Edward Watkins had been serving as a volunteer coach for a girls' high school basketball team when a report surfaced that he had "engaged in inappropriate conduct."
After the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District (SCI) conducted an investigation and concluded that Watkins "had engaged in inappropriate and extensive telephone contact with four female students," the New York City Department of Education (DOE) placed Watkins on its Ineligible/Inquiry List.
In Matter of Watkins v. New York City Department of Education , Watkins challenged the DOE 's decision and argued that SCI's report was made "illegally, arbitrarily and capriciously," and, that its decision should be vacated. But, the New York County Supreme Court sided with the DOE , and granted the agency's motion to dismiss the case.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, found that the SCI 's report and the DOE' s decision were rational and substantially supported by telephone records. In addition, the AD1 held that, " DOE was not required to afford [Watkins] notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to making its determination since he had no legitimate claim of entitlement to continue his role as a volunteer coach."
The AD1 was also unmoved by his "stigma-plus" due process claim,* since Watkins "had not denied the truth of the central factual assertions." In addition, the court noted that the DOE could not "be held responsible for speculation and rumors that may have been spread by members of the school community concerning the reasons for the nonparty SCI investigation."
As a result, the case's dismissal was unanimously affirmed.
Apparently, the ball is now back in Watkins' court. Is anyone coaching him on what to do next?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of Watkins v. New York City Department of Education
____________________
*A stigma-plus due process claim is designed to protect public employees from the dissemination of damaging employment information. The process prohibits release of that data until the employee is afforded the procedural protection of a name-clearing hearing.