In a strongly worded decision Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam has criticized the DOE for its failure to remove a letter to the file and arguing, as it had before, the same legal argument that was rejected by the court last year. As we reported here before Justice Salaam was one of the Justices who forced the removal of disciplinary letters as no due process hearing was afforded the tenured teacher.
In the current case, PS 41’s physical education teacher, Helen Hickey brought an Article 78 proceeding to challenge her principal’s placement of a letter that led to a “U” rating. The letter concerned Hickey’s actions during a May 2008 Field Day. According the Court, “The thrust of the letter is that Hickey did not competently organize and set up the equipment and that as a result, the activities began 20 minutes late. The letter states, among other things, that Ms. Hickey’s conduct demonstrated her incompetence and her “unsatisfactory professional attitude’’ and advises that “. . this incident may lead to further disciplinary action including unsatisfactory rating and charges that can lead to your termination.” (June 3, 2008 letter, p. 2.) Petitioner has alleged, and respondent has admitted that this letter is a reprimand
“Given that the letter speaks of “further disciplinary action,’ the court concludes that the letter is at least, in part, a disciplinary reprimand and not simply a critical administrative evaluation.”
The Court ordered the removal of the letter but would not reject the “U” rating since Hickey’s administrative appeals were not exhausted.
Hickey v. NYC/BOE, Index No. 112353/2008, New York Supreme Court, 1/29/09 Click here for the full decision.