Goaring-Thomas v. City of N.Y., Index No. 153394/2018
| Decision Date | 18 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 153394/2018 |
| Parties | REMA GOARING-THOMAS, Petitioner, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; CARMEN FARINA, CHANCELLOR OF NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Respondents, For an Order and Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Mot. Seq. #001
Petitioner Rema Goaring-Thomas ("Petitioner") brings this action, pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules ("Article 78"), to challenge, reverse, and annul Respondent New York City Department of Education's ("DOE") issuance of an "Unsatisfactory" Annual Professional Performance Review ("APPR" or "U-rating") to Petitioner for the 2016-2017 school year. The U-rating was sustained by Phillip Weinberg, the Deputy Chancellor for Teaching and Learning (Designee of Carmen Farina, Chancellor) of the DOE, on December 19, 2017. Petitioner also seeks to restore any benefits and emoluments lost since the date of issuance, as well as grant attorney's fees, and costs.
Petitioner has been employed by Respondent DOE since 2003 as a common branches teacher and in December 2015 she was assigned to the Absent Teacher Reserve ("ATR") pool. On or about December 19, 2016, Petitioner was assigned to P.S. 375 to cover Ms. S.A.'s second-grade class. Petitioner states that on January 30, 2017, Principal Schwanna Ellman ("Principal Ellman") of P.S. 375 notified her that the ATR Unit said Petitioner would remain in her assignment until June 2017.
Petitioner contends that on April 20, 2017, Assistant Principal Jelani Miller ("AP") asked her for her lesson plan. Petitioner states that she provided AP with her reading lesson plan but informed her that she was still working on a writing lesson plan that was associated with the reading lesson. Petitioner contends that at the end of the day Principal Ellman gave Petitioner a letter that stated that Petitioner failed to have a lesson plan. Petitioner argues that nowhere in the letter does it state that further disciplinary action or a U-rating could follow.
Petitioner further contends that Principal Ellman issued a letter on June 28, 2017, wherein Principal Ellman concluded that Petitioner violated "Chancellor's Regulation A-421 because she told A.R. in front of [T.W.] and the rest of the class that her grades were dropping because of all the talking she was doing with [T.W.]." (Petitioner's Petition at 6). Petitioner contends that Principal Ellman did not provide witness statements or show that she did an investigation to support her conclusion that Petitioner violated Chancellor's Regulation A-421. Furthermore, Petitioner contends that on June 28, 2017 she received a U-rating for the school year 2016-2017, which referenced the April 20 and June 28 letters.
Petitioner argues that Respondents' issuance of the U-rating for the 2016-2017 school year, and the denial of appeal was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of lawful procedure, and in bad faith. Petitioner contends that she did not receive notice that she was in danger of receiving a U-rating, and she did not receive support or remediation to help avoid receiving a U-rating. Petitioner contends that she only received one observation during the school and she was rated satisfactory. Petitioner further contends that the April 20, 2017 letter is not considered disciplinary and did not provide her notice that it could lead to future disciplinary action. Petitioner argues that the June 28, 2017 letter from Principal Ellman improperly concluded that Petitioner violated Chancellor's Regulation A-421 because it was not supported by an investigation and there were no witness statements to support the conclusion.
Respondents argue that Petitioner failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Respondents contend that Petitioner failed to demonstrate how the U-rating was arbitrary, capricious, and made in bad faith or in violation of lawful procedure. Respondents further contend that Petitioner's U-rating was rationally based on evidence that was presented at the Chancellor's Committee hearing. Respondents argue that Petitioner was made aware of two parent complaints, Petitioner received two letters to file regarding her performance, and Petitioner had a disciplinary meeting with Principal Ellman and her union representative. Respondents also contend that they acted reasonably, lawfully, and in good faith, without malice in accordance with the "Constitution and laws of the United Statesand the State and City of New York, the New York City Charter, and all applicable laws, by-laws, rules and regulations." (Respondent's Answer at 16). Respondents further argue that Respondent, the City of New York ("the City") is not a proper party because the DOE is a distinct legal and entity and the City is not responsible for employment decisions by the DOE.
Petitioner commenced this action on April 13, 2018 by filing a Petition as an Article 78 special proceeding. Respondents filed an Answer on July 6, 2018. Petitioner filed a Reply in opposition to Respondents' Answer on October 29, 2018.
It is well settled that the "[j]udicial review of an administrative determination is confined to the 'facts and record adduced before the agency'." Matter of Yarborough v. Franco, 95 N.Y.2d 342, 347 [2000] (quoting Matter of Fanelli v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Board, 90 A.D.2d 756 [1st Dept. 1982]). The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency's determination but must decide if the agency's decision is supported on any reasonable basis. Matter of Clancy-Cullen Storage Co. v. Board of Elections of the City of New York, 98 A.D.2d 635,...
To continue reading
Request your trial