Bergstein v. Board of Education, Ossining Union Free School District, 34 N.Y.2d 318 (1974)

In a tenure denial case where a probationary teacher alleges that the denial was in retaliation for exercising constitutional rights, the teacher bears the burden of proving the unconstitutional motive; the school board does not have the initial burden to prove a proper motive.

Summary

Leonard Bergstein, a probationary teacher, was denied tenure. He claimed the denial was due to his exercise of First Amendment rights, including attending a political rally, providing students with a pamphlet on student rights, wearing a western-style hat, and his race, religion, and political activism. The lower court dismissed his petition, finding no evidence linking the denial to these factors. The Appellate Division ordered a new hearing, believing the school board needed to prove tenure wasn’t denied for impermissible reasons. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the teacher failed to prove his allegations of constitutional deprivation and that the burden of proof improperly shifted to the school board.

Facts

Leonard Bergstein was hired as a probationary social studies teacher in June 1968. He remained untenured for three academic years. On August 16, 1971, the Ossining School Board denied him tenure. Bergstein alleged this denial was due to his attendance at a peaceful political rally, providing students optional reading material on student rights, wearing a western-style hat, and his race, religion, and political activism.

Procedural History

Bergstein filed an Article 78 proceeding to review the school board’s decision. Special Term dismissed the petition, finding Bergstein failed to establish a prima facie case of constitutional violation. The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new hearing, stating the board must prove tenure wasn’t denied for impermissible reasons. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Special Term’s dismissal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a probationary teacher, alleging tenure denial was retaliatory for exercising constitutional rights, bears the burden of proving the unconstitutional motive.
2. Whether statements relied upon by school board members in denying tenure constitute inadmissible hearsay.

Holding

1. Yes, because the teacher alleging constitutional deprivation must present evidence to show their rights were violated.
2. No, because the statements were offered to show the board members’ state of mind, not the truth of the statements themselves.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that a school board has broad discretion in granting tenure and can deny it without a hearing or stated reasons. However, this discretion is limited; a school board cannot deny tenure in retaliation for exercising constitutional rights. The court found Bergstein failed to provide sufficient evidence that the tenure denial was based on unconstitutional reasons. The court stated, “While constitutional deprivation must be remedied, the aggrieved petitioner in such cases is required to bear the burden of producing legal and competent evidence to show the deprivation of his rights.” It was not the board’s responsibility to prove their reasons were proper; Bergstein had to prove they were improper. The court also addressed the hearsay issue. Board members testified they based their votes on statements from others, such as Bergstein undermining authority and showing insolence. The court clarified these statements were not offered to prove their truth but to demonstrate the board members’ state of mind when voting. The court cited Ferrara v. Galluchio, 5 N.Y.2d 16 and Provenzo v. Sam, 23 N.Y.2d 256, noting such testimony is an “apparent exception” to the hearsay rule because the out-of-court statements aren’t offered assertively to prove their truth.