New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-01-12
FINLEY ORDERS
MRS.PEIXOTTO'S
REINSTATEMENT
Rules School Board Can.
not Dismiss for Absence
for Childbirth.
VICTORY FOR ALL
TEACHER MOTHERS
No Appeal from Decision
of State Commissioner
of Education.
from stan Correspondent O. The Tribune

from stan Correspondent o. The Tribune
Albany, Jan. 1.-THE teacher-moth-
ers of New York have won in their
fight against the city Board of Edu-
cation, which dismissed them because
of absence from classrooms for child
birth. As exclusively announced in
The Tribune this morning, John II.
Finley, state Commissioner of Educa-
ton, decided only the case before him
that Of Mrs Bridget c. Peixotto, Of
School II, The Bronx but the prin-
ciple involved applies to all the other
appeals before him, the cases being
practically the same.
Commissioner Finley sets aside the
decision OF the city Board Of Educa-
tion dismissing Mrs. PeiXotto from
service for neglect Of duty and orders
that she be reinstated as a teacher IN
the public schools of the city.
"As Commissioner" he says in his
decision, 81 would give every possible
aid in my power to promote devotion
to duty. Jealous service and efficiency
on the part of the teachers of the
state, to prevent neglect Of duty and
ineficiency and to eliminate incom-
petence. and I attribute only such high
purposes TO the Board Of Education in
its action in this case But | am OF the
clear opinion. which / am obliged 10
follow. that these ends and purposes
will not be served by selecting, or
seeming to select. for stigma or re-
proach such a reason for temporary
absence from school duty as is offered
in this case, or inferring, or seeming
to infer, ineffciency from the mere
fact of motherhood.
"If. as this honorable board appears
to hold, married women teachers
should end their services on maternity
this policy (Which | cannot believe
sound in principle or wholesome IN
nractice) can be made possible only
through legislation making it lawful
to discharge because Of marriage
teacher in service.
Duty of the Board.
MEANWHILE it is the duty Of the
board 10 adopt a practice IN accord
with the clear intent Of existing law
and in harmony with this decision.
THE board should have accepted the
natural corollary of its policy, volun-
tarv or enforced, of employing or re-
tanning married women teachers, and
should have given at least as favorable
consideration to an absence for child
birth as normally given to absence
asked for reasons of personal conyen-
ience or minor or grave illness, or for
purposes of study or travel or of I'M
proving health.
The appellant absented herself by
reason of a necessity which should nave
excused her had she presented 1t on nj
inc the notification of her absence, and
which, under the practice of the board
should. at any rate, have procured her
excuse wnen she was ready to return
for not only was there no wilful dis
regard of duty. except the item whicn
the board declined to make part OF
its reason for dismissal. but there was
rosroct shown by the appellant toF
those very reasons which the majority
in its report urged against the presence
in the school Of one approaching ma
ternlty. - IL.to.. :,
same cases. suggest 20 the teacher ner
u,itb bdrawal from the school after ma
tornitv Dismissal for general mel
ticiency would be warranted II, upon re-
urn teacher was found TO be unable
after trial, TO perform scnool duties.
Rut /. is difficult 70 conceive now
roasonable. unwilful absence, due to
1atnrai unavoidable cause, could be
construed as neglect Of duty; and II Is
disicrl, 10 understand why an absence
Sor the most highly creditable social
reason should be so treated.
Married Teachers Allowed.
r.. Fiolev said there was no statutory
,rahibition of the employment OF a
iE,,a,.ried woman as teacher IN the pup
i;c scbools in the City Of New York, and
,hat So far as the record showed there
ras M bylaw or regulation OF the
hoard which forbade such employment.
90 The continuance in the schools or
% teacher who married after entering
she service ne declared that II had been
decided that marriage was not IN ltSel1
s.-o,,rd for dismissal. IL was held that
.aacber could not be dismissed for
O., other cause than gross miscon-
Juct insubordination, neglect OF duty
or General inefficiency," and that the
,,,arriage Of a woman teacher was not
inciuded in any Of these four causes.
SPut this appeal carries the question
- tLe status OF the married women
teachers in the City Of New YORK one
80 bevond this determination Of the
.o,,r. - continued the decision. Married
,yomen teachers. under the rules and
rractice of the board, may be, and are,
ennloved. Women teachers, under the
decision Of the Court Of Appeals, may
not be dismissed on account OF marri-
age after entering the service. The
question now asked IS:
"Nay the board dismiss a married
woman teacher for that which Is the
lawful, natural consequence OF a mar
riage and its social sanctlon2 Such an
swer as the highest court gives 70 this
question on its legal merits. IS 10 be
found in the dissenting opinion Of the
Chief Justice of the Court OF Appeals
in this yerv case"
Mrs. Bridget Peixotto was overjoyed