Boards must approve agreements extending probationary periods |
On Board Online • December 17, 2012
By Kimberly A. Fanniff
Associate Counsel
In Matter of Marshall v. Pittsford Central School District, a teacher was properly dismissed after an agreement to extend her probationary period expired. Though the agreement was flawed because the school board had not been approved, the teacher was unsuccessful in claiming she had achieved tenure by estoppel.
In general, the Education Law provides a teacher must serve a three-year probationary period so the district can evaluate the competency of a teacher prior to awarding tenure. Tenure may not be awarded without the positive recommendation of the superintendent. However, a probationary period may be extended for an additional year if recommended by the superintendent and agreed to by both the teacher and the school board. Such an agreement is known as a Juul agreement. Such agreements prevent a teacher from claiming tenure by estoppel (by operation of law) if he or she is allowed to teach beyond the expiration of the probationary period.
In Matter of Marshall, a teacher entered into a Juul agreement signed by herself, the teacher union’s president and the school superintendent, but never presented to nor ratified by the school board. After completion of the additional probationary year the teacher was not recommended for tenure and subsequently terminated. She then sued seeking reinstatement claiming she had tenure by estoppel.
According to the Fourth Department of the Appellate Division of New York state Supreme Court, the school board’s failure to approve the Juul agreement was an “impermissible abdication of [its] responsibility” to act as trustee and manager of the school district. However, the teacher was precluded from “disaffirming” the Juul agreement because principles of equity prevent a party from accepting benefits under a contract fairly made and then question its validity.
The teacher in this case waived her right to tenure in exchange for a fourth probationary year rather than be dismissed at the end of the third year. Under such circumstances, the Juul agreement was fairly made, and the teacher could not challenge the agreement.
To avoid similar litigation, districts entering into a Juul agreement with a teacher need to make sure their school board authorizes such an agreement.