Source: http://teacherslawyer.blogspot.com/2012/08/can-technology-replace-teachers.html
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 08:50:17
Document Index: 697969574

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3020', '§ 3020', 'ART 83', 'art83', 'art 83', 'art 83']

THE TEACHER'S LAWYER: Can Technology Replace Teachers?
We specialize in providing legal recourse, and advice, to protect New York-based teachers from disciplinary abuse by school administrators. Tuesday, August 7, 2012
As districts and states look for more efficient ways to operate, they are turning to technological approaches that some see as a threat to teacher jobs.via Education Week American Education News Site of Record http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/08/08/37replace_ep.h31.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mrss
2012 at 05:05PM,
Contact the Teacher's Lawyer
The quickest and easiest way to contact us is through our online form.Fill it out here: GHNY Law Contact Form
Affiliate recommendation
Teachers Lawyer Daily Newsletter
See Links to Recent Favorable Decisions by This Law Firm on Behalf of Teachers and Civil Servants
Hazeltine v. New York City Department of Education et al.,
Appellate Division, First Department (reversing probationary teacher's U rating on appeal)
Polayes v City of New York
2014 NY Slip Op 03958
Decided on June 3, 2014
Decided on June 3, 2014 Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Freedman, Clark, JJ.
12649 156710/12 [*1] In re Jonathan Polayes, Petitioner-Appellant, v
City of New York, at al., Respondents-Respondents.
Glass Krakower LLC, New York (John Hogrogian of counsel), for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered January 18, 2013, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award imposed pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a, finding petitioner guilty of teacher misconduct and terminating his employment with respondent New York City Department of Education, and granted respondents' cross motion to dismiss the proceeding and confirm the award, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, the cross motion denied, and the arbitration award vacated.
The evidence presented at the arbitration hearing established that petitioner, while acting as a substitute teacher covering a double-period class for high school senior students, participated in conversation with a group of the students concerning their college choices and post-graduation internship plans. The class took place during the height of the college application process, and right before the winter break. During the conversation, petitioner offered to serve as a contact point for a potential internship at a media company for a female student who had expressed an interest in film and media. The student testified that she appreciated this and was not offended by the offer. When a male student then indicated that he did not want to do an internship or work during the summer after graduation, petitioner whispered to the female student something to the effect of "watch how they react to this," and proceeded to tell the students about a valuable internship experience he had before he went to college. The female student also was not offended by this. When another male student expressed his interest in attending a college that was widely reported to be a "party school," petitioner asked him something to the effect of, "so you're the type to party with," or "you want to go to school to party." The student testified that he was "not offended in any way" by the comment. Rather, the several students who testified generally indicated that they enjoyed the class and found it to have been more interesting than expected from a substitute.
Respondent has not identified any rule or statute that classifies such statements and action as teacher misconduct. Under all the circumstances, the finding that petitioner's actions constituted teacher misconduct is not supported by adequate evidence, and is arbitrary and capricious (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or "Board"]; of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 567 [1st Dept 2008]).
We note that petitioner had a disciplinary history including findings of non-sexual touching of students, and that two prior disciplinary awards expressly warned him not to touch his students again. However, it is undisputed that petitioner did not touch any of his students in the case at bar. Thus, contrary to the arbitrator's finding, the evidence did not indicate that petitioner failed to heed prior warnings (cf. Matter of Forte v Mills, 250 AD2d 882. 884 [3d Dept 1998]; Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Syracuse, 50 AD2d 149, 157 [4th Dept 1975], appeal dismissed 39 NY2d 1057 [1976]).
ENTERED: JUNE 3, 2014
Guzman v. NYCDOE et al., App. Div. 1st Dept
Decided on April 4, 2013 Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Abdus-Salaam, Gische, JJ.
9727 106140/11 [*1]In re Minerva Guzman, Petitioner-Appellant, v
City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Glass Krakower LLP, New York (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for respondents. Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered March 5, 2012, confirming an arbitration award, dated May 4, 2011, which terminated petitioner's employment as a public school teacher upon a finding that she engaged in a fraudulent scheme to enroll her granddaughter in public school using a false address, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a and CPLR article 75, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the finding of guilt as to Specification 1-A-1 (that petitioner engaged in the scheme to avoid payment of non-resident tuition) and vacate the penalty of termination, and to remand the matter for the imposition of an appropriate penalty, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Respondent Department of Education conceded at the hearing that petitioner's granddaughter was entitled to a tuition-free education in New York City public schools, and the hearing officer made no finding that the child was not a City resident. Nor does the record establish that the child was not a City resident. Thus, there is no rational basis upon which to conclude that petitioner engaged in a scheme with the purpose of defrauding respondent out of non-resident tuition (see Motor Veh. Mfrs. Assn. of U.S. v State of New York, 75 NY2d 175, 186 [1990]; Lackow v Department of Educ. [or "Board"] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 567 [1st Dept 2008]).
However, as petitioner concedes, substantial evidence supports the charge that she acted in concert to file a false instrument (Specification 1-B), to wit, engaged in a scheme to use a school aide's address to enroll her granddaughter in the school at which she taught, and that she [*2]improperly obtained the school's services (Specification 1-A-2), since the child should not have been enrolled there.
In light of the foregoing, we remand for the imposition of an appropriate lesser penalty.
ENTERED: APRIL 4, 2013
Riley v. New York City Department of Education et al.,
Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed First Department, Appellate Division1st Dep
t decision (reversing 3020-a termination decision as shocking to the conscience)
Miller v. New York City Department of Education et al.,
Appellate Division, First Department (overcoming DOE's appeal to allow discovery to proceed against school principal)
Supreme Court, New York County (reinstating tenured teacher with six figure backpay award)
Rothstein v. New York City Department of Education et al.,
Supreme Court, New York County (reversing tenured teacher's U rating)
Khouma v. New York City Department of Education, Supreme Court, New York County (reversing 3020-a decision imposing $15,000 fine as shocking to the conscience)
Francois v. New York City Department of Education et al., Supreme Court, New York County (reversing end of year U rating of tenured teacher as arbitrary and capricious)
Wilson v. New York City Department of Correction et al., Supreme Court, New York County (reversing termination of probationary correction officer)>
Moreno-Lieberman v. New York City Department of Education et al., Supreme Court, New York County (vacating and reducing $7,000 fine against tenured teacher as irrational)
ASK THE TEACHERS LAWYERThe author of the Teachers Lawyer blog, Bryan Glass (former NYSUT/UFT attorney, Corporation Counsel Attorney, and Partner of Glass Krakower LLP) periodically holds seminars where you can ask questions concerning the Section 3020-a disciplinary process. If you are interested in attending the next scheduled seminar, please contact us for further information. Thank you and we welcome your interest. Subscribe to the Teacher's Newsletter
First Full Edition coming December 2012!
Adjunct Law Professor Post re Useful Education Law SitesAmerican Federation of TeachersAt the Schoolhouse GateCourse HeroEdjurist AccordEducation Law CenterEducation WeeklyEdweek.orgIDEAJustia Education Law BlogsNational Education AssociationNational School Boards AssociationNew Jersey Education Law BlogNew York Law Journal Schools and EducationNew York State United TeachersNYT Education Law Home PageThe Chronicle of Higher EducationU.S. Department of EducationUnited Federation of Teachers
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) ABOUT SECTION 3020-A
Are hearings held before a hearing officer or a panel?Disciplinary charges brought by an employing board against a tenured employee are heard by a single hearing officer except when the charges concern pedagogical incompetence or issues involving pedagogical judgement. In these cases only, the employee may choose to have the charges heard by either a single hearing officer or a three-member panel.What types of changes are considered pedagogical?While the term "pedagogical" is not defined in either the statute or the Commissioner's Regulations, charges that fall into that category include inability to control a class, failure to prepare required lesson plans, failure to maintain certification, and other matters that directly pertain to teaching techniques and issues of this nature.Who provides the list of Hearing Officers?The American Arbitration Association (AAA) maintains the panel of potential hearing officers for Section 3020-a proceedings. This association also provides a list for each individual proceeding.Is there a fee associated with requesting a hearing?The AAA is a non profit organization which relies on administrative fees to continue providing services. Commissioner's Regulations as amended by the Board of Regents in September 1994 stipulate that the fee for providing the list of potential hearing officers for Section 3020-a proceedings is to be paid by the School District preferring the charges. This fee is $150.00. If the parties are unable to mutually select a hearing officer and request that the AAA make the selection, an additional fee of $50.00 will be required.When is a hearing commenced?Under the law, a hearing is commenced when the State Education Department submits a request to AAA for a list of potential hearing officers.As a taxpayer, don't I have the right to know if a teacher in our school has been brought up on charges?Section 3020-a provides an avenue for resolving disciplinary issues between an employer and an employing board. Until an individual has been found guilty by a hearing officer or hearing panel, all aspects of the disciplinary proceeding are strictly confidential. If the employee is found to be guilty of one or more of the charges, the record is then available pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law.
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 3020-A EFFECTIVE APRIL 2012
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/ospra/memo04042012.html
SECTION 3020-A OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW
http://www.teacherabuse.com/EDU_LAW/3020a.pdf
PART 83 OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE NYS EDUCATION COMMISSIONER
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/part83.html
ABOUT THE TEACHER'S LAWYER...Since graduating from the Cornell ILR School in 1992, and U. Pennsylvania Law School in 1995, Mr. Glass had worked as a state and federal appellate law clerk, an arbitrator and mediator, an Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of New York in general litigation and labor and employment matters, and as inhouse counsel to UFT/NYSUT.Since 2009, Mr. Glass's private law firm has provided legal advice, counseled and/or represented hundreds of individual teachers in federal and state court litigations and appeals, Section 3020-a hearings, Part 83 proceedings, PERB and SDHR matters, unemployment hearings, Section 3020-a hearings, LODI and Section 2568 medical appointments, and time and attendance hearings, among other things.Visit us at www.glasskrakower.com, ghnylaw.com, orbryandglasslawgroup.blogspot.com, andhttp://nyteacherslawyer.comSee twitter profile at twitter.com/teacherslawyer(subscribe to our daily NY Daily Teachers Lawyer newsletter)See linkedin profile of Bryan Glass, Esq."A Lawyer's Guide To Teacher Rights and Responsibilities in New York State"Link to Video Presentation100 Church Street, 8th FloorNew York, NY 10007(212) 537-6859(914) 202-0300bg@teacherslawyer.combg@glasskrakower.comSee The School and Education Law blog and this blog below for latest news articles about education in NYC and beyond.Specialties include:-Section 3020-a defense of tenure rights (incompetency, corporal punishment, verbal abuse, etc.)-Article 75 proceedings and appeals-Article 78 proceedings and appeals-Commissioner of Education appeals-Discrimination/retaliation/Title VII/ADEA/ADA cases before CCHR/SDHR/EEOC administrative agencies and federal and state courts-Grievance advice-Ineligible inquiry list inquiries-Medical Bureau inquiries-Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) defense-Office of Special Investigation (OSI) defense-Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI) defense-Part 83 state certification proceedings-PERB proceedings-Probationary terminations and discontinuances-Tenure by estoppel issues-Time and attendance proceedings/FMLA defense-Unemployment hearing defense-U rating appeals advice Total Pageviews
This blog may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcome. Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.