Appeal of JEFFREY BREWER from action of the Board of Education of the Bethlehem Central School District regarding termination of employment.
Decision No. 15,473
(October 5, 2006)
Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C., attorneys for respondent, Kathy Ann Wolverton, Esq., of counsel
MILLS,
Commissioner.--Petitioner
appeals the decision
of the Board of
Education of the
Bethlehem Central
School District
(“respondent”)
to terminate his
employment. The
appeal must be
dismissed.
Respondent
hired petitioner
as an “Aide
to Students with
Disabilities” at
or near the beginning
of the 2005-2006
school year. On
February 15, 2006,
petitioner was
advised that he
was going to be
terminated from
this position effective
March 1, 2006. This
appeal ensued.
Petitioner
claims that he
was terminated
from his employment
without receiving
training or an
evaluation and
that he did not
receive notice
prior to termination. As
a result, he asks,
among other things,
that I reinstate
him to his former
position with back
pay and compensation
for unused sick
and personal time.
Respondent
denies petitioner’s
claims with respect
to training and
evaluation. It
claims that petitioner
was a probationary
employee who failed
to meet its expectations
and was terminated
from his position
during his probationary
period. Respondent
also argues that
it was under no
obligation to provide
petitioner with
earlier notice
of his termination. Respondent
further asserts
that petitioner’s
appeal should be
dismissed as premature,
for failure to
state a claim,
and for lack of
jurisdiction.
The appeal must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioner does not argue that his former position is among those certified by the Commissioner of Education as being within the unclassified service, nor does he dispute respondent’s assertion that he was a classified employee. It is well settled that the termination of a classified employee is not the proper subject of an Education Law §310 appeal (see e.g. N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law §76; Appeal of Guadagnino, 38 Ed Dept Rept 503, Decision No. 14,080; Appeal of Compitello, 34 id. 169, Decision No. 13,271; Appeal of Johnson, 30 id. 485, Decision No. 12,544). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.
In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE