Matter of Melendez v. Board of Education, 70 N.Y.2d 765 (1987)
A Board of Education’s decision to terminate a probationary teacher is final when made, even if the teacher seeks review under a collective bargaining agreement, unless the initial termination was unlawful.
Summary
Melendez, a probationary teacher, was notified of his termination. He sought review under the collective bargaining agreement, and the Chancellor reversed the initial decision and reinstated him. The Board of Education appealed, arguing the initial termination was final. The Court of Appeals held that the Chancellor’s original action terminated Melendez’s rights as a probationary appointee, and the review process did not alter the finality of that decision. The court emphasized the Board’s broad discretion in making tenure decisions and that the review procedure was optional and did not affect the teacher’s substantive rights.
Facts
Melendez was a probationary English as a Second Language teacher. On June 28, 1984, the Chancellor notified Melendez his probationary appointment was terminated effective September 4, 1984. This termination was based on a recommendation from the Superintendent of Bronx High Schools. The notification advised Melendez of his right to seek review under Section 5.3.4 of the Board of Education bylaws.
Procedural History
Melendez filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding, claiming the Chancellor’s initial action was nonfinal and ineffective until the review was complete. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Melendez. The Appellate Division affirmed, directing reinstatement retroactive to September 4, 1984, with back pay and full benefits. The Board of Education appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Chancellor’s original action terminating petitioner’s probationary appointment under Education Law § 2573 (1) (a) was final as of September 4, 1984, or whether the action was nonfinal and ineffective until completion of the review procedure.
Holding
No, because the review procedure established in the bylaws does not pertain to the finality of the Chancellor’s decision; it is procedural only and does not affect the teacher’s substantive rights under the statute.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that Education Law § 2573 (1) (a) grants the Board of Education the right to terminate a probationary teacher at any time, absent a constitutionally impermissible purpose, statutory violation, or bad faith. The court stated, “From the language of Education Law § 2573 (1) (a), it is evident that a decision not to grant tenure to a probationary teacher, once made, is intended to be final.” The review procedure in the bylaws, Section 5.3.4, is an optional procedure allowing a teacher to request reconsideration. It does not postpone the effective date of the Chancellor’s action. The court reasoned that construing the review process as delaying the termination’s effective date would lead to anomalous results, such as requiring full salary payments during the review, regardless of its outcome. The court distinguished Matter of Golomb v. Board of Educ. because in that case, the termination was procedurally defective. Here, the Chancellor’s letter met all statutory requirements, giving proper notice of the termination within the probationary period. The court emphasized, “There is nothing tentative or conditional about the letter. The message is simple and direct: that petitioner’s ‘probationary service as a teacher of ESL is terminated as of the close of business on September 4, 1984′ (emphasis supplied).”