Opinion ID: 4507725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preclusive Effect of the 3020‐a Hearing

Text: The district court properly gave preclusive effect to the N.Y Education Law § 3020‐a hearing officerʹs findings of fact related to Garciaʹs classroom behavior and failure to report for duty for an entire school year. Factual findings made in a state administrative proceeding are entitled to ʺpreclusive effect where there has been a full and fair opportunity to litigate.ʺ Burkybile v. Bd. of Educ. of Hastings‐On‐Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 411 F.3d 306, 310 (2d Cir. 2005). ʺ[A] determination whether a full and fair hearing was provided requires consideration of the realities of the [prior] litigation.ʺ Chartier v. Marlin Mgmt., LLC, 202 F.3d 89, 94 (2d Cir. 2000) (alterations in original) (quoting In re Sokol, 113 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 1997)). We consider, inter alia, the following factors: ʺ1) the nature of the forum and the importance of the claim in the prior litigation; 2) the incentive to litigate and the actual extent of litigation in the prior forum; and 3) the foreseeability of future litigation.ʺ Id. Garcia was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate. The 3020‐a hearing was a formal evidentiary hearing at which the hearing officer explained the process. Garcia was given an opportunity to testify, present evidence, and cross‐ ‐3‐ examine YBOEʹs witnesses. Further, the hearing concerned whether Garcia would be fired and played a significant role in the decision to terminate her. Prior to the hearing, YBOE sent her a packet with a notice that explained her rights at the hearing, including the right to be represented by counsel. The hearing officer also sent Garcia three letters stating she had the right to be represented by counsel during the proceedings. Garcia was also aware she had the ability to request union representation, and she wrote to both her local union and New York State United Teachers requesting legal representation; both declined to represent her. Garcia also argues that the hearing officerʹs factual findings should not have received preclusive effect because the hearing did not address the sexual harassment incidents or her retaliation claim raised in the district court complaint. Garcia is correct that the hearing officerʹs legal conclusion that Garcia should be terminated is not preclusive with respect to the legal merits of Garciaʹs retaliation claim. See Matusick v. Erie Cty. Water Auth., 757 F.3d 31, 49 (2d Cir. 2014) (concluding that administrative law judgeʹs legal conclusions had no preclusive effect on discrimination claim because the ALJʹs conclusions ʺwere guided by the particular legal framework and standards applicableʺ to the administrative hearings). The factual findings, however, including the determinations that Garcia failed to report to work and told a student she would ʺsmackʺ him, Appʹx at 89, are entitled to preclusive effect. See Matusick, 757 F.3d at 49; see also Burkybile, 411 F.3d at 313 (giving 3020‐a hearing officerʹs ‐4‐ factual findings preclusive effect with respect to whether plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim).