondent.
Case No. 102:
Sherry B. Bokser, for appellant.
Dona B. Morris, for respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
The orders of the Appellate Division should be
affirmed, with costs, and the certified questions should not be
answered upon the ground that they are unnecessary.   
- 1 -
- 2 -
No. 101, 102
Petitioners Hickey and Cohn, two tenured teachers in
the New York City School system, commenced these article 78
proceedings against the Board of Education for orders compelling
respondent to expunge "letters of reprimand" from their personnel
files for failure to follow Education Law § 3020-a procedures. 
The letter placed in Hickey's personnel file indicated that she
demonstrated incompetence and "unsatisfactory professional
attitude" in preparing students for a field day.  The letter
placed in Cohn's file detailed a complaint filed with, and
substantiated by, the Department of Education's Office of Equal
Opportunity; the complaint stemmed from an incident where Cohn
allegedly told the principal at her school, during a heated
discussion, to watch her "Latin temper."  Both letters were
placed in petitioners' files in 2008 and indicated that the
matter "may lead to further disciplinary action."  Respondent
contends that the letters were properly placed in petitioners'
files because, pursuant to the 2007-2009 Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA), petitioner's union waived the section 3020-a
procedures with respect to the placement of letters of reprimand
in tenured teacher's files and agreed to replace it with a
different procedure described in Article 21A.  
In each case, Supreme Court granted the petitions and
directed expungement of the disciplinary letters from
petitioners' files.  The Appellate Division reversed the orders
and denied the petitions.  
- 2 -
- 3 -
No. 101, 102
Education Law § 3020(1) provides: "No person enjoying
the benefits of tenure shall be disciplined or removed during a
term of employment except for just cause and in accordance with
the procedures specified in section [3020]-a of this article or
in accordance with alternate disciplinary procedures contained in
a collective bargaining agreement."  While "discipline" is not
defined in the statute, section 3020-a(4) authorizes a hearing
officer to impose as a penalty "a written reprimand, a fine,
suspension . . . without pay, or dismissal."  Section 3020(4)(a)
further states: 
"Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision
of law, the procedures set forth in section
[3020]-a of this article . . . may be
modified by agreements negotiated between the
city school district of the city of New York
and any employee organization representing
employees or titles that are or were covered
by any memorandum of agreement executed by
such city school district and the united
federation of teachers on or after [June, 10,
2002]."   
In this case, we assume, though we do not decide, that the
letters petitioners complain of here constitute "discipline" for
purposes of this statute.  
Pursuant to section 3020, a CBA negotiated between
respondent and the United Federation of Teachers, petitioners'
union, can modify or waive the 3020-a procedures.  We agree with
the Appellate Division that, insofar as Article 21A of the 2007-
2009 CBA addresses the procedure governing placement of written
reprimands in tenured teacher's files, it effectuated a limited
- 3 -
- 4 -
No. 101, 102
waiver of Education Law § 3020-a procedural rights.  Article 21A
of the 2007-2009 CBA details due process and review procedures
concerning teachers' files.  Subdivision (1) advises that "[n]o
material derogatory to a teacher's conduct, service, character or
personality shall be placed in the files unless the teacher has
had an opportunity to read the material."  It further provides
that the teacher shall acknowledge reading "such material by
affixing his/her signature . . . with the understanding that such
signature . . . does not necessarily indicate agreement with its
content."  Subdivision (2) grants teachers the right to answer
any material filed" and the "answer shall be attached to the file
copy."  Subdivision (5) prohibits members from grieving material
in file, "except that if accusations of corporal punishment or
verbal abuse against a UFT-represented employee are found to be
unsubstantiated, all references to the allegations will be
removed from the employee's personnel file."  It further
emphasizes: "the teacher shall have the right to append a
response to any letter.  If disciplinary charges do not follow,
the letter and response shall be removed from the file three
years from the date the original material is placed in the file." 
Article 21A is a broad provision that clearly
encompasses written reprimands and the disciplinary letters at
issue here fell within the purview of Article 21A.  Comparison of
the statute and the CBA provision reveals that the procedure in
Article 21A is significantly different than, and incompatible
- 4 -
- 5 -
No. 101, 102
with, the procedure in Education Law § 3020-a, meaning that the
parties to the contract could not have intended both procedures
to simultaneously apply.  Their history of collective bargaining
indicates, with respect to the placement of written materials in
tenured teacher's files, petitioners' union was well aware that,
by adopting Article 21A, it was agreeing to substitute that
procedure for other due process procedures that had previously
been in place.  Therefore, there is ample basis to conclude that
the union knowingly waived the procedural rights granted in
Education Law § 3020-a in this limited arena.  Because the
letters at issue are not subject to 3020-a procedures,
petitioners are not entitled to have them expunged. 
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
In Each Case:  Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question
not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary, in a
memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo,
Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided June 2, 2011
- 5 -