Petitioner was a probationary teacher with the New York City Department of Education and received a “U” rating. He appealed his “U” or unsatisfactory rating to the Chancllor’s committed and they denied his appeal. In his Article 78 filing he appealed the composition of the Chancellor’s committee but had failed to preserve his appeal by first bringing up his contentions at the Committee hearing. Accordingly, his first raising this issue in his Article 78 suit was found to be improper and this contention was denied.
The Chancellor Committee decision to uphold the “U” rating was unanomous against the Petitioner. On appeal the Appellate Division, Second Department held that the Petitioner failed to prove bad faith on the part of the Respondent DOE nor did he prove that they had acted for some unconstitutional purpose or in violation of law.
Additionally, Petitioner’s “U” rating was not issued in an “arbitrary or capricous” manner nor was it irrational. Read this Article 78 to reverse a “U” rating here.
Visit www.attorneyforteachers.com for more discussion of teacher issues. Or www.sheerinlaw.com for my website.