Matter of Bork v. Board of Educ., 64 N.Y.2d 281 (1984)
A teacher’s right to “bump” a less senior teacher in another tenure area, granted by the Rules of the Board of Regents, applies only to those who received a probationary appointment after August 1, 1975, and only within tenure areas created by those Rules.
Summary
This case addresses the scope of teacher “bumping” rights following the abolition of a tenured teaching position. Bork, a tenured physical education teacher, argued she was wrongly denied a full-time position when a more senior teacher, Huprich, whose health education position was eliminated, was assigned to a two-fifths physical education position. The Court of Appeals held that Huprich was properly placed because the “bumping” rights established by the Board of Regents applied only to tenure areas created after August 1, 1975, and physical education was a pre-existing tenure area. Therefore, despite his seniority, Huprich was not subject to the new rules that would have allowed Bork to claim the full-time position. The case was remitted to determine Bork’s entitlement to back pay and benefits for the period she was not employed full-time.
Facts
Bork received a probationary appointment as a physical education teacher on September 1, 1977, and obtained tenure in 1980. In April 1981, she was notified her position would be eliminated. She was then offered a three-fifths physical education position. Huprich had been a physical education teacher since 1959, then became Acting Director of Physical Education. He returned to teaching physical education until 1977, when he moved to health education. In 1981, his two-fifths health education position was abolished, and he was assigned to a two-fifths physical education position. Bork claimed she was entitled to the full-time position over Huprich.
Procedural History
Bork brought suit challenging the Board of Education’s decision. The lower courts ruled in favor of Bork. The Board of Education appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the “bumping” rights granted by the Rules of the Board of Regents (8 NYCRR 30.13) apply to a tenured teacher in a pre-existing tenure area when a more senior teacher from another tenure area is excessed.
Holding
No, because the “bumping” rights established by the Board of Regents apply only to those who received a probationary appointment after August 1, 1975, and only within tenure areas created by those Rules. Here, physical education was a pre-existing tenure area.
Court’s Reasoning
The court focused on the Board of Regents’ Rules, specifically 8 NYCRR 30.2(a) and 30.13. Section 30.2(a) limits the applicability of Part 30 to probationary appointments made on or after August 1, 1975. Section 30.13 grants “bumping” rights to those excessed from a tenure area, allowing them to transfer to another tenure area “created by this Part” if they have greater seniority. The court emphasized that these rights are explicitly limited to tenure areas established by Part 30 of the Rules.
The court noted that both parties agreed that physical education and health education were separate tenure areas before Part 30’s adoption. Huprich’s tenure in physical education predated August 1, 1975, and therefore was not governed by the new bumping rules. The court rejected the argument that Huprich’s return to physical education in 1975 constituted a new appointment, stating that a tenured teacher cannot be given a subsequent probationary appointment in the same area, as it would undermine their existing tenure. The court stated, “[s]hould the individual so identified have tenure or be in probationary status in additional tenure areas created by this Part, he shall be transferred to such other tenure area in which he has greatest seniority and shall be retained in such area if there is a professional educator having less seniority than he in such other tenure area”.
The court acknowledged the potential inconsistency with Education Law § 2510 regarding seniority but deferred to the Board of Regents’ decision to limit bumping rights. The court emphasized that prior to Part 30, seniority did not include the right to bump and the Board of Regent had the right to limit those rights to the tenure areas created by the part.
The court dismissed the argument regarding Huprich’s knowledge of being moved to a different tenure area, noting that it was not properly raised in the respondent’s answer and that it was conceded that health education and physical education were separate tenure areas before Part 30.