In light of the fact that teachers are now voting on a new contract, perhaps a review of the cases of Helen Hickey and Rachel Cohn is timely. The UFT bargained away important procedural due process rights available under Education Law 3020-a. See below, the Court of Appeals ruled that:
"...with respect to the placement of written materials in tenured teachers' files, that petitioners' union was well aware that, by adopting the CBA provision, it was agreeing to substitute that procedure for other due process procedures that had previously been in place. Therefore, there was ample basis to conclude that the union knowingly waived the procedural rights granted in section 3020-a in that limited arena."
No. 101, No.102
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
April 28, 2011, Argued
June 2, 2011, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal, in the first above-entitled proceeding, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered June 3, 2010. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which had directed expungement of a letter from petitioner's personnel file, (2) denied the petition, and (3) dismissed the proceeding. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the order of this Court, which reversed the [judgment] of the Supreme Court, properly made?"
Matter of Hickey v New York City Dept. of Educ., 74 AD3d 458, 903 NYS2d 362, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4619 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't, 2010), affirmed.
Matter of Cohn v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 74 AD3d 457, 901 NYS2d 640, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4624 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't, 2010), affirmed.
DISPOSITION: In Each Case: Order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary, in a memorandum.
COUNSEL: Richard M. Krinsky, Brooklyn, for appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding.
Sherry B. Bokser, New York City, Richard E. Casagrande, Ariana A. Gambella and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, for appellant in the second above-entitled proceeding.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Dona B. Morris and Francis F. Caputo of counsel), for respondents in the first and second above-entitled proceedings.
JUDGES: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.