ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Holding: The court held that the appellate court erred in its ruling as Bell failed to prove
that specific tenure areas existed.
Reasoning: Bell bore the burden of proof in this argument; he had to show that the board
intentionally created separate tenure areas. Bell argued that nomenclature employed in his tenure
appointment as well as noted benefits he asserted in so doing were sufficient evidence to support
his argument. The court disagreed. While the court was careful to point out that it did not want to
curtail a board’s ability to create separate tenure areas if it so wished, a board could not be held
hostage by the choice of words used in a board meeting.
Misc.).
Disposition: The court ordered the ruling of the district court reversed.
Citation: Cowan v. Board of Education, 99 A.D.2d 831; 472 N.Y.S.2d 429, (1984 N.Y.
Key Facts: Cowan was reassigned from his position of elementary school principal to
assistant director of special education at the elementary level due to district realignment. Cowan
had earned tenure as an elementary school principal prior to his move, but was required to begin
a new 3-year probationary period in his new capacity. During this time, Cowan was made aware
that he was placed on a preferred list to assume the position of principal at the next possible
opening. When an opening arose, the superintendent explained to Cowan that he intended to
direct the board to offer Cowan a contract that conferred on him the title of “elementary principal
on special assignment servicing special education at the elementary level.” This new position
would also return Cowan to his appropriate tenure area. However, Cowan would still report to
the director of special education. His role, according to the director of special education, did not
change at all following his contractual return to his tenure area.
67