N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Education / TITLE Teachers and Pupils / ARTICLE Teachers and Supervisory and Administrative Staff
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Education Law § 3020 (2026)

Discipline of teachers

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 3020. Discipline of teachers. 1. No person enjoying the benefits of
tenure shall be disciplined or removed during a term of employment
except for just cause and in accordance with the procedures specified in
section three thousand twenty-a of this article or in accordance with
alternate disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining
agreement covering such person's terms and conditions of employment that
was effective on or before September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four
and has been unaltered by renegotiation, or in accordance with
alternative disciplinary procedures contained in a collective bargaining
agreement covering such person's terms and conditions of employment that
becomes effective on or after September first, nineteen hundred
ninety-four; provided, however, that any such alternate disciplinary
procedures contained in a collective bargaining agreement that becomes
effective on or after September first, nineteen hundred ninety-four,
must provide for the written election by the employee of either the
procedures specified in such section three thousand twenty-a or the
alternative disciplinary procedures contained in the collective
bargaining agreement and must result in a disposition of the
disciplinary charge within the amount of time allowed therefor under
such section three thousand twenty-a.
  2. No person enjoying the benefits of tenure shall be suspended for a
fixed time without pay or dismissed due to a violation of article
thirteen-E of the public health law.
  3. Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, the procedures
set forth in section three thousand twenty-a of this article and
subdivision seven of section twenty-five hundred ninety-j of this
chapter may be modified or replaced by agreements negotiated between the
city school district of the city of New York and any employee
organization representing employees or titles that are or were covered
by any memorandum of agreement executed by such city school district and
the council of supervisors and administrators of the city of New York on
or after December first, nineteen hundred ninety-nine. Where such
procedures are so modified or replaced: (i) compliance with such
modification or replacement procedures shall satisfy any provision in
this chapter that requires compliance with section three thousand
twenty-a of this article, (ii) any employee against whom charges have
been preferred prior to the effective date of such modification or
replacement shall continue to be subject to the provisions of such
section as in effect on the date such charges were preferred, (iii) the
provisions of subdivisions one and two of this section shall not apply
to agreements negotiated pursuant to this subdivision, and (iv) in
accordance with paragraph (e) of subdivision one of section two hundred
nine-a of the civil service law, such modification or replacement
procedures contained in an agreement negotiated pursuant to this
subdivision shall continue as terms of such agreement after its
expiration until a new agreement is negotiated. Notwithstanding any
inconsistent provision of law, the commissioner shall review any appeals
authorized by such modification or replacement procedures within fifteen
days from receipt by such commissioner of the record of prior
proceedings in the matter subject to appeal. Such review shall have
preference over all other appeals or proceedings pending before such
commissioner.
  4. a. Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, the
procedures set forth in section three thousand twenty-a of this article
and subdivision seven of section twenty-five hundred ninety-j of this
chapter may be modified by agreements negotiated between the city school
district of the city of New York and any employee organization
representing employees or titles that are or were covered by any
memorandum of agreement executed by such city school district and the
united federation of teachers on or after June tenth, two thousand two.
Where such procedures are so modified: (i) compliance with such modified
procedures shall satisfy any provision of this chapter that requires
compliance with section three thousand twenty-a of this article; (ii)
any employee against whom charges have been preferred prior to the
effective date of such modification shall continue to be subject to the
provisions of such section as in effect on the date such charges were
preferred; (iii) the provisions of subdivisions one and two of this
section shall not apply to agreements negotiated pursuant to this
subdivision, except that no person enjoying the benefits of tenure shall
be disciplined or removed during a term of employment except for just
cause; and (iv) in accordance with paragraph (e) of subdivision one of
section two hundred nine-a of the civil service law, such modified
procedures contained in an agreement negotiated pursuant to this
subdivision shall continue as terms of such agreement after its
expiration until a new agreement is negotiated.
  b. Any modifications to the procedures set forth in section three
thousand twenty-a of this article and subdivision seven of section
twenty-five hundred ninety-j of this chapter shall not change the manner
in which the fees and expenses of such proceedings pursuant to the
aforesaid sections are paid.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 96 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Matter of Soriano v. Elia, 2017 NY Slip Op 8431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matter of Soriano v. Elia, 2017 NY Slip Op 8431 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 6× “The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, finding that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the salary reduction constituted discipline under Education Law § 3020 or that the Board’s actions in that regard were otherwise arbitrary and capricious.”
Rosenblum v. Conflicts of Interest Bd., 964 N.E.2d 1010 (N.Y. 2012). · cites it 10× “Rosenblum answered and moved to dismiss on October 17, 2008, arguing that Education Law §§ 3020, 3020-a and 2590-j (7), as supplemented by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between DOE and his union, the Council of Supervisors and Administrators, Local 1, AFSA, AFL-CIO…”
Green v. Dep't of Educ., 16 F.4th 1070 (2d Cir. 2021). “1990); see also N.Y. Educ. Law § 3020 -a(2), (3). Although Green argues that the DOE deviated from the § 3020-a procedures because a school principal made the initial probable cause determination, such a deviation does not amount to a federal constitutional due process…”
In the Matter of Roseann Kilduff v. Rochester City Sch. Dist., 25 N.E.3d 916 (N.Y. 2014). · cites it 12× “She pointed out that the relevant CBA had been altered through renegotiation and had taken effect since September 1, 1994, and that Education Law § 3020 (1)2 required, 1 In a subsequent subsection of the CBA it is provided that no eligible teacher may be discharged without the…”
Hunt v. Klein, 476 F. App'x 889 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “In that decision, the hearing officer determined that Hunt was guilty of each of the allegations of misconduct that formed the basis of his removal from the classroom and his ultimate termination. We have previously held that the “Section 3020-a hearing is an administrative…”
Heller v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 144 F. Supp. 3d 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). · cites it 3× “1), the hearing officer’s decision in plaintiffs N.Y. Education Law § 3020 -a disciplinary proceeding (Stern Deck, Ex.”
Richardson v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 711 F. App'x 11 (2d Cir. 2017). “First, Richardson argues that( she was “explicitly protected” by Section 3020-a of the New York Education Law, which she asserts entitled her to a “hearing” and “a right and opportunity to contest charges ... before disciplinary action may be taken,” such as deprivation of her…”
Harris v. Bd. of Educ., 230 F. Supp. 3d 88 (E.D.N.Y 2017). “The only theory on which she can proceed is that defendant initiated charges pursuant to Education Law § 3020(a) for incompetence during the two previous academic years.”
Bailey v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 536 F. Supp. 2d 259 (E.D.N.Y 2007). · cites it 2× “” N.Y. Education Law § 3020 -a3.c(i). Plaintiffs only evidence to substantiate his contention that he could not have raised his discrimination claim at the § 3020-a hearing is his own declaration recounting the alleged statement of a friend he claims was an arbitrator for the…”
Chawki v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 39 A.D.3d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · cites it 3× “Enclosed with the notices were copies of Education Law §§ 3020, 3020-a and 2590-j, State Education Department Commissioner’s Regulations (8 NYCRR) subpart 82-1, and Appendix C of the collective bargaining agreement between the DOE and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT).”
Smith v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 808 F. Supp. 2d 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). “N.Y. Educ. Law § 3020 -a. Pursuant to that statute, Jack D.”
Sanders v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist., 17 A.D.3d 682 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · cites it 3× “), dated August 7, 2003, which denied their cross motion to dismiss the proceeding and, in effect, granted the petition to the extent of finding that they did not comply with Education Law § 3020-a (2) and remitting the matter to them for further proceedings in accordance with…”
Show all 96 citing cases →
N.Y. Education Law § 3020(1): 1 case
Matter of Anderson v. Bd. of Educ. of the Oyster Bay-East Norwich Cent. Sch. Dist., 2020 NY Slip Op 4474 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020).
N.Y. Education Law § 3020(3): 1 case
Douglas v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 52 Misc. 3d 816 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016).
N.Y. Education Law § 3020(a): 2 cases
Harris v. Bd. of Educ., 230 F. Supp. 3d 88 (E.D.N.Y 2017). “The only theory on which she can proceed is that defendant initiated charges pursuant to Education Law § 3020(a) for incompetence during the two previous academic years.”
Geer v. Gates Chili Cent. Sch. Dist., 321 F. Supp. 3d 417 (W.D.N.Y. 2018).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.