ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

the composite evidence that all indicated that Bell clearly knew that the students would be
entering the Meremec River. The evidence was sufficient.
Finally, Bell contended that the board abused its power by ignoring the superintendent’s
recommendation for a 15-day suspension and imposing a 6-month suspension. This argument
fell flat as well. The board was not bound to the superintendent’s recommendation; it was bound
to consider it. Therefore, the board was completely within its authority to impose a greater
suspension.
Div.).
Disposition: The board of education’s suspension was affirmed.
Citation: O’Dea v. School District, 122 A.D.2d 553; 504 N.Y.S.2d 895, (1986 N.Y. App.
Key Facts: O’Dea was hired as probationary vice principal on September 28, 1981. She
was required to complete 3 calendar years of service to complete her probationary period. In
1982, O’Dea was laid off for 23 days but then rehired back in her position. This layoff extended
her probationary period by 23 days, making the completion of her probationary period end on
October 21, 1984. She was notified by the superintendent on October 9, 1984, that her contract
would not be renewed and her probationary period would expire on the same date as her
contract. Therefore, the board did not bestow tenure on O’Dea.
Issues: (1) Did O’Dea earn tenure by estoppel? (2) Was O’Dea’s probationary period
incorrectly defined? (3) Was O’Dea publicly “stigmatized” by the non-renewal and entitled to a
hearing?
the board.
Holding: The court held with all findings of the trial court that supported the actions of
92