Evidence – "because I said so" isn't enough
One of the more frequent causes of court appeals of administrative decisions arises from the tendency of administrative decision makers to make decisions based on their experience and gut feelings rather than objective evidence. Somebody who has been in the…
Read more detail on Recent Administrative Law Posts –
Legal notice about the Evidence – "because I said so" isn't enough
rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Evidence – "because I said so" isn't enough?
- <em>Damnatio Memoriae</em> Be Damned: "Feeling Unwelcome" By Old Deeds With Racially Restrictive Covenants Isn't Enough For Article III Standing
- 3d Cir.: later-created "memorandum of transfer" of copyright not enough; historical evidence of transfer also required
- Altria Is Said to Be Seeking a Stake in Juul
- Estate Planning: Why Me, Why Now, and Is a Will Enough?
- Kodak Debt Swaps Soar as Camera Maker Said to Weigh Bankruptcy
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
- Coffee w/Chris: Is there enough air in your law firm’s tires? (11-19-2018)
- Why Military Justice Doesn’t Get Enough Academic Attention
- Twitter isn't required to include an arbitration clause
- A Family and Criminal Law Blog: Once a court issues a maintenance (alimony) order, changing it isn't easy
This entry was posted in Administrative law
and tagged enough
. Bookmark the permalink