Opinion
11301 Index 100112/18 1045/19
03-26-2020
In re Charles Thomas MICHELSEN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Charles T. Michelsen, appellant pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondents.
Charles T. Michelsen, appellant pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondents.
Friedman, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gesmer, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Respondents' decision to dismiss petitioner from their masters in education program was not irrational, arbitrary and capricious, or contrary to law (see Matter of Madison County Indus. Dev. Agency v State of N.Y. Auths. Budget Off., 33 N.Y.3d 131, 135, 99 N.Y.S.3d 755, 123 N.E.3d 239 [2019] ; see also Tedeschi v. Wagner Coll., 49 N.Y.2d 652, 658, 427 N.Y.S.2d 760, 404 N.E.2d 1302 [1980] ). Respondents rationally dismissed petitioner from the program on account of his longstanding unprofessional behavior in connection with his fieldwork placements, arguably the most important aspect of his training in becoming a teacher.
We reject petitioner's contention that his dismissal should have been governed by CUNY's procedures for "disciplinary offenses," which call for formal charges and a disciplinary hearing. The conduct giving rise to petitioner's termination raised academic issues, which do not require that respondent issue formal charges or afford petitioner an administrative hearing. Petitioner's argument that the Hunter School of Education lacked sufficient authority to enact the new fieldwork policy, as opposed to relying on the existing academic policy, which did not apply to him, is without merit. Petitioner cites no authority to support his contention that an educational division must be an independent legal entity to create policies that govern its programs.
Petitioner's argument that his dismissal infringed on his First Amendment rights is also without merit. Petitioner maintains that respondents improperly and unlawfully dismissed him solely because he was their "loudest, most articulate, and least politically-correct critic." However, he made no showing that it was his expression of conservative political views, as opposed to his continued unprofessional and insubordinate conduct in his student teaching positions in violation of respondents' fieldwork policy, that was the basis for his dismissal.
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them without merit.
_______________________
CLERK