Vetter v. Board of Education, Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Central School District, 13 N.Y.3d 730 (2009)

r
r

When a school board fails to provide a probationary teacher with the statutorily required notice of termination, the teacher is entitled to compensation for the period the notice was deficient, even if that period falls during summer vacation.

r
r

Summary

r

David Vetter, a probationary teacher, was terminated by the Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk Central School District Board of Education. The Board failed to provide Vetter with the 30-day written notice required by Education Law § 3019-a. Vetter sued, seeking salary for the 28-day notice deficiency and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals held that Vetter was entitled to 28 days’ salary despite the notice period falling during summer vacation, as the purpose of the notice is to allow the teacher time to seek other employment. However, the court denied his claim for attorney’s fees.

r
r

Facts

r

r
David Vetter was a probationary teacher for the 2005-2006 school year.r
On June 21, 2006, the Board voted to terminate Vetter effective July 21, 2006.r
Vetter did not receive written notice of the termination until two days before it took effect, far short of the 30 days required by Education Law § 3019-a.r

r
r

Procedural History

r

r
Vetter initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking salary for 28 days due to the Board’s violation of Education Law § 3019-a, a name-clearing hearing, and counsel fees.r
Supreme Court denied the Education Law § 3019-a claim but awarded attorney’s fees.r
The Appellate Division reversed the award of counsel fees and otherwise affirmed, finding Vetter not entitled to pay because the notice period occurred during summer vacation.r
The Court of Appeals granted Vetter leave to appeal.r

r
r

Issue(s)

r

r
Whether a probationary teacher is entitled to compensation for a school board’s failure to provide the 30-day notice of termination required by Education Law § 3019-a, when the deficient notice period falls during summer vacation.r
Whether the petitioner is entitled to counsel fees under 42 USC § 1988.r

r
r

Holding

r

r
Yes, because the purpose of the notice provision is to allow teachers time to seek other employment, and the right to compensation for a notice violation is not negated by the fact that the deficient period occurred during summer vacation.r
No, because the petitioner is not entitled to counsel fees under 42 USC § 1988r

r
r

Court’s Reasoning

r

r
The Court of Appeals relied on Education Law § 3019-a, which mandates that school authorities provide probationary teachers with written notice of termination at least 30 days before the effective date.r
The Court also referenced Matter of Tucker v Board of Educ., Community School Dist. No. 10, 82 NY2d 274 (1993), establishing that teachers are entitled to “one day’s pay for each day the notice was late” (id. at 278).r
The Court reasoned that the Board’s failure to comply with Education Law § 3019-a warranted a compensation remedy, even though the 28-day period fell during summer vacation. The court stated,