Appeal of WILLIAM KING MOSS III from action of the Board of Education of the Brentwood Union Free School District regarding a team name, logo, and mascot and application for the removal of Eileen Felix, et al.[1]

Decision No. 18,649

(November 4, 2025)

Bond, Schoeneck, & King, PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Candace J. Gomez, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner challenges the decision of the Board of Education of the Brentwood Union Free School District (“respondent”) to adopt a new team name, logo, and mascot.  He also seeks the removal of each member of the board in connection therewith.  The appeal must be dismissed and the application denied.

Prior to the events described herein, respondent utilized an Indigenous team name, logo, and mascot for its sports teams.  In response to the enactment of Part 123 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education,[2] respondent administered two surveys to community members to ascertain their interest in new team names.  “Spartans” received the most community support.

At a board meeting on November 21, 2024, respondent adopted the team name of “Spartans” together with a corresponding logo and mascot.[3]  This appeal and application ensued.  Petitioner’s request for interim relief was denied on January 14, 2025.

Petitioner argues that the surveys administered by respondent were not optimally designed to ascertain public opinion.  Petitioner further contends that respondent’s use of the “Spartans” team name violates various laws as it constitutes a symbol of “[w]hite supremacy.”  Petitioner seeks declaratory relief and the removal of each member of the board of education.

Respondent contends that it adopted “Spartans” because it represented the community’s top choice and because it generally “suggests courage and discipline.”

First, I must address a procedural matter.  The purpose of a reply is to respond to new material or affirmative defenses set forth in an answer (8 NYCRR 275.3, 275.14).  A reply is not meant to buttress allegations in the petition or belatedly add assertions that should have been raised in the petition (Appeal of Nappi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,300; Appeal of Caswell, 48 id. 472, Decision No. 15,920; Appeal of Hinson, 48 id. 437, Decision No. 15,908).  Therefore, while I have reviewed the reply, I have not considered those portions containing new allegations or exhibits that are not responsive to new material or affirmative defenses set forth in the answer.  Specifically, I have not considered exhibits that should have been submitted with the petition or reply (Appeal of R.H. and S.H., 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,869; Appeal of Nappi, 57 id., Decision No. 17,300).[4]

The petition must be dismissed based on an election of remedies.  Commencement of an action or proceeding in another forum for the same or similar relief as sought in an appeal pursuant to Education Law § 310 constitutes an election of remedies that precludes the Commissioner from considering the appeal (Appeal of Fraser, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,927; Appeal of Campbell, 57 id., Decision No. 17,266; Appeal of Hinson, 48 id. 437, Decision No. 15,908).  It would be contrary to the orderly administration of justice for the Commissioner to decide issues that a petitioner has elected to raise in another forum (Appeal of Minaya, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,879; Appeal of Campbell, 57 id., Decision No. 17,266; Appeal of T.G. and R.G., 46 id. 95, Decision No. 15,451).

Petitioner filed a lawsuit in Supreme Court, Suffolk County against respondents concerning the same issues and seeking similar relief.  That action remains pending.  Under these circumstances, it would be contrary to the orderly administration of justice for the Commissioner to decide claims that petitioner has elected to raise in court, particularly where these proceedings seek the same or similar relief (see Appeal of M.F., 61 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,122; Appeal of Chen, 60 id., Decision No. 17,914; Appeal of Minaya, 60 id., Decision No. 17,879; Appeal of Moriarty, 57 id., Decision No. 17,265).

Even if the petition were not dismissed on this ground, it would be dismissed on the merits.  In Appeal of McMillan, et al., petitioners submitted “voluminous academic research” showing “that the use of mascots and Indigenous symbols and imagery ha[d] a negative impact on not only Indigenous [students], but all students …” (61 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,058).  The petitioners in that appeal also cited studies that “demonstrate[d] either direct negative effects on Native Americans” or the reinforcement of “stereotyping and prejudice among non-Native persons” (id.).  Here, by contrast, petitioner offers only his personal objections,[5] which are no substitute for evidence that respondent’s use of Spartans “inhibits the creation of a safe and supportive environment that promotes achievement of the learning standards for all children” (Appeal of McMillan, et al., 61 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,058; see also Appeal of Tobin, 25 id. 301, Decision No. 11,591 [fact that a petitioner considers a mascot “offensive does not on its own entitle him to … relief”]).  As such, he has failed to establish any violation of law or basis for removing board members.

In light of this determination, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

THE APPLICATION IS DENIED.

END OF FILE