Skip to main content

Decision No. 13,105

Application to reopen the appeal of CLARA DREYMANN from action of the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York and Community School Board District 8, relating to discriminatory hiring practices.

Decision No. 13,105

(February 22, 1994)

Hon O. Peter Sherwood, Corporation Counsel, attorney for respondents, Awo Sarpong, Esq., of counsel

SOBOL, Commissioner.--This is an application to reopen the decision in Appeal of Dreymann, (32 Ed Dept Rep 592). In that case, I dismissed petitioner's claim that the refusal of the Board of Education of the City of New York ("respondent") to appoint petitioner to a position in Community School District 28 ("District 28") and its decision to charge her with abandoning her position in Community School District 8 ("District 8") was somehow discriminatory. This application must also be denied.

Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant reopening. Section 276.5 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education provides that such applications are addressed solely to the discretion of the Commissioner and will not be granted in the absence of a showing that a decision was rendered under a misapprehension of the facts or that there is new and material evidence which was not available at the time the original decision was made (Application of Aarseth, 33 Ed Dept Rep 226). Furthermore, an application for reopening is not intended to provide an opportunity for reargument of a prior decision on the law (Application of Impellizzeri, 32 id. 295; Application of Ferris, 30 id. 444).

Petitioner alleges that my decision should be reopened because it was rendered under a misapprehension of fact. In support, she asserts that she did not abandon her position, but failed to return due to discrimination as demonstrated by respondent's failure to give her an established class or materials with which to teach. This is not a misapprehension of fact but merely a reargument. In essence, petitioner is seeking to reargue her original claim of discrimination in defense of respondents' assertion of abandonment of her position.

This application, like the original appeal presents no evidence whatsoever to support her claim that District 8's failure to provide her with classroom materials on her first day was discriminatory. The fact remains that petitioner did abandon her position by failing to return to her position after working for only one day.