Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Status of employees may lead to tenure by estoppel

Status of employees may lead to tenure by estoppel
Walters v Amityville UFSD, Appellate Division, 251 A.D.2d 590

The Walters decision demonstrates the need for employers to clearly identify in its personnel records the professional obligation of each employee (e.g., nine-month employee vs. 12-month employee) as well as each employee?s status (e.g., provisional, permanent, part-time, full-time, etc.) Also important: sharing such information with the individuals involved.

In this case, the courts decided a teaching assistant was tenured despite a school district?s claim to the contrary.

Mary Walters had been continuously employed as a teaching assistant by the Amityville Union Free School District since September 1, 1990. She worked five days a week, 5 1/2 hours per day. At the end of the 1995-96 school year she was advised that the district would be continuing her employment. She then received a second letter, dated August 12, 1996, indicating that ?she would not be recommended? for a teaching position for the 1996-1997 school year and that she was terminated.

Amityville?s practice was to decide whether to reappoint its teaching assistants at the end of each school year and to write the individual indicating whether or not his or her services would be required the next school year.

In support of its action, the district said that the first letter sent to Walters was ?due to a clerical error.? In any event, the district said that because Walters was a part-time employee she was not tenured and therefore had no rights under Section 3020-a of the Education Law.

The Appellate Division first addressed Walters? work status, commenting that it agreed with the Supreme Court?s finding that she was a full-time employee. It noted that the letter sent to Walters at the end of the 1995-96 school year referred to her ?continuing employment? as well as the fact that Walters was given benefits pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement typically reserved for full-time employees such as step increases in salary and longevity payments. The court also commented that Walters ?had never been given any indication that she was considered to be employed part-time in the six years that she had worked for the District.?

Another element that appears to be significant in the eyes of the Appellate Division was that although the district?s job postings indicated if a position was part-time, ?the job posting for [Walters?] position gave no indication that the job was part-time.?

As to Walters? tenure status, the Appellate Division pointed out that although the district had never affirmatively awarded her tenure, she had acquired such status by estoppel as she continued to be employed as a full-time teaching assistant in the area of special education, with the knowledge of the board, beyond the required three year probationary period.

Amityville was directed to reinstate Walters to her former position retroactive to her ?last day of employment,? with ?full back pay? and benefits.

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on September 18, 2009 (boomark / email).