Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Benefits newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (September 28, 2020, 4:44 PM EDT) -- A state court judge threw out a suit Friday from New York City schoolteachers who wanted to be able to work remotely through the end of 2020 or until a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, declining to second-guess the city department's plan for school reopening.
Supreme Court Justice Carol R. Edmead dismissed the suit, in which a handful of teachers sought a court declaration that the New York City Department of Education's "COVID-19 Reasonable Accommodation Process for Fall 2020" was too fickle to pass legal muster.
The judge said the court didn't have the authority to decide the dispute, finding that the remedy proposed in the teachers' suit "would 'embroil' the judiciary in the management and operation of the school system in New York City."
"The broad authority of respondents to manage the school system in the city includes the authority to decide whether and how to reopen schools after their closure due to COVID-19," Justice Edmead wrote in the decision.
Justice Edmead further held that even if the petition were appropriate for the court to handle, the case should still be dismissed since the policy had a rational basis. The department had shown that the policy was based on medical evidence, including guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to the decision.
"While petitioners argue that CDC's high-risk categories 'are written in an arbitrary and capricious manner,' this court is disinclined to adopt that conclusion given that CDC is ostensibly the nation's health protection agency and has been supporting both the federal and state governments on the front line of public health since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic," the judge said.
The teachers filed their petition challenging the accommodation policy at the beginning of September, arguing that the policy gave them and other teachers a "Hobson's choice between their paycheck/livelihood and the health and safety of themselves and their loved ones."
In their petition, the teachers raised concerns about the state of cleanliness and ventilation in their schools as well as their ability to care for their elderly or ill family members and children.
On Sept. 14, the petitioners won a temporary restraining order allowing them to work remotely without having their accrued leave deducted or pay withheld, but that order was vacated after the Education Department delayed the city's return to in-person teaching, the decision said.
A spokesperson for the New York City Law Department, which represented the education department in the case, hailed Friday's ruling.
"The DOE has a reopening plan that prioritizes the safety and well being of students and staff," the statement said. "The plan is based on data and science."
Counsel for the teachers didn't respond Monday to a request for comment.
The teachers are represented by Bryan D. Glass of Glass Harlow & Hogrogian LLP.
The Education Department is represented by Leo T. Ernst and Amanda C. Croushore of the New York City Law Department.
The case is Corwin et al. v. New York City Department of Education et al., case number 157166/2020, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York.
--Editing by Steven Edelstone.
Update: This story has been updated to include additional counsel for the Education Department.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
