Glass Krakower, LLP (GHNYLaw.com) is evaluating the potential for a class-action suit on behalf of teachers, most of which are members of the Absent Teacher Reserve pool (ATR).
We will begin by circulating this questionnaire below.
The general approach would be to indicate how the New York City School system's budget formula, called Fair Student Funding, is de-incentivizing school administrators from hiring experienced educators.
We specialize in providing legal recourse, and advice, to protect New York-based teachers from disciplinary abuse by school administrators. www.GHNYLaw.com Bryan D. Glass, Esq., Michael Donnelly, Esq. and John Hogrogian, Esq.
Monday, December 11, 2017
Thursday, November 16, 2017
Taking Educator's Free Speech to the Court of Appeals - Portelos v. Hill et al.
 |
| US Court of Appeals in NYC |
Yesterday, our firm took a big case to the second highest court in the country. In short, teacher, parent and activist Francesco Portelos spoke up about what he saw was wrong in his neighborhood school. He was immediately retaliated against by his supervisors and higher up employees of the New york City Department of Education. We filed a lawsuit in June 2012 and ultimately had a federal trial in August 2016.
Saturday, June 3, 2017
Another Victory at GHNY Law - Teacher at CPE1 Exonerated
The NYC Department of Education has seen a very turbulent environment erupt after Principal Monika Garg became principal at Central Park East 1. Investigations have been launched, staff was reassigned, and parents have been barred. Parents met with our firm and one staff member, who had frivolous charges launched against them, hired us to get him back to his students and school community. We are happy to announce that on May 15, 2017, Arbitrator Marc Winters dismissed all charges.
"The evidence in this case does not support the charges, filed by the DOE. After weighing the evidence presented by the parties and accessing the credibility of the witnesses, including a videotape this Hearing Officer finds the Respondent not guilty of the conduct charged in Specifications 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6."
"The evidence in this case does not support the charges, filed by the DOE. After weighing the evidence presented by the parties and accessing the credibility of the witnesses, including a videotape this Hearing Officer finds the Respondent not guilty of the conduct charged in Specifications 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6."
Thursday, March 2, 2017
GHNY Law Wins Another Teacher Their Job Back
After 17 years, with an unblemished record, Superstorm Sandy hit and displaced a special education home instructor and her disabled student.
The Court writes:
"This is not, as respondents would have it, a case of extended, intentional and self-serving misconduct or repeated and continuous neglect of duty, but rather an isolated instance of neglect occurring under circumstances of extraordinary personal hardship and involving a teacher who had an otherwise unblemished and longstanding record. Had Superstorm Sandy not upended her life, there is no indication that petitioner's wrongdoing would have occurred."
"In the aftermath of this unique disaster, DOE provided teachers with no guidance or information as to the instruction of students displaced by Hurricane Sandy, other than that displaced students would not be penalized."
"In the aftermath of this unique disaster, DOE provided teachers with no guidance or information as to the instruction of students displaced by Hurricane Sandy, other than that displaced students would not be penalized."
Thursday, January 5, 2017
ATTENTION: Discontinued Probationary Teachers Only Have 4 Months from Last Day of Employment to File an Article 78
We unfortunately see too many probationary teachers come in to see us too late. They have strong cases, but waited to take action after they lost their appeal. This has been decided in the courts to be untimely.
Unfortunately, they are not advised properly by their union. Please make to come to see us as soon as you can to make sure you do not miss your opportunity to start a case.
See also:
Court of Appeals: Terminated Probationary Teachers have 4 months to file Article 78
Terminated probationary teachers had been faced with a dilemma-should I file an Article 78 within four months of my termination and have the respondent’s move to dismiss my petition for "failing to exhaust my administrative remedies" or wait for the decision of an internal appeal and have Respondent’s move to dismiss their Petition as untimely having been filed more than 4 months after the termination date.
New York State’s highest court apparently resolved this conflict and decided on February 14, 2012 that probationary teachers have four months to file an Article 78 to appeal their termination. The 4 months time limit runs from the final day of service.
Leslie Khan and Doreen Nash did not file Article 78 petitions within 4 months of their terminations. Leslie Khan was terminated "… as of the close of business January 25, 2008" She filed a DOE appeal of her probationary termination on January 3, 2008. Despite the committee’s non-concurrence with the termination on May 9, 2008 the superintendent informed Khan that she "reaffirmed the previous action dated January 25, 2008. On September 9, 2008 Khan initiated an Article 78.
Doreen Nash started working for the DOE on September 3, 2002. In 2005 she received a "U" for the 2004-2005 school year. On June 16, 2005 Nash filed a DOE appeal. Nash’s employment was terminated July 15, 2005. The Chancellor’s Committee held a meeting on May 10, 2006 and recommended "non-concurrence". Nevertheless, the superintendent of Brooklyn High Schools reaffirmed Nash’s discontinuance as of "close of business July 18, 2005" Nash filed an Article 78 on September 10, 2008.
The Court held that both Khan and Nash had 4 months to appeal their termination. Their filing internal Chancellor Committee appeals did not extend the limitation of time to file an appeal.
The Court explained: " Because a determination pursuant to Education Law 2573(1)(a) to discontinue a probationary employee’s service becomes final and binding on that employee on his or her last day at work-as Frasier holds-CPLR 217 (1) dictates that any suit to challenge the determination must be commenced within four months after that date.
You can read the Probationary teacher Khan case here.
In addition, some teachers posted some advice here uftsolidarity.org/discontinued
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Teacher's Lawyer helps another teacher get their job back
Middle school gossip should not be permitted to ruin a 13 year stellar career. In a 3020-a hearing, an arbitrator terminated a 13 year physical education teacher, despite the DOE's poor evidence. The teacher retained our firm and we filed an Article 75 to vacate his termination. Justice was delayed, but finally served. Our firm was able to argue for the teacher and the Supreme Court of New York County reversed the arbitrator's decision. Bryan D. Glass, Esq. and Jordan F. Harlow. Esq.
The court's decision states:
"Based on all the circumstances of the case, including the lack of any prior allegations of misconduct against petitioner during 13 years of service and the fact that the misconduct does
not violate any specific rule or regulation, we find the penalty of termination sufficiently disproportionate to the offenses to shock the conscience (see Lackow v Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563, 569 [1st Dept 2008])."
If you, or someone you know, was terminated or fined, or is need of representation at a 3020-a hearing, please fill out the form on our website www.ghnylaw.com
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
A win against the DOE's growing incompetency cases
Despite continuous changes to the NYS evaluation law, the system is still heavily subjective. Many of our clients suddenly find themselves rated unsatisfactory, or ineffective, even though they have over 20 years of satisfactory experience.
A recent UFT arbitration victory can help build a defense against attacks for those still rated under the Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory method. See the article below and contact us via our intake form on GHNYLaw.com should you need legal representation.
A recent UFT arbitration victory can help build a defense against attacks for those still rated under the Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory method. See the article below and contact us via our intake form on GHNYLaw.com should you need legal representation.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Dangerous tenure decision-Vergara v. State of California (2014)
http://studentsmatter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Tenative-Decision.pdf
Hat tip: Adjunct Professor Law blog
Hat tip: Adjunct Professor Law blog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)