Court Opinion

ID: 9954285
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:10:23.66777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:00.210156
License: Public Domain

Pierre v New York City Dept. of Educ.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30943(U)
                     March 20, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 650946/2022
                  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.
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                                   INDEX NO. 650946/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          650946/2022
                DAVID PIERRE
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE        07/18/20221
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
                NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,                                             DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                         MOTION
                                                         Respondent.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,
            33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
            were read on this motion to/for                                 VACATE - DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT/AWARD.

                      Respondent’s cross-motion to dismiss the petition, which seeks to vacate a determination

            by respondent to terminate petitioner, is granted.

            Background

                      Petitioner started working for respondent as a substitute teacher in the 2001-02 school

            year. He eventually worked as a full-time tenured teacher and is certified to teach both

            Chemistry and Health. Petitioner admits that for three years (2016-2019) he received a

            “Developing” rating as a teacher. He emphasizes that he received an “Effective” rating for

            measures of student learning (which is based on student outcomes) but a “Developing” rating for

            his teacher performance. Teacher performance is evaluated by administrators who draft

            evaluations after observing teachers.

            1
              Although this case was assigned to the undersigned a few days ago, the Court acknowledges that is has been
            floating around the courthouse for far too long. On behalf of the court system, the Court apologizes for the absurd
            delay in deciding this case.
                650946/2022 PIERRE, DAVID vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                                  Page 1 of 7
                Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 7
[* 1]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 650946/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                   Petitioner strenuously objects to the evaluations he received from the administrators that

            observed him in the classroom. He insists that these observations were marred by procedural and

            substantive defects, including that certain classrooms lacked labs (even though it was a science

            class) and that he never received a teacher improvement plan as required. He stresses that during

            the subject three years (where he worked at different schools), he was provided assistance from

            administrators that were not certified in his field of teaching and was assigned to professional

            development groups with teachers who did not teach his subjects.

                   Respondent issued nine separate charges against petitioner arising out his poor

            performance reviews. These included, but are not limited to, the failure to submit weekly lesson

            plans, a lack of professionalism, failing to have two labs a week, the failure to adhere to a plan of

            assistance, failing to comply with the school’s grading system, the failure to execute lessons in

            connection with 12 observations and the failure to implement directives (see NYSCEF Doc. No.

            3 at 4-6). An 11-day hearing followed (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 4-14) and respondent then issued an

            over 80-page decision terminating petitioner (NYSCEF Doc. No. 3).

                   Respondent provides a different account of petitioner’s teaching abilities. It insists that

            the Hearing Officer rationally found that petitioner failed to provide his students with an

            appropriate educational experience and that his performance did not improve despite attempts to

            remediate the issues.

                   In reply, petitioner blames the chaotic environment at the first school he worked at

            (Urban Assembly, which was subsequently closed) and the lack of functioning labs or textbooks

            at a subsequent school at which he taught. He questions the contradiction between his student

            outcomes and the poor ratings he received from his supervisors. Petitioner contends that the nine

             650946/2022 PIERRE, DAVID vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                   Page 2 of 7
             Motion No. 001

                                                          2 of 7
[* 2]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 650946/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            charges are largely redundant and repetitive and simply pile on a teacher in order to revoke his

            tenure.

                      He argues that each of the witnesses who testified for respondent at the hearing (various

            principals and assistant principals) failed to provide persuasive evidence to justify his

            termination. For instance, petitioner observes that one supervisor simply parroted the

            observation reports without providing any independent recollection of petitioner’s performance.

                      Petitioner stresses that the first school he worked at (Urban Assembly) had well known

            disciplinary issues and that he should not be punished for this general dysfunction. He blames the

            school administrators for the students’ overall lack of discipline. At another school (Kingsbridge

            Academy), he argues that the supervisor who evaluated him was not licensed in Chemistry and

            was therefore incapable of providing him the resources necessary to aid his improvement.

            Petitioner insists that even if the charges could be sustained, the penalty of termination is

            excessive and should be vacated.

            Discussion

                      “Education Law § 3020-a(5) provides that judicial review of a hearing officer’s findings

            must be conducted pursuant to CPLR 7511. Under such review an award may only be vacated

            on a showing of misconduct bias, excess of power or procedural defects” (Lackow v Dept. of

            Educ. [or Board] of City of New York, 51 AD3d 563, 567, 859 NYS2d 52 [1st Dept 2008])

            [internal quotations and citation omitted]. “[W]here the parties have submitted to compulsory

            arbitration, judicial scrutiny is stricter than that for a determination rendered where the parties

            have submitted to voluntary arbitration” (id. at 567). The hearing officer’s “determination must

            be in accord with due process and supported by adequate evidence, and must also be rational and

             650946/2022 PIERRE, DAVID vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                    Page 3 of 7
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 7
[* 3]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 650946/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            satisfy the arbitrary and capricious standards of CPLR article 78. The party challenging an

            arbitration determination has the burden of showing its invalidity” (id. at 567-68).

                   The Court’s primary task in this proceeding is to evaluate the Hearing Officer’s rationale

            in terminating petitioner. The Hearing Officer thoroughly evaluated each of the observed lessons

            and sustained the charges against petitioner. For instance, for the February 13, 2017 observed

            lesson, she noted that she found witness testimony from one of petitioner’s supervisors (Mr.

            Pichardo) credible, stating that “I credit Pichardo's testimony [that] students were yelling,

            cursing, lifting furniture, throwing clothing around the room, and engaging in horseplay during

            the lesson. In addition, I credit Pichardo's testimony [petitioner] failed to differentiate

            instruction, utilize effective questioning techniques, assess or engage students in the lesson”

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 3 at 48). She discounted petitioner’s claim that he properly grouped students

            and noted that Mr. Pichardo’s observation revealed that “nearly all students were on their cell

            phones at one point during the lesson” (id.). The Hearing Officer noted that petitioner admitted

            that “he never went to the administration or the Dean to refer students for discipline, and he

            failed to contact parents to seek involvement in addressing the disciplinary concerns (id. at 48-

            49).

                   During another observation in February 2018, the Hearing Officer concluded that “the

            weight of the credible evidence was [Petitioner] delivered a lesson lacking in rigor that was

            unconnected to the curriculum and with learning tasks not designed to engage students in active

            thinking” (id. at 54). She noted that only four of the eighteen students in class actually

            participated in the discussion (id. at 54-55). The Hearing Officer’s discussion of an observation

            in April 2019, noted that “there was general chaos in the room” (id. at 60).

             650946/2022 PIERRE, DAVID vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                    Page 4 of 7
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 7
[* 4]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 650946/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

                    The Hearing Officer also explored petitioner’s failure to provide his students with

            appropriate feedback as he was only grading the completion of tasks and assignments rather than

            the mastery of the subjects (id. at 62-63). She also sustained a charge based on petitioner’s

            failure to submit weekly lesson plans (id. at 65).

                    After sustaining each of the charges, the Hearing Officer addressed the appropriate

            penalty (id. at 78). She maintained that “I further find [petitioner] failed to consistently

            implement directives, recommendations, counsel, instruction and professional development from

            observational conferences, action plans, inter-visitations and professional development sessions

            on a number of instances during the charged school years. Accordingly, I find the [petitioner]

            engaged in incompetent and inefficient service and there is just cause to discipline the

            [petitioner]” (id. at 79).

                    “As the record in this case demonstrates, [petitioner] was repeatedly cited for deficiencies

            in planning and executing his lessons in a coherent manner, failing to use questioning and

            discussion techniques which challenged students and required critical thought, and failing to

            properly implement classroom management techniques on a consistent basis, among many other

            things such as failing to differentiate instruction. Despite extensive efforts to remediate

            [petitioner]’s pedagogy, [petitioner] was never able to correct any of the deficiencies in his

            pedagogy” (id. at 78-79).

                    The Hearing Officer found that petitioner routinely declined additional support, failed to

            follow his assigned curriculum and failed to take the appropriate steps to manage his classroom

            (such as posting classroom rules) (id. at 82). She also noted that petitioner was directed to

            provide about 10 lesson plans in advance of meetings with a supervisor regarding his

            improvement but that he typically only brought a single lesson plan or none at all (id.). She

             650946/2022 PIERRE, DAVID vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                    Page 5 of 7
             Motion No. 001

                                                           5 of 7
[* 5]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                INDEX NO. 650946/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            concluded that “Accordingly, I find [petitioner] is not capable of providing a valid educational

            experience for students assigned to his classroom. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and

            Award, I find [petitioner] is either unwilling or incapable of providing a valid educational

            experience for his students and termination is the only appropriate remedy” (id. at 84).

                   The Court sees no basis to annul the Hearing Officer’s well-reasoned decision. The

            Hearing Officer evaluated each and every charge lodged against petitioner and cited to relevant

            witness testimony in support of her conclusions. “A hearing officer's determinations of

            credibility, however, are largely unreviewable because the hearing officer observed the witnesses

            and was able to perceive the inflections, the pauses, the glances and gestures—all the nuances of

            speech and manner that combine to form an impression of either candor or deception” (Lackow,

            51 AD3d at 568). It is not this Court’s role to second guess the credibility determinations of the

            Hearing Officer especially where, as here, there is no suggestion that the witness testimony was

            “incredible as a matter of law” (id.). To be sure, petitioner clearly disagrees with the observation

            reports issued by his supervisors and the testimony offered by these individuals at the hearing.

            But that disagreement is not a basis to vacate the Hearing Officer’s decision.

                   With respect to the penalty of termination, “The standard for reviewing a penalty

            imposed after a hearing pursuant to Education Law § 3020–a is whether the punishment of

            dismissal was so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to the court's sense of

            fairness” (id. at 569). The Court is unable to find that termination shocks any sense of fairness.

            The Hearing Officer detailed that petitioner received poor ratings for three consecutive years and

            that he never embraced the assistance offered by his supervisors.

                   As noted above, petitioner routinely failed to come to support meetings with lesson plans

            as requested (NYSCEF Doc. No. 3 at 82). The Hearing Officer noted another example where

             650946/2022 PIERRE, DAVID vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                  Page 6 of 7
             Motion No. 001

                                                          6 of 7
[* 6]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/20/2024 04:34 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 650946/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 56                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024

            petitioner was asked to prepare a spreadsheet outlining his student’s progress in completing

            required labs (id.). “It took over five (5) weeks for [petitioner] to prepare such a spreadsheet and

            by then, students were so far behind, [a supervisor] was required to take over [Petitioner]'s class

            for a week to facilitate lab completion” (id. at 82-83). Simply put, there was ample basis to

            support both the charges and the penalty of termination.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that the cross-motion by respondent to dismiss is granted; and it is further

                    ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment

            accordingly along with costs and disbursements upon presentation of proper papers therefor.

                    3/20/2024                                                           $SIG$
                      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

             650946/2022 PIERRE, DAVID vs. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION                         Page 7 of 7
             Motion No. 001

                                                            7 of 7
[* 7]