Glen Fox Loses His Appeal in the First Department

Glen, a "great" Guidance Counselor, was charged with 3020-a charges, and he chose to hire Attorney Stuart Lichten, the husband of Senior NYSUT Attorney Maria Elena Gonzales Lichten. Lichten is on contract to the CSA, the Principal's Union, and defends UFT President Mike Mulgrew in Court cases where the UFT or NYSUT are named Defendants. Whose side is he on?

Attorney Lichten lost the 3020-a, and Glen was terminated. Glen appealed in an Article 75 to the Supreme Court, and won his case! see here:

Guidance Counselor Glen Fox Wins His Supreme Court Petition To Overturn His Termination By Former DOE Arbitrator Lana Flame, Esq.

The Corporation Counsel Appealed this decision, and the First Department  decided to re-instate Glen's termination after Glen's Attorney, Bryan Glass,
gave oral argument.

Very disappointing.

Betsy Combier, Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
President, ADVOCATZ

Matter of Fox v New York City Dept. of Educ.

2015 NY Slip Op 07792

Decided on October 27, 2015

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 27, 2015 
Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

15967 101263/13 

[*1] In re Glen Fox, Petitioner-Respondent, 

v

The New York City Department of Education, Respondent-Appellant.

Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for appellant.

Glass Krakower LLP, New York (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered May 9, 2014, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, vacating the penalty of termination of petitioner's employment, and remanding the matter for a determination by a new hearing officer of a lesser penalty, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition dismissed, and the penalty reinstated.

Petitioner, a tenured guidance counselor at a New York City school, engaged in a course of conduct over two years demonstrating, inter alia, insubordination, professional unfitness, inability to handle a crisis situation, disclosure of confidential information, and inadequate record keeping. The termination of his employment is not so disproportionate to this pattern of misconduct as to shock our sense of fairness (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or "Board"] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 569 [1st Dept 2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 27, 2015

CLERK