THE TEACHER'S LAWYER: We filed an Age Discrimination Complaint on Behalf of 13 Veteran Adult Education Teachers

Thursday, May 10, 2018

We filed an Age Discrimination Complaint on Behalf of 13 Veteran Adult Education Teachers

BREAKING from the Chief Leader Newspaper

'On a Mission to Get Rid of Senior People'

13 Adult Ed. Teachers Sue, Claiming Age Bias Behind Negative Evaluations

By CRYSTAL LEWIS May 10,

ROSE-MARIE MILLS: Claim she’s engaged in purge.

‘THE ATMOSPHERE HAS CHANGED’: Sarah Tyson, who has worked for the Office of Adult and Continuing Education for 21 years as a Case Manager Counselor, said she was given an ‘unsatisfactory’ rating for attendance for taking time off to care for her sick mother after her request for leave was denied. ‘This program used to be a family,’ she lamented.

EASIER SAID THAN EXPLAINED: Roberta Pikser, who was fired last year after 16 years of teaching adult education, said Teachers were told they were given negative ratings for not differentiating among the needs of their students, but that they were given no guidance on how such distinctions were to be made.

FacebookTwitterEmailPrintSave

Thirteen educators over the age of 50 who worked in the Department of Education’s troubled Office of Adult and Continuing Education have filed a suit claiming that they were targeted with poor ratings and discipline because of their age.

Former Adult Education Teachers have previously described low morale and a hostile climate under the leadership of Superintendent Rose-Marie Mills, who has run the program since 2012.

‘Suddenly I’m Bad’

“Up until Ms. Mills took over, I’d received satisfactory evaluations, but the year she took over I suddenly became a bad Teacher,” said Lisa Miller, 57, who taught at OACE for nine years before she was discontinued.

“It’s like they were on a mission to get rid of all of the senior people,” said Sarah Tyson, 63, who has worked in the program for 21 years as a Case Manager Counselor.

Last year, OACE served 28,700 students seeking to learn English, earn high-school equivalency diplomas or get career training. According to several staff members, at the end of the 2016-2017 school year, 28 of the program’s 140 Teachers received unsatisfactory ratings -- most of whom were older than 40, the age protected by employment-discrimination laws. That 20 percent of the educators received unsatisfactory ratings was a sharp contrast with the less-than one percent of Teachers who receive the lowest rating system-wide.

Several Teachers described receiving what they claimed were unfair “unsatisfactory” ratings after classroom observations. The Chief has previously reported that former Assistant Principal Luckisha Amankwah believed she was retaliated against after she didn’t give negative evaluations to two Teachers who had filed grievances.

Program Turned ‘Toxic’

Adam Weiss, 55, who retired last month and taught in the program for 27 years with an unblemished record prior to Ms. Mills’s tenure, claimed he started receiving multiple letters in his file during his last years on the job.

“One year, it was really egregious: I had two observations in the fall I got satisfactory ratings on, and then at the 11th hour in June I was observed and given an unsatisfactory,” he said, adding that he got the negative evaluation because of an incorrect lesson plan.

He said he appealed the rating, and got the unsatisfactory mark removed from his record after he won. He said that in recent years, the adult education program has become “toxic.”

“I was praised for my teaching and my students were fond of me: before, it wasn’t a cutthroat environment,” he said.

Ms. Tyson said she received an unsatisfactory rating last year for attendance after she left the state to take care of her sick mother; her request for time off was denied.

‘Used to Be a Family’

“This program used to be a family,” the union chapter leader said. “But now the atmosphere has changed.”

Educators who receive unsatisfactory marks are barred from teaching summer classes or substituting, negatively affecting their income.

For Ms. Miller, who currently teaches adult literacy at two other programs part-time, the result of multiple unsatisfactory ratings was her termination in 2016. She said she had to cash out her pension in order to survive.

She said that she received negative comments in her observations for things such as not telling students to discuss the lesson with each other and for not differentiating, or teaching to individual students' needs.

“There are things that make it hard to teach adults,” she said. Unlike schoolchildren, she noted, attendance isn’t mandatory for adult learners, whose skill level can vary from being unable to speak English to having advanced degrees. “I think Mills wants to follow the model of how K-12 Teachers teach. She doesn’t like the way we teach, but it’s a different game.”

A Word Without Clarity

Roberta Pikser, 76, who worked at the OACE for 16 years before being fired last year, said she believed differentiation was the reason many of the veteran Teachers were given bad ratings. “The big word was ‘differentiation,’” she said. “But no one ever said ‘it should be differentiated this way’ or ‘it should be that way,’” she added, noting that the union’s contract leaves implementing the instruction method up to a Teacher’s discretion.

The four veteran Teachers were among the 13 who joined forces last June after they realized how many senior Teachers received negative evaluations.

“We thought we’d have a better chance defending ourselves from this attack as a group,” Ms. Pikser said.

Ms. Tyson said that as a chapter leader, she felt it was her duty to speak out. “Most of the Teachers are afraid for their livelihood,” she said.

The educators are being represented by attorney Bryan Glass. "Discrimination and harassment have no place in our public schools,” he said. “We look forward to resolving this as expediently as possible for the sake of our clients and their students."

A spokesman for the Law Department said it would review and respond to the complaint.

A Conditional Wish

Ms. Pikser is hoping to have her job restored, for the unsatisfactory rating to be removed from her record and to receive back pay. “I want to be made whole,” she said.

Ms. Miller said she was seeking back pay and damages. “Maybe my job back, too,” she said. “But not if Mills is still in control.”

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our publication strong and independent. Join us.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Sit Down With the Chief

Mueller's Questions for Trump

2 comments:

Andrew JamesMay 23, 2018 at 1:18 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete
Replies
SEO ExpertMarch 9, 2019 at 6:20 AM
Wonderful blog! I found it while surfing around on Yahoo News. Do you have any suggestions on how to get listed in Yahoo News? I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to get there! Appreciate it. state farm collision deductible
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Polayes v City of New York 2014 NY Slip Op 03958 Decided on June 3, 2014 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 June 3, 2014 Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Freedman, Clark, JJ. 12649 156710/12 [*1] In re Jonathan Polayes, Petitioner-Appellant, v City of New York, at al., Respondents-Respondents. Glass Krakower LLC, New York (John Hogrogian of counsel), for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Janet L. Zaleon of counsel), for respondents. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered January 18, 2013, which denied the petition to vacate an arbitration award imposed pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a, finding petitioner guilty of teacher misconduct and terminating his employment with respondent New York City Department of Education, and granted respondents' cross motion to dismiss the proceeding and confirm the award, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, the cross motion denied, and the arbitration award vacated. The evidence presented at the arbitration hearing established that petitioner, while acting as a substitute teacher covering a double-period class for high school senior students, participated in conversation with a group of the students concerning their college choices and post-graduation internship plans. The class took place during the height of the college application process, and right before the winter break. During the conversation, petitioner offered to serve as a contact point for a potential internship at a media company for a female student who had expressed an interest in film and media. The student testified that she appreciated this and was not offended by the offer. When a male student then indicated that he did not want to do an internship or work during the summer after graduation, petitioner whispered to the female student something to the effect of "watch how they react to this," and proceeded to tell the students about a valuable internship experience he had before he went to college. The female student also was not offended by this. When another male student expressed his interest in attending a college that was widely reported to be a "party school," petitioner asked him something to the effect of, "so you're the type to party with," or "you want to go to school to party." The student testified that he was "not offended in any way" by the comment. Rather, the several students who testified generally indicated that they enjoyed the class and found it to have been more interesting than expected from a substitute. Respondent has not identified any rule or statute that classifies such statements and action as teacher misconduct. Under all the circumstances, the finding that petitioner's actions constituted teacher misconduct is not supported by adequate evidence, and is arbitrary and capricious (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or "Board"]; of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 567 [1st Dept 2008]). We note that petitioner had a disciplinary history including findings of non-sexual touching of students, and that two prior disciplinary awards expressly warned him not to touch his students again. However, it is undisputed that petitioner did not touch any of his students in the case at bar. Thus, contrary to the arbitrator's finding, the evidence did not indicate that petitioner failed to heed prior warnings (cf. Matter of Forte v Mills, 250 AD2d 882. 884 [3d Dept 1998]; Matter of Jerry v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Syracuse, 50 AD2d 149, 157 [4th Dept 1975], appeal dismissed 39 NY2d 1057 [1976]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: JUNE 3, 2014 CLERK

Guzman v. NYCDOE et al., App. Div. 1st Dept Decided on April 4, 2013 Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Abdus-Salaam, Gische, JJ. 9727 106140/11 [*1]In re Minerva Guzman, Petitioner-Appellant, v City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents. Glass Krakower LLP, New York (Bryan D. Glass of counsel), for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for respondents. Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered March 5, 2012, confirming an arbitration award, dated May 4, 2011, which terminated petitioner's employment as a public school teacher upon a finding that she engaged in a fraudulent scheme to enroll her granddaughter in public school using a false address, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a and CPLR article 75, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the finding of guilt as to Specification 1-A-1 (that petitioner engaged in the scheme to avoid payment of non-resident tuition) and vacate the penalty of termination, and to remand the matter for the imposition of an appropriate penalty, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Respondent Department of Education conceded at the hearing that petitioner's granddaughter was entitled to a tuition-free education in New York City public schools, and the hearing officer made no finding that the child was not a City resident. Nor does the record establish that the child was not a City resident. Thus, there is no rational basis upon which to conclude that petitioner engaged in a scheme with the purpose of defrauding respondent out of non-resident tuition (see Motor Veh. Mfrs. Assn. of U.S. v State of New York, 75 NY2d 175, 186 [1990]; Lackow v Department of Educ. [or "Board"] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 567 [1st Dept 2008]). However, as petitioner concedes, substantial evidence supports the charge that she acted in concert to file a false instrument (Specification 1-B), to wit, engaged in a scheme to use a school aide's address to enroll her granddaughter in the school at which she taught, and that she [*2]improperly obtained the school's services (Specification 1-A-2), since the child should not have been enrolled there. In light of the foregoing, we remand for the imposition of an appropriate lesser penalty. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: APRIL 4, 2013 CLERK

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) ABOUT SECTION 3020-A

Are hearings held before a hearing officer or a panel?

Disciplinary charges brought by an employing board against a tenured employee are heard by a single hearing officer except when the charges concern pedagogical incompetence or issues involving pedagogical judgement. In these cases only, the employee may choose to have the charges heard by either a single hearing officer or a three-member panel.

What types of changes are considered pedagogical?

While the term "pedagogical" is not defined in either the statute or the Commissioner's Regulations, charges that fall into that category include inability to control a class, failure to prepare required lesson plans, failure to maintain certification, and other matters that directly pertain to teaching techniques and issues of this nature.

Who provides the list of Hearing Officers?

The American Arbitration Association (AAA) maintains the panel of potential hearing officers for Section 3020-a proceedings. This association also provides a list for each individual proceeding.

Is there a fee associated with requesting a hearing?

The AAA is a non profit organization which relies on administrative fees to continue providing services. Commissioner's Regulations as amended by the Board of Regents in September 1994 stipulate that the fee for providing the list of potential hearing officers for Section 3020-a proceedings is to be paid by the School District preferring the charges. This fee is $150.00. If the parties are unable to mutually select a hearing officer and request that the AAA make the selection, an additional fee of $50.00 will be required.

When is a hearing commenced?

Under the law, a hearing is commenced when the State Education Department submits a request to AAA for a list of potential hearing officers.

As a taxpayer, don't I have the right to know if a teacher in our school has been brought up on charges?

Section 3020-a provides an avenue for resolving disciplinary issues between an employer and an employing board. Until an individual has been found guilty by a hearing officer or hearing panel, all aspects of the disciplinary proceeding are strictly confidential. If the employee is found to be guilty of one or more of the charges, the record is then available pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law.

Thursday, May 10, 2018

We filed an Age Discrimination Complaint on Behalf of 13 Veteran Adult Education Teachers

2 comments:

Total Pageviews