New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-09-30
Court of Appeals Upholds
Contention of Board
of Education.
DECISION IN CASE
OF MRS. PEIXOTTO
Holds Absence Could Not Be
Excused Without Approval
of Superintendent.
~ Telegraph % nc rrIbunc. J

Albany, Sept. 29.-Thc dismissal Of
Mrs. Bridget {. Peixotto, the Bronx
school teacher, by the New York Board
of Education because Of absence from
her duties when about TO become q
mother was upheld to-day by the Court
Of Appeals. Supreme Court Justice
Seabury had decided against the Board
Of Education, but his decision was re.
ycrscd by the Appellate Division, the
order Of which court IL now affirmed
by the highest state tribunal.
Judge Cuddeback wrote the prevail
ing opinion, while dissenting opinions
were written by Chief Judge Bartlett
and Judge Hogan. Mrs. PeiXOtto, in
February, 1913, gave notice TO the
Board Of Education that she would
be absent from duty without asking
for or receiving formal leave Of abb
scncc. The following April charges
we're made against her for neglect or
duty" and absence "from duty since
February 3, 1913, for the purpose OF
bearing a child"
In Nav following new charges we're
presented against her for absence
from. duty without leave since or
about February 3, 1918" The teacher
WAS tried on the charges, and being dis
missed she sued out writ Tor reln'
statement. The Supreme Court grant.
ed the writ, the order granting it was
reversed By the Appellate Division and
She appealed TO the Court OF Appeals.
The teachers counsel argued .lat
absence from duty for the reason spe'
cited was not neglect Of duty under
Section 1923 Of the city charter, even
though she was absent without leave
=. h. Tho sNwaNraII L
ing opinion says:
"In the proceedings under review the
Board of Education discharged its duty
fairly and the courts cannot by man
damus reverse the conclusion reached.
No such absence shall be excused with
out approval Of the Board Of Superin-
tendents. Her dismissal can be sus-
tanned under Subdivision 4, Section A.,
of the bylaws Of the Board of Educs-
ton and also under Section ,093 Of the
charter"
Chief Judge Bartlett, in his dissent
1ng opinion, says:
Married women have been employed
as teachers in our public schools for so
many years that their employment III
this capacity must be deemed to have
the approval Of the Legislature. Ger
fanny. II II ndu DeeH ulodppIONNN' w
would have found some evidence to that
effect OH the statute books. Maternity,
requiring occasional absences at periods
OF childbirth. is a natural consequence
of the employment of potential mothers
rs teachers. If the Legislature had re
garded this consequence as detrimental
to the welfare of the schools 1t would
certainly have guarded against it by a
prohibitOry enactment.
eve find no such prohibition IN :he
law or in any duly authorized rule Oh
regulation Of the Board of Education
adopted pursuant to law. II IS true thai
the board has virtually endcayored tC
establish such a rule by its action II
the present case; but | think it had nc
authority to do so. The reasons for anC
against the employment Of younl
mothers as public school teachers, SCI
out in this record in the majority anC
minority reports of the committee or
elementary schools of the Board OF
Education, are appropriate for the con,
sideration of the law making power, but
do not concern the court"