Opinion

James v. Board of Education

  • 37 N.Y.2d 891
  • 378 N.Y.S.2d 371
  • 340 N.E.2d 735
  • 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 2265
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Filed
Oct 28, 1975
Status
Published
On the bench
Cooke, Fuchsberg
Cited by
59 cases
Authority
More cited than 99.6%

aside from unconstitutional purpose or statutory proscription, board of education has unfettered power to terminate employment of probationary employees

How later courts described this case

  • aside from unconstitutional purpose or statutory proscription, board of education has unfettered power to terminate employment of probationary employees
  • “A board of education has an unfettered right to terminate the employment of a teacher during his probationary period unless the teacher establishes that the board terminated for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of a statutory proscription.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Memorandum. A board of education has an unfettered right to terminate the employment of a teacher during his probationary period, unless the teacher establishes that the board terminated for a constitutionally impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory proscription. We find nothing in this record to support any contention that the refusal here to renew appellant’s contract was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose and no assertion is made that this board transgressed any statutory proscription. Plaintiff cannot, by the device of an allegation that the sole reason for the termination of his employment by these public officials acting within the ambit of their authority was to harm him without justification (a contention which could be advanced with respect to almost any such termination), bootstrap himself around a motion addressed to the pleadings. Nor is there any substance to appellant’s concocted notion that this case involves an infringement of his constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression. Indeed there is no expression here at all unless one were to go to the extreme formulation that *893 every nonverbal act, or here failure to act, to some extent may be said to be expressive.

Accordingly respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was properly granted and the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.