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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Self-publications of disciplinary charges filed against the employee by the employee's attorney

Publications of disciplinary charges filed against the employee by the employee's attorney
Hendrick Hudson CSD v Falinski, App. Div., 254 A.D.2d 458

The Hendrick Hudson Central School District filed disciplinary charges against elementary school principal Joanne Falinski. The charges alleged that Falinski had denied special education services to certain named students.

Claiming that he was attempting to dispel rumors that the disciplinary charges involved allegations of child abuse and criminal conduct, Falinski?s attorney, Robert Saperstein, Esq., distributed copies of the charges to the press and public. The copies omitted the names and certain other identifying characteristics of the students.

The district sued Falinski, Saperstein and two private citizens, contending that Saperstein?s action violated various federal and state laws protecting student records from public disclosure.

The Appellate Division sustained a lower court?s ruling allowing the distribution of the redacted [censored] charges. As to the district?s attempt to obtain an injunction barring Saperstein from distributing ?unredacted charges,? the Appellate Division commented that the District ?failed to prove that Falinski and Saperstein distributed or threatened to distribute the unredacted charges.?

In any event, the Appellate Division felt that the issue of confidentiality was academic ?since the case file was left unsealed for approximately 10 months, during which time a newspaper reporter examined the file and learned the names of the students.?

The Appellate Division also ruled that the lower court had ?properly ordered? a hearing on the issue of sanctions to be imposed upon the district that was raised by Falinski.

In another case involving student privacy issues, a federal district court dismissed Leah Gruenke lawsuit against her swim coach, Michael Seip. Seip is alleged to have threatened to ?remove [Gruenke] from swim relays if she didn?t take a pregnancy test [Gruenke v Seip, USDC EDPA, 97-5454].

Gruenke contended Seip?s demand violated her Constitutional right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. In dismissing the case, a federal district court ruled that even if Seip had made such a demand, he had a ?qualified immunity.? That is, he was shielded from liability as long as he was acting properly in accordance with his duties of employment.U.S. District Court Judge Franklin S. Van Antwerpen explained that Seip could not be sued because ?the balance between [the student?s] rights and the school?s is still unsettled.?

Judge Van Antwerpen, however, declined to rule on the merits of Gruenke?s complaint.

According to the decision, relying on ?qualified immunity? as a defense is valid until the law in such situations is ?clearly established.?

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on April 05, 2010 (boomark / email).