Tenure by estoppel Wamsley v East Ramapo Central School District, 281 AD2d 633 If a school board neglects to take timely action to discontinue the services of a probationary teacher or administrator, the individual will attain what is termed "tenure by estoppel." The Court of Appeals addressed the issue of an individual obtaining "tenure by estoppel" in the Sewanhaka case [Gould v Sewanhaka Central High School District, 81 NY2d 446]. However, "tenure by estoppel" is not limited to individuals in the unclassified service such as teachers and school administrators — employees in the classified service also may attain tenure by estoppel as the Wamsley case demonstrates. On October 5, 1998, East Ramapo appointed George Wamsley to the position of school bus driver, a classified service position in the noncompetitive class. Wamsley's appointment was subject to his satisfactorily completing a 26-week probationary period. On August 18, 1999 the school district's personnel officer wrote to Wamsley advising him that he was to be dismissed because his service during his probationary period had been deemed unsatisfactory by his supervisors. Wamsley was terminated from his position effective August 25, 1999. Wamsley sued, contending that his probationary term had expired before he was discharged and he held a tenured appointment. He also claimed that he was entitled to a "pretermination hearing" because he was an "exempt volunteer firefighter." The Appellate Division agreed with Wamsley's argument that he was no longer a probationary employee at the time he was discharged. In the words of the court, Wamsley's "probationary term began on October 5, 1998, and ended 26 weeks later … as permissibly extended by his days of absence."* Accordingly, Wamsley's 26-week period, not having otherwise been extended as permitted by the rules of the Rockland Civil Service Commission, "expired long before his employment was terminated." However, there were other elements to consider concerning Wamsley's claim of a right to a pretermination hearing. The due process procedures set out in Section 75 of the Civil Service Law are not available to a noncompetitive class employee who has less than five years of continuous service unless the individual is a veteran who served in time of war or is an "exempt volunteer firefighter." According to the Appellate Division, Wamsley claimed, but never established, that he was entitled to the protections of Section 75 because he was an exempt volunteer firefighter. The Appellate Division concluded that although clearly Wamsley was not a probationer at the time of is dismissal, he raised a triable issue of fact with respect to his claim of Section 75 rights based on his status as an exempt volunteer firefighter. According, a hearing on this aspect of this complaint was required and the matter was returned to State Supreme Court "for resolution of that factual issue." Two technical elements concerning exempt volunteer firefighter status should be noted: 1. The individual claiming exempt volunteer firefighter status has the burden of demonstrating that he or she enjoys such status [People v Hayes, 135 AD 19]; and 2. Notice of the fact that the individual is an exempt volunteer firefighter must be given to the employer prior to the individual's effective date of termination [Badman v Falk, 4 AD2d 149]. * Although decision indicates that Wamsley "became permanent" after the expiration of his 26-week probationary term, "probationary employees" in fact hold permanent appointments as of the effective date of his or her appointment to the position and may enjoy limited tenure rights. For example, courts have ruled that probationers are entitled to notice and hearing if the appointing authority decides to dismiss the individual during his or her minimum period of probation. In contrast, a probationer may be dismissed without notice and hearing after completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to the expiration of his or her maximum period of probation.
Read more detail on Recent Administrative Law Posts –Legal notice about the Tenure by estoppel 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 Tenure by estoppel?