The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-01-12
TEACHERSCAN'T
Be OUSTED FOR
MOTHERHOOD
Or. Finley Holds Board of
Education Must Reinstate
Mrs. PciXOttO.
BIG VICTORY. FOR
MOTHER-T TEACHERS

N'Fh..N. I'.'s 'l''.'.'.. -N'.'' NV = AZ
New Yor, city schools. even in cases Of
r,,,eralty. cannot be dismissed 10y the
Board of Edu alton unless the Legisla-
,ure passes law distinctly making
motherhood ore Of the reasons for dis
n,i,saI. according to an opinion handed
down To-day by DR. John II. Finley,
state Commissioner Of Education.
pr Finley points out that the Court
Of Appeals On the Murphy case decided
n. since marriage Of a woman teacher
was not legally included in the four
reasons nam in the Charter why a
teacher could he dismissed mother
hood could not he made a cause for dis
mssal lie adopts the language of Chief
Judge willard Bartlett upon this point,
which was also the opinion Of Justice
seabury at special term.
Commissioner Finley's decision was in
the appeal Of Bridget c. PeiXotto from
resolution Of the New York city Board .
Of Education plainly dlsmisslng her for .
neglect of duty in taking leave of ,
absence for motherhood,
The principles laid down in this de- |
tsion viii operate in the appeals of the |
other tive mothcr-teachrrs pending be-
fore the state Commissioner OF Educa- /
ton. though differing In details, and the /
decisions in these cases will be an
nounced shortly. Then the Board Of
Education must reinstate all discharged
or suspended mother teachers.
Declared She Was III.
Mrs PeINotto was a teacher in pub
lie school in The Bronx for eighteen
years when she applied for a leave OF
absence in February, 1913. presenting a
Doctors certificate that she was i'll.
However reprehensible may have been
the attitude of Mrs. Peixotto in conceal.
ing tho fact that her absence was for
the purpose of motherhood, IL is not
subject for consideration now" de-
ciares Commissioner Finley. as he points
OUT that the Board OF Education waived
this concoalment, electing to declare the
general rule that this teacher and all
other. similarly situated, should not be
retained I'm re service"
The provisions Of the New York Char
ttr providing a teacher may be dismissed
only for gross misconduct, insubordina-
ton, neglect Of duty or general inefi-
cheney are referred to by Dr.. Finley,
who says
Mrs Pcixotto was absent from her
position because of illness attending
motherhood and such absence was tho
basis Of the charges against her. She
was found guilty of neglect Of duty and
dismissed from the service.
Such neglect of duty therefore con-
s.sis OF her absence from her school for
the purpose OF motherhood, aud she
was dismissed for such cause,
THE charges preferred against Mrs.
peNo.to can fall under none OF the
| four specific causes for dismissal named
in the Charter except that Of neglect OF
duty, No question has been raised as
to her misconduct or inellciency, nor is
| Il anywhere indicated that she was guilty
o. characterization. II is also clear that
! he dismissal Of n teacher may not be
| ba.cd upon any other cause than those
specified In the Charter.
Not Legally Dismissed.
'1' IS obvious that unless the absence
NJ a married woman teacher on account
Of motherhood constitutes neglect OF
duty the appellant was not dismissed.
Regarding the contention of the Cor
w dl ON = hhiNfl lnhN ME fiND''' 100
absent without securing leave and that
since ,hc was not ia attendance upon
her duties as teacher she was guilty OF
neglect uf duty, Commissioner Finley
loUys uus that the bylaws OF the Board
y Education permit an absence from
duty lo be excused without pay, without
any restriction as to the cause OF the abb
sence except a teacher may not adVo-
cate or oppose legislation during such
\ absence without the consent of the board
The practice has been" says Dr Flh-
\ ty 10 require teacher to Apply lot an
excuse n. absence after the teacher mas
returned 10 her school, The bylaws re-
n quirs on'y notification of absence; they
do not require permission to be absent
II hut II ,h. absence is an cXcusable one.
under the practice of the board II is not
deemed neglect Of duty justifying dis
nISsal
"The statute relating to the dismissal
teachers does not indicate that the ao-
seOee OF q married woman teacher for the
purpose of motherhood constitutes cause
Tor dismissal. Tho Board Of Education
'1s not hy any rule or bylaw adopted IN
pursuance. OF statute attempted 20 classify
absences from duty because of mother
rood as ineNCusable or rs requiring
special disciplinary consideration or treat
mCnr
IN is to he assumed that the charter
hrtnug 10 leaves OF absences and eN
'uses Of absence would Justify reason
toe rule regulating the duration and e.
'c. Of absences OF married womer
na7hers for ,he purpose OF childbirth
ne 3rk %, statute or rule upon the sub
!cl leaves for determination the question
rs no whether such absences may reason
'o'y ho excused under existing bylaws
ana aS 20 whether, II unexcused, the,
"hSutlt' neglect Of duty
Not ENcusablc with Pay.
AS asserted by the counsel for tn
oo'rd a may be that absence tor tn
''fno." NJ bearing a child is not ahsenc
oI- personal Illness within sec
l'' a. subdivision 4, If the bylaws an,
.'l'.o oNcusablc with pay But Suc
."rnn' clearly falls within subdivision
%. such section, which authorized eX
uses U. absences without pay with n
'S'loton az to tho cause thereof, exccp
'' To special absences described in sub
't.,on "A,
The lac. Of her absence for the pur
ii ,"' "' motherhood was deemed by tn
."' -upcrlntcndent az sufficient t,