Court Opinion

ID: 9950821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 20:10:17.91091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:55.984764
License: Public Domain

Hogue v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the
                      City of N.Y.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30774(U)
                     March 11, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 159968/2021
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 159968/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          159968/2021
                JAMES HOGUE,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE        03/04/20241
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.      001 002
                                                 -v-
                THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL
                DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, COMMUNITY
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
                SCHOOL DISTRICT 28 OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
                OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK                                                                  MOTION

                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1- 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,
            24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       ARTICLE 78                       .

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,
            44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
            were read on this motion to/for                                               AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS                  .

                      Motion Sequence Numbers 001 and 002 are consolidated for disposition. The cross-

            motion by respondents to dismiss the petition (MS001) is granted. Petitioner’s motion (MS002)

            to amend is denied.

            Background

                      This proceeding arises out of an arbitration decision issued after an impasse between the

            City of New York’s the Department of Education (“DOE”) and the United Federation of

            Teachers (“UFT”) concerning the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Petitioner is a tenured teacher for

            1
             The Court observes that this proceeding was pending before at least two different judges over the past few years.
            Although this proceeding was only transferred to the undersigned on March 4, 2024, the Court, nevertheless,
            apologizes on behalf of the court system for the lengthy delay in the resolution of this dispute.
                159968/2021 HOGUE, JAMES vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL                               Page 1 of 5
                DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
                Motion No. 001 002

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159968/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            respondents and refused to comply with the vaccine mandate or a binding arbitration award’s

            process for seeking an exemption. He contends he was placed on leave without pay in October

            2021 after failing to meet the deadline to show proof that he received at least one vaccination

            dose or that he received an accommodation. Petitioner commenced this proceeding to inter alia

            challenge the arbitration award and to demand that he receive the disciplinary process afforded to

            tenured teachers under the Education Law.

                    Respondents contend that the petition should be dismissed because petitioner failed to

            name a necessary party, he lacks standing to challenge the arbitral award at issue here and he

            fails to state a cause of action. They explain that the award resolved an impasse between DOE

            and petitioner’s union (UFT) and therefore petitioner cannot independently challenge that

            determination. Respondents observe that petitioner failed to name UFT as a party to this

            proceeding. Respondents also assert that the vaccination requirement is a condition of

            employment and so petitioner’s claims about the ordinary disciplinary process are inapplicable.

                    In opposition to the cross-motion, petitioner admits he was not a party to the arbitration

            award but claims that he has standing to challenge it. He claims he is entitled to the disciplinary

            process provided to tenured teachers. Petitioner argues that UFT is not a necessary party because

            it will not be affected by any decision concerning the arbitral award. He insists that Education

            Law § 3020-a (which sets forth procedures about disciplinary hearings for teachers) is applicable

            and he is entitled to that process.

                    Petitioner contends that he never waived any of his legal rights and that his placement in

            a “leave without pay” status was arbitrary and capricious. He adds that the arbitrator exceeded

            his authority and that the entire arbitration award must therefore be vacated.

             159968/2021 HOGUE, JAMES vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL                Page 2 of 5
             DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                          2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159968/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                   In reply, respondents contend that petitioner did not show that he has standing, that he

            failed to join UFT as a party and that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. They

            argue that Education Law § 3020-a does not apply because petitioner was not subject to

            discipline and that he was provided the required process under the relevant collective bargaining

            agreement.

            Discussion

                   The Court observes that Appellate Division, First Department has decided the very issues

            raised here in O'Reilly v Bd. of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New York (213 AD3d 560,

            561, 185 NYS3d 14 [1st Dept 2023]). In that case, the First Department observed that:

                    “We are asked on this appeal to decide whether tenured public school teachers are
                   bound by the results of an arbitration initiated by their union, the United Federation
                   of Teachers (UFT), pursuant to Civil Service Law § 209 to resolve an impasse over
                   the implementation of the COVID–19 vaccine mandate. The September 10, 2021
                   Impact Award, which petitioners challenge in this hybrid article 75/ article 78
                   proceeding, established a procedure for handling requests for religious and medical
                   exemptions. The article 75 claims were properly dismissed, as petitioners lack
                   standing to challenge the Impact Award and failed to join UFT as a necessary party.
                   The article 75 claims also fail on the merits. As to the article 78 claims, petitioners
                   are unable to show that DOE made an error of law or acted irrationally” (id. at 561).

                   The vaccination requirement for DOE employees was considered a condition of

            employment and the arbitral award provided for religious and medical exemptions (id. at 562-

            63). The First Department concluded that the DOE petitioners in the combined appeal lacked

            standing (id. at 565). “When a union represents employees during arbitration, only that union –

            not individual employees – may seek to vacate the resulting award” (id.).

                   Moreover, just as here, the petitioners in O’Reilly failed to name the UFT, which was a

            necessary party (id.). “UFT advocated successfully for the exemptions, accommodations, and

            extended benefits for teachers otherwise unwilling to be vaccinated, all of which were prescribed

            in the Impact Award. Accordingly, UFT would be adversely impacted by a judgment favorable

             159968/2021 HOGUE, JAMES vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL                Page 3 of 5
             DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                          3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 159968/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

            to petitioners and is thus a necessary party. Because the limitations period for article 75

            proceedings has expired, any action brought now against UFT would be untimely” (id.).

                    The First Department’s decision also rejected other arguments raised by petitioner in this

            proceeding, including that petitioner has standing to challenge whether the arbitrator exceeded

            his power or that the award violates public policy (id. at 565-66).

                    In this Court’s view, the O’Reilly decision compels the Court to grant the respondents’

            cross-motion to dismiss as it addresses seemingly every single argument raised by petitioner.

            This is not a proceeding in which the petitioner asks this Court to consider the denial of his

            individual request for an accommodation—petitioner admits he did not request an

            accommodation at all. Rather, he challenges the arbitral award itself and the First Department

            has held that he lacks standing to do so.

            MS002

                    In this motion, petitioner seeks leave to amend to add the UFT as a respondent if the

            Court finds that UFT is a necessary party. He also seeks to add claims for undue influence and

            fraud against those involved in the arbitration.

                    The Court denies the motion as moot in light of the First Department’s decision in

            O’Reilly. The First Department has ruled that the vaccination mandate and the accommodation

            process was a condition of employment and that teachers, such as petitioner, lacked standing to

            challenge the subject arbitral award. Adding UFT at this juncture would not compel a different

            outcome.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss is granted; and it is further

                    ORDERED that petitioner’s motion (MS002) to amend is denied; and it is further

             159968/2021 HOGUE, JAMES vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL                Page 4 of 5
             DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                          4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 159968/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/11/2024

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is denied, this proceeding is dismissed and the Clerk is

            directed to enter judgment accordingly along with costs and disbursements upon presentation of

            proper papers therefor.

                    3/11/2024                                                          $SIG$
                      DATE                                                     ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:               X   CASE DISPOSED                NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED             DENIED   GRANTED IN PART              X     OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                 SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN   FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT              REFERENCE

             159968/2021 HOGUE, JAMES vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL                     Page 5 of 5
             DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
             Motion No. 001 002

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]