TEACHER'S DRUG-USE EXCUSED
In The City School Dist. v. Lorber, the New York City School system sought to vacate an arbitrator's decision made in Rochelle Lorber's favor.
Lorber served as a teacher for over 23 years. After her drug use was uncovered, an arbitrator imposed a sanction equal to two months' salary but found her "fit to teach" because she had successfully completed a treatment program.
When the New York County Supreme Court denied a request to vacate the determination, the City appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, which also could discern no basis to modify the outcome. (The arbitrator's decision was found to be neither "irrational" nor violative of public policy.)
According to the AD1, Lorber was correctly given some slack because she hadn't been charged with "possession with intent to sell." The drugs found in her possession were solely for her use.
Whether the use was recreational or not, aren't teachers supposed to serve as role models to our young ones?
Suggesting the use of illegal drugs "is OK, as long as it's personal," doesn't strike us as the kind of message we should be sending our kids.
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: The City School Dist. v. Lorber
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nyrealestatelawblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2601
Comments
Spot on. Not good for impressionable youngsters. It is not o.k. to do drugs.
Posted by: MotherHub624 | July 2, 2008 2:33 PM
Gines may have something to say about that, MotherHub.
Posted by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
|
July 2, 2008 2:51 PM
Ahh, let's not jump the gun. Is this is even a drug case?
The decision is silent on the nature of Lorber's addiction, so we should not assume it was to some illegal substance -- it could have been prescription medication, alcohol, gambling, etc. We also don't know if she was ever even arrested as a result of her addiction. Nowhere is it alleged that Lorber's addiction affected her ability to teach or created any sort of impression on the students. Since few, if any school-age kids I know read the AD Reporter, I doubt Lorber's students will ever know about this case.
On the other hand, in City School District v. Campbell, cited and linked to in the Lorber decision, the AD, I believe correctly, reversed an arbitrator's award and directed the termination of a School Principal who posed as an anti-drug crusader by day, but was a coke dealer by night. That guy deserved everything he got. Moralizing liars like him set the real bad example for kids because they do not practice what they preach. Additionally, since Campbell pleaded guilty to a felony, he appropriately lost his job, despite the fact that he did no jail time. Lawyers and other licensed professionals who plead guilty to felonies automatically lose their licenses by operation of law. The punishment should be no less for educational professionals.
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 2, 2008 7:29 PM
Gines:
While the decision is unclear, if you read between the lines it had to be drugs. (There is a reference toward the end to Lorber's "possession" -- usually utilized when referencing "illegal" substances. And when's the last time you heard the term "personal use" applied to alcohol or gambling?)
Here's the operative quote: "In Campbell, the petitioner was charged with possession with intent to sell, whereas there was no allegation in this case that petitioner's possession was for other than personal use."
I would agree that if she had been abusing prescribed medication, there would be a basis to give her some latitude. But those are not the facts we were given.
While we all make mistakes -- and I've made my fair share -- those entrusted with the care of our children shouldn't be messing with illegal drugs.
Posted by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
|
July 2, 2008 8:08 PM
Mr. ferrer, thanks for watching out for our kids.
Posted by: MotherHub624 | July 2, 2008 10:23 PM
Hey Mother[DELETED], how about if I take my size 9 1/2 Manolo Blahnik and stick it up your [DELETED]???
Posted by: ALesbo | July 3, 2008 12:48 AM
MotherHubbard:
If their over the age of 14, your kids are probably smoking dope and trying to get laid as I write-- don't delude yourself.
Lesbo,
Don't waste a good shoe; an old Croc up her left nostril should get the point across.
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 3, 2008 10:22 AM
Both of you should be a shame of yourselfs. You are rude and foul mouth and need major time outs!
My children are good Christians and would never swear, talk back, drink, smoke, or do drugs thank you.
Posted by: MotherHub624 | July 4, 2008 12:37 PM
Enjoy attacking women, Gines? Does it make you feel manly?
Posted by: CynthiaK | July 4, 2008 3:19 PM
Hub,
And I bet you have one of those honor roll bumper stickers on your minivan.
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 5, 2008 12:16 PM
Your kids are boooorrriiinggggg!!!!!
Posted by: DestinyB | July 5, 2008 12:24 PM
Now you got it from my 9-year-old.
Does that level the playing field for you?
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 5, 2008 12:31 PM
Welcome to our blog, DestinyB! (I'll refrain from the obvious puns.)
Is it true Dad will be appointed by McCain to serve as Secretary of State?
Posted by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
|
July 5, 2008 10:31 PM
My children and I said a special prayer for you and your family.
Have a blessed Sunday.
Posted by: MotherHub624 | July 6, 2008 10:59 AM
He let Destiny post here? Now ACS will really bring a neglect proceeding against him.
Posted by: Cide Hamete Benegeli | July 6, 2008 11:18 AM
MoHub, you know how to make this gurl laff. For that one, you deserve 2 pair of my best Manolo!!!
Some friendly advice, if you spent more time giving your dog a [DELETED], you would be a lot less pregnant and one happier [DELETED].
Bow-wow!
Posted by: ALesbo | July 6, 2008 5:44 PM
Why not Drug Czar. Then I could send my oprichniks out around the country to blow up meth labs, burn pot fields and tar and feather steroid using athletes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprichnik
Posted by: Gines Pasamonte | July 6, 2008 6:12 PM