Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Bernadette CAMACHO, Petitioner–Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered April 16, 2012, which, inter alia, denied the petition to vacate a post-hearing award sustaining specifications of verbal abuse of students and imposing the penalty of termination of petitioner's employment as a New York City schoolteacher, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Adequate evidence in the record supports the determination that petitioner was guilty of the specifications charging her with using language that constituted verbal abuse of her students as prohibited by the regulations of respondent Department of Education (DOE) (see Lackow v. Department of Educ. [or “Board”] of City of N.Y., 51 AD3d 563 [1st Dept 2008] ). There exists no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer's decision to credit the testimony of multiple students and the principal over that of petitioner (see Matter of Douglas v. New York City Bd./Dept. of Educ., 87 AD3d 856 [1st Dept 2011] ).
The penalty of termination does not shock one's sense of fairness. Upon settlement of prior disciplinary charges, petitioner, on the advice of counsel, entered into a stipulation with the DOE wherein she agreed that, if she were to be found guilty after a hearing of verbally abusing students, she would be terminated. There is no allegation that petitioner did not knowingly and voluntarily agree to these terms, and thus she is bound by the penalty (see Pagan v. Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 56 AD3d 330 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Matter of Abramovich v. Board of Educ. of Cent. School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Brookhaven & Smithtown, 46 N.Y.2d 450, 455 [1979], cert denied 444 U.S. 845 [1979] ). In any event, the penalty imposed was appropriate, where despite petitioner's attempts to deal with her problems, including her adherence to therapy and medication in accordance with the terms of the prior stipulation, petitioner was unable to control her emotional outbursts, which resulted in her targeting special education students for insult and ridicule.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 21, 2013
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)