New York education law provides certain legal protections for tenured public school teachers. A teacher can only be fired or disciplined after a Section 3020-a administrative hearing. These hearings do not follow the same evidentiary and procedural rules as civil trials in state or federal court. Yet the decisions of a 3020-a hearing officer can limit your litigation options if you are dissatisfied with the hearing officer's decision.
Federal Court Will Not “Re-Litigate” Issues Decided by 3020-a Hearing
For example, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a fired New York City public schoolteacher's attempts to overturn the results of his 3020-a hearing in court. The plaintiff worked as a teacher for approximately 18 years. The defendant, the New York City Board of Education, charged the plaintiff with “nine counts of incompetency and misconduct.” The plaintiff argued he was the victim of “retaliation” by the Board, which failed to accommodate his disabilities as required by law. Nevertheless, the Section 3020-a hearing officer sustained most of the Board's charges and decided the plaintiff should be terminated from his position.
The plaintiff then pursued an appeal of the 3020-a decision in New York State Supreme Court. The Appellate Division ultimately rejected the appeal, noting that the hearing officer's findings were “amply supported by the record” and that there was no evidence of illegal disability discrimination or retaliation on the part of the Board.
Not satisfied with this outcome, the plaintiff then pursued a discrimination charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which led to him filing a new lawsuit in federal court. Unfortunately, the district court held that he was “collaterally estopped” from pursuing his disability discrimination and retaliation claims. In plain English, since the New York Supreme Court disposed of these questions when it rejected the plaintiff's initial state-level appeal, he could not now re-litigate the same questions in federal court.
The Second Circuit agreed and affirmed the district court's decision. As the federal appellate court explained, “We generally give preclusive effect to a state agency's administrative findings if the state's courts would do the same.” This includes a 3020-a hearing officer's determination of an employee's claims under federal law, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, provided the hearing officer's decisions “have been judicially reviewed,” as was the case here.
Additionally, collateral estoppel only applies if the underlying issue was “material” to the original 3020-a proceeding. In this case, the plaintiff raised discrimination and retaliation claims as part of his defense to the Board's misconduct charges. The hearing officer's findings on those issues were therefore “material” and barred re-litigation.
Speak with a New York City Employment and Education Law Attorney Today
If you are a schoolteacher facing a disciplinary hearing, you need to take prompt action to assert and preserve your legal rights. An experienced New York City employment lawyer can help. Contact the Law Offices of Mahir S. Nisar to schedule a consultation with a member of our team today.