Derle v. North Bellmore Union Free School District, 77 N.Y.2d 483 (1991)
A school district lacks the statutory authority to withhold a teacher’s salary during an adjournment of a disciplinary hearing under Education Law § 3020-a, even if the teacher requested the adjournment pending the resolution of related criminal charges, unless the teacher acted obstructively or in bad faith.
Summary
Gilbert Derle, a tenured teacher, faced misconduct charges from the North Bellmore School District. He requested an adjournment of his disciplinary hearing pending the resolution of related criminal charges, which was initially granted. The District then ceased paying his salary. The court held that the District lacked the authority to withhold Derle’s salary during the adjournment period, relying on the precedent set in Matter of Jerry v. Board of Educ., absent evidence of obstructionist conduct or bad faith by Derle. This case clarifies the scope of a school district’s power regarding teacher compensation during disciplinary proceedings under Education Law § 3020-a.
Facts
Gilbert Derle was a tenured teacher in the North Bellmore School District for over 30 years.
In November 1984, the Board of Education charged Derle with misconduct, prompting Derle to request a hearing under Education Law § 3020-a.
In February 1985, Derle was arrested and charged with sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child, stemming from the same allegations underlying the school district’s charges.
On March 6, 1985, Derle requested an adjournment of the § 3020-a hearing until the criminal charges were resolved, arguing that proceeding would compromise his defense and privilege against self-incrimination.
The hearing panel granted the adjournment on April 12, 1985.
The District ceased Derle’s salary payments on March 22, 1985.
On August 11, 1985, the panel reversed itself and ordered the hearing reopened.
Derle resigned, effective December 15, 1985, as part of a settlement agreement.
Procedural History
Derle initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement of his salary and benefits retroactive to March 21, 1985.
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the petition.
The Appellate Division modified the judgment, remanding the matter for a new determination regarding salary and benefits between August 11, 1985, and December 15, 1985.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Derle’s appeal for lack of finality.
The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed Derle’s application for salary and benefits for the August-December period.
The Appellate Division reversed, awarding Derle salary and benefits for the four-month period.
Derle appealed to the Court of Appeals, bringing up for review the denial of salary and benefits for the period of March 21-August 11, 1985.
The District cross-appealed.
Issue(s)
Whether the School District was authorized to withhold Derle’s salary during the period of adjournment of the § 3020-a hearing, from March 21, 1985, to August 11, 1985, when the adjournment was requested by Derle pending resolution of parallel criminal charges.
Holding
No, because Education Law § 3020-a, as interpreted in Matter of Jerry v. Board of Educ., does not grant school districts the authority to withhold a teacher’s pay during a period of suspension or adjournment, absent obstructionist conduct or bad faith on the part of the teacher in requesting the adjournment.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on its prior holding in Matter of Jerry v. Board of Educ., which established that compensation is a substantive right that cannot be taken away from a teacher absent explicit statutory authorization. The Court noted that the Legislature had not amended Education Law § 3020-a to authorize withholding pay during suspension since the Jerry decision.
The Court rejected the District’s argument that Derle forfeited his salary by requesting the adjournment. The Court distinguished Matter of Belluardo v. Board of Educ., which allowed for forfeiture of salary if a teacher obstructs proceedings or obtains frivolous adjournments in bad faith. The Court found no evidence of bad faith on Derle’s part, noting that precedent at the time supported his request for adjournment and that the hearing panel had found good cause to grant it. The court quoted from the original hearing panel decision, "conceivable that what takes place in that administrative hearing could have an influence on his [Derle’s] ability to utilize all avenues of defense available to him in a criminal proceeding."
The Court stated, "Compensation is a matter of such substantive right on the part of the teacher that we conclude that it cannot be taken away from him except pursuant to explicit statutory authorization.”
The Court emphasized that any change to the Education Law granting school districts the authority to withhold compensation is a matter for the Legislature.