Appeal of CHRISTOPHER MANERI from action of the Board of Education of the Auburn Enlarged City School District regarding a personnel matter.

Decision No. 18,651

(November 4, 2025)

Ferrara Fiorenza PC, attorneys for respondent, Lindsay A.G. Plantholt, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the determination of the Board of Education of the Auburn Enlarged City School District (“respondent”) to terminate his employment.  He also alleges that respondent retaliated against him after he filed a Dignity for All Students Act (“Dignity Act”) complaint on behalf of his child.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner and his two children reside within respondent’s district.  Petitioner was employed by respondent as a substitute teacher’s aide (2017-2022) and a groundskeeper (2022 to 2025).

In fall 2021, petitioner’s children complained of their treatment by a sports coach, the spouse of a board member (hereinafter, “board member”).  Petitioner filed a complaint against the coach under the Dignity for All Students Act (“Dignity Act”) in fall 2022.

By letter dated April 23, 2023, respondent’s Dignity Act Coordinator informed petitioner that it has substantiated some of the allegations against the coach.  The coordinator indicated that the district would address these findings internally but was precluded from “shar[ing] [the] … specific action to be taken.”

Throughout 2023 and 2024, petitioner alleges that the board member appeared at the district to observe him working.  Petitioner suggests that the board member arranged these encounters to intimidate or harass him.  Respondent denies these allegations, asserting that the simultaneous presence of petitioner and the board member was coincidental.

In February 2025, respondent voted to terminate petitioner’s employment with respondent.  Seven members voted in favor, with the board member and a colleague abstaining.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner alleges that the board member retaliated against him by orchestrating his termination.  For relief, petitioner requests that I “review the circumstances surrounding the DASA complaint and identified retaliation.”  He seeks a finding that he was wrongfully terminated, an award of backpay, amendment of his employment file, and an order directing the board member to resign.

Respondent contends that the appeal must be dismissed against the board member as he was neither named in the caption of the appeal nor served with a copy thereof.[1]  On the merits, respondent argues that petitioner has not articulated a clear legal right to his requested relief.

Initially, I decline to address petitioner’s claim of wrongful termination.  “[E]mployee discipline is within respondent’s exclusive jurisdiction and is generally subject to procedures established in statute or in applicable collective bargaining agreements and/or employment contracts” (Appeal of X.R.O., 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,904; see Education Law §§ 1709 (16) and (33), 3020, 3020-a; Civil Service Law § 75).  As such, I decline to “sit as a super-personnel department” and second-guess respondent’s employment decisions (Ghent v. Moore, 324 Fed Appx 55, 57 [2d Cir 2009]; see also Dale v. Chicago Trib. Co., 797 F2d 458, 464 [7th Cir 1986]; cf. Appeal of Rickson, 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,211 [reviewing discontinuance of a teacher’s probationary appointment, which is authorized by Education Law § 3012]).  However, petitioner’s claim of retaliation for filing a Dignity Act complaint is within my jurisdiction and addressed below.

The Dignity Act prohibits school districts and their employees from “tak[ing] ... retaliatory action against any such person” who “makes ... a report” alleging bullying or harassment (Education Law § 16).  A claim of retaliation requires a petitioner to show that he or she:  (1) engaged in protected activity; (2) was subjected to adverse action; and (3) causation (see generally Vega v Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F3d 72, 90 [2d Cir 2015]; Application of the Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Buffalo, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,147). 

In an appeal to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested (Appeal of Powell, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,320; Appeal of White, 48 id. 295, Decision No. 15,863).

Petitioner has not met his burden of proving causation between his Dignity Act complaint and his termination.  The precipitating event underlying petitioner’s termination was his use of a district vehicle to salt his driveway.[2]  There is no evidence that respondent’s assistant superintendent for personnel, who investigated this incident, was aware of petitioner’s Dignity Act complaint.[3]  Based on the results of the assistant superintendent’s investigation, the superintendent recommended that the board terminate petitioner’s employment.  As the assistant superintendent indicates, there is no evidence that the board member “discuss[ed] his personal history with [p]etitioner with any other board member, or otherwise attempt[ed] to influence their votes regarding Petitioner’s termination.”  Thus, petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proving causation between his Dignity Act complaint and his termination.

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE