In an important victory for Massachusetts school districts and statewide efforts towards increased accountability for educators, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has issued a decision which limits the scope of authority granted to an arbitrator under the state’s teacher dismissal statute. School Committee of Lexington v. Zagaeski, 2014 WL 3393541 (July 14, 2014). The Zagaeski decision clears up an issue previously left unresolved by the court in School District of Beverly v. Geller, 435 Mass. 223 (2001); specifically, the scope of an arbitrator’s authority to reinstate a teacher who was dismissed for conduct that the arbitrator found constituted, at least nominally, a valid basis for dismissal.
The SJC granted the school district’s request for direct appellate review in order to clear up the issues purportedly left unresolved by Geller. The Court held that an arbitrator exceeds his authority when he issues a decision modifying or reversing a school district’s decision to dismiss a teacher after finding that the school district has met its burden to show facts demonstrating one of the grounds for dismissal enumerated in the statute or other just cause. The Court also held that the statute does not authorize the arbitrator to “draw on a teacher’s past performance to override a dismissal decision based on a teacher’s conduct having threatened the safety and welfare of his or her students.” The Court’s decision is supported by a lengthy discussion of the history of G.L. c. 71, §42 and relevant case law.
Zagaeski was a Lexington High School physics teacher who was dismissed from his position in 2011 after joking with a student that the only way she could improve her grades, aside from studying harder, was through sexual favors. The 17-year-old student reported Zagaeski’s comments to a school counselor which prompted the district to investigate the incident. As a result of the investigation, a decision was made by the Superintendent to dismiss Zagaeski for conduct unbecoming a teacher. Zagaeski, a teacher with professional teacher status, filed for arbitration under G.L. c. 71, s. 42.
In his decision, Arbitrator Philip Dunn found that Zagaeski’s conduct violated Lexington’s Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment and created a hostile or offensive educational environment for the student. Despite this, he concluded that “Zagaeski’s conduct constituted a ‘relatively minor and isolated’ violation of the harassment policy, which only ‘nominally’ constituted conduct unbecoming a teacher.” Zagaeski, 2014 WL 3393541 *3. Arbitrator Dunn issued an award reinstating Zagaeski with full back pay, minus a two day unpaid suspension, and the school district appealed. Although it confirmed the arbitrator’s award, the superior court did so based on what it felt was an existing uncertainty regarding the precise scope of an arbitrator’s authority created by a footnote in Justice Cordy’s plurality opinion in Geller.
Justice Lenk authored a lone dissenting opinion in which she took the view that an arbitrator is authorized to conclude, as the arbitrator in Zagaeski did, that a teacher engaged in misconduct, but that the misconduct was not serious enough to establish one of the statutory grounds for dismissal.
