Juul Agreement entered into by the parties extending a teacher’s probationary period held valid notwithstanding its not being presented to and approved by the school board

To contact us Click HERE

Juul Agreement* entered into by the parties extending ateacher’s probationary period held valid notwithstanding its not beingpresented to and approved by the school boardMarshall v Pittsford Cent. Sch. Dist., 2012 NY Slip Op 07791
A probationary teacher [T] had “the expectation that herprobationary period would last for three years.”
At the end of her third probationary year T was informed by the School Superintendent that the Superintendent would not be recommended T to the school board fortenure. In lieu of termination, T entered into a Juul agreement* with the school district. Accordingly, T was granteda fourth probationary year in exchange for the waiver of her right to a claimof tenure by estoppel.
Although the Juul Agreement was signed by T, theTeacher’s Association President and the School Superintendent, it was neitherpresented to nor ratified by the school board.
Prior to the end of T’s fourth probationary year, the Superintendent again advised T that the she would not recommend T for tenure. T was also told thather appointment as a probationary teacher with school district would end onJune 30.
The school board voted to deny T tenure, whereupon T filed apetition pursuant to CPLR Article 78 seeking a court order"declaring" that she has tenure with the School District.
Supreme Court dismissed T’s petition; the Appellate Divisionaffirmed the lower court’s ruling.
The Appellate Division explained that the record establishesthat the Juul agreement between T and the school district was fairlymade, holding that “T is estopped from challenging its validity, including thewaiver of her right to tenure by estoppel contained therein.”
Conceding that the Juul agreement had not approved by theschool board, which omission was characterized by the Appellate Division as “animpermissible abdication of a school board's responsibility to act as trustee…,” the court said that nevertheless agreed with [the school district] that T was equitably estopped** from disaffirming the Juul agreement despite the school board's failure to authorize or ratify it.
Here, said the court, the Superintendent unequivocallystated that she did not intend to recommend T for tenure at the end of herthird probationary year based on T's evaluations and input from the Principal.In lieu of the Superintendent's recommending to the Board that T be deniedtenure, the parties entered into the Juul agreement.
Further, said the Appellate Division the agreement expresslystated that "the Superintendent . . . has informed [T] that she will notbe recommended for tenure at the end of her probationary period (June 30,2010); and . . . the Superintendent has informed [T] that she is willing torecommend an extension of her probationary period for one year."
The agreement signed by the parties identified above alsoincluded a clause that stated that T "accepts the extension of her probationaryperiod until June 30, 2011," and that T "agrees that she waives anyright to claim status as tenured teacher by estoppel, acquiescence or any otherreason as a result of this extension."
Inasmuch as the record establishes that the Juulagreement was fairly made, the Appellate Division ruled that T is estopped fromchallenging its validity and may not now disavow her waiver of her right totenure by estoppel.
*  In Juul v Board of Education, 76A.D.2d 837, [Affirmed 55 NY2d 648], the Appellate Division held thatagreements to extend probationary periods are valid and enforceable when foundto be a "knowing and voluntary waiver of the protections afforded by theEducation Law."
** The Appellate Divisionsaid that “"Equitable estoppel is imposed by law in the interest offairness to prevent the enforcement of rights which would work a fraud orinjustice upon the person against whom enforcement is sought and who, injustifiable reliance upon the opposing party's words or conduct, has beenmisled into acting upon the belief that such enforcement would not besought."
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_07791.htm