Tischler v. Board of Ed. of Monroe Woodbury Central School Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 23 July 1971
• Citation: 323 N.Y.S.2d 508,37 A.D.2d 261
• Parties: , 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2334, 65 Lab.Cas. P 52,586 In the Matter of Marian TISCHLER, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the MONROE WOODBURY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 508

323 N.Y.S.2d 508

37 A.D.2d 261, 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2334,

65 Lab.Cas. P 52,586

In the Matter of Marian TISCHLER, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the MONROE WOODBURY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 23, 1971.

Milton Tischler, Monroe, for appellant.

Albert Mishkin, Monroe, for respondent.

Before HOPKINS, Acting P.J. and MARTUSCELLO, SHAPIRO, GULOTTA and BENJAMIN, JJ.

GULOTTA, Justice.

In this proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Special Term in Orange County which granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition upon the ground that it failed to state a cause of action.

The petitioner was appointed by the respondent for a three-year period commencing January 13, 1967, as a probationary elementary school teacher pursuant to section 3012 of the Education Law. On November 7, 1969, prior to the expiration of her probationary appointment, she was called to a meeting with her Principal, with the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, and with the Director of Elentary Education, who informed her that it was not probable that she would be granted tenure by the respondent School Board at its next public meeting, at which time the issue apparently was to be decided. She then conferred with the Superintendent of Schools in an effort to obtain an understanding of the reasons behind such a decision, but the Superintendent was unable to clarify the situation. On November 12, 1969, a public meeting of the School Board was held before some 100 citizens, parents and teachers, at which time, the petition alleges, the Principal, the Assistant Principal, the Director of Elementary Education and the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum endorsed the recommendation made by the Superintendent of Schools that the Board grant tenure to the petitioner. We note, in this regard, that the recommendation of the Superintendent is missing from the Board's motion papers. However, the petitioner's contention is supported by a statement of one of the speakers at the public meeting which clearly indicates that the Superintendent had, in fact, endorsed the petitioner. The record shows that the speaker said, 'I would like to concur in the recommendation of the superintendent of schools that Marian Tischler be granted tenure.'

On November 13, 1969, the Superintendent of Schools informed the petitioner in writing that the Board had voted to deny tenure. About one week later, the petitioner received a letter from the President of the Board which purported to express the reasons which had prompted the Board's denial. The letter stated that the quality of instruction was the only factor in the Board's decision and that the petitioner had not met the standard it was trying to achieve in the school district. The petitioner continued to teach until January 12, 1970, when her probationary term of employment expired.

Thereafter, the petitioner brought this proceeding to compel the Board to grant her tenure, alleging that the Board's action was a retaliatory measure designed to punish her for the exercise of her constitutional right to engage in activities as a member of a local teachers' union, that the decision was arbitrary and capricious in that it was not made on the basis of any reasonable standard, and that it was made despite her professional competency as acknowledged by her superiors at the Board meeting. The Board moved to dismiss the petition in lieu of an answer, contending that it had the absolute right to deny tenure to a probationary teacher for any or no reason. The Special Term granted the motion to dismiss and held that the petition failed to state a cause of action, saying:

"It has been established that under that statute (referring to section 2573 Education Law) and similar statutes (Education Law sections 3012, 3013), the services of a probationary teacher may be discontinued without a hearing and without the giving of reasons therefor (Matter of Grace v. Board of Educ., 19 A.D.2d 637 (241 N.Y.S.2d 429); Matter of High v. Board of Educ., 169 Misc. 98 (6 N.Y.S.2d 928) affd. 256 App.Div. 1074 (11 N.Y.S.2d 669), affd. 281 N.Y. 815 (24 N.E.2d 486); Matter of Hickey v. Carey, 275 App.Div. 964 (89 N.Y.S.2d 610))' (Matter of Pinto v. Wynstra, 22 A.D.2d 914 at 915 (255 N.Y.S.2d 536 at 538)) * * *.

Despite the recommendation of a tenure appointment by a District Superintendent, the Board of Education is not foreclosed from denying tenure (Matter of McMaster v. Owens, 275 App.Div. 506, 90 N.Y.S.2d 491; Matter of Gunthorpe v. Board of Education, 41 Misc.2d 757, 246 N.Y.S.2d 462).'

The petitioner's appeal from the order entered upon that decision presents a question as to the scope of the power of a board of education to deny tenure to a probationary teacher. Under the terms of subdivision 2 of section 3012 of the Education Law, the Superintendent of Schools is required to recommend probationary teachers for appointment on tenure at the end of their probationary term if he finds them to be 'competent, efficient and satisfactory'. The Superintendent's recommendation is a screening device which brings before the Board of Education all those who are qualified by objective standards (Albaum v. Carey, 283 F.Supp. 3; Id.,310 F.Supp. 594). The statute clearly contemplates that the recommendation be voted upon by the Board, but fails to prescribe precise standards for the Board's action. Thus the Board is given broad discretion to take into account the intangible subjective factors that are impossible to enumerate but which are inherent in the choice of a permanent teaching staff for carrying on the work of the school district. Nevertheless, there is no reason to believe that the Board's discretion is boundless.

Specifically, it is clear that the respondent School Board may not deny tenure for the purpose of retaliating against a teacher for an exercise of constitutional rights (Roth v. Board of Regents of State Colleges, D.C., 310...