Amster v. Board of Ed. of Union Free School Dist. No. 22, Farmingdale
| Citation | 286 N.Y.S.2d 687,55 Misc.2d 961 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 12 December 1967 |
| Parties | Application of Barbara AMSTER, Petitioner, for a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law & Rules directing the Respondent to Assign the Petitioner to her duties and position as an elementary school teacher for the School Year 1967--1968 v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 22, FARMINGDALE, New York, Respondent. |
The petitioner is a school teacher who has been employed by the respondent. She has been teaching for more than ten years and is entitled to tenure. At the present time, she is considered by the respondent to be on maternity leave without pay, a status which may continue until September, 1968. She has instituted this proceeding to compel the respondent to reassign her to her duties and position on a full time basis as of September, 1967.
Judgment is granted in favor of the respondent.
Boards of education of union free school districts are entrusted by the legislature with the superintendence, management and control of the educational affairs of the various districts and for that purpose have all the powers reasonably necessary to discharge the duties imposed upon them (Education Law, Sec. 1709, Sub. 33). They have the power and the duty to contract with and employ qualified teachers, to determine the number of teachers to be employed, and to adopt rules and regulations governing the excusing of absences of all teachers and other employees and for the granting of leaves of absence to such employees either with or without pay (Education Law, Sec. 1709, Sub. 16). A rule or regulation adopted pursuant to such statutory authority may be set aside by the courts only on a showing that the rule or regulation is without rational basis (Meenagh v. Dewey, 286 N.Y. 292, 36 N.E.2d 211).
The petitioner's plight arises out of the application to her situation of an Administrative Regulation adopted by the respondent in October, 1957. That regulation makes provision for maternity leave, as follows:
'Maternity Leave
Teacher notifies Superintendent of Schools in writing as soon as she is cognizant of pregnancy, requesting leave. No teacher will be allowed to continue teaching after four months' pregnancy.
Tenure teachers may be granted leave of absence without pay. Tenure teacher may return September 1st after leave is granted (if six months have elapsed since confinement or September 1st of the following year.
Non-tenure teachers must terminate employment.'
In March, 1967, the petitioner applied for maternity leave. Her request was granted, leave becoming effective April 28, 1967. Her child was born July 4, 1967. On August 16, 1967, she requested that she be restored to full time teaching status and furnished to the respondent medical certificates indicating that she was physically capable of performing her duties. On August 21, 1967, the respondent notified the petitioner that she would not be able to return to her regular position and duties until September, 1968. Since September, 1967, she has been employed by the respondent on a sporadic basis for irregular periods of time as a substitute teacher at the rate of pay provided for substitutes.
It is the petitioner's contention that the regulation has no rational basis for existence and by its invocation in her case she has been deprived of her rights under the tenure laws in that she has, in effect, been suspended for one year without the benefit of a hearing. In order for the petitioner to succeed, she must show that the regulation is arbitrary, illogical, or lacks relevancy to a policy within the authority of the respondent to adopt (1 N.Y.Jur., Administrative Law, Sec. 106, p. 454).
The Commissioner of Education in Matter of Kabatt, 1935, 52 St.Dept. 59, determined that a regulation which prescribed a maternity leave of absence for a period of two years from conception was not unreasonable, pointing out that in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Ed. of Union Free School Dist. No. 2, East Williston, Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County v. New York State Division of Human Rights
...271 N.Y. 629, 3 N.E.2d 456, cert. den. 300 U.S. 657, 57 S.Ct. 433, 81 L.Ed. 867); cf. Matter of Amster v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 22 Farmingdale, 55 Misc.2d 961, 286 N.Y.S.2d 687). It need only be pointed out that none of the cited cases involved a review of a determin......