No. Gina Sartori was a probationary social studies teacher at Dr. Susan McKinney High School when, in the middle of the year, she submitted a letter of resignation which was effective immediately. At the time, she claimed, that she was not advised by her Chapter Leader or the principal that her failure to provide 30 days’ notice would put her on the ineligible/inquiry list, barring her from future DOE employment. She claimed that the principal told her that resignation was the only way to “save” her license.
Several weeks after submitting her letter of resignation she learned of the consequences of her failure to provide notice and sought to rescind her letter.
When the principal refused to allow her to rescind the letter she filed a grievance which was denied.
Sartori filed an Article 78 to challenge the refusal to rescind her letter and for reinstatement. The DOE answered that Sartori was not forced to resign and that the DOE no longer maintains an ineligible/inquiry list. The DOE argued that while the list is no longer maintained a resignation without the 30 days’ notice “would be flagged for violating Chancellor’s Regulation C-205(26)(b) for resigning without giving 30 days’ notice, triggering an investigation into her service history by the Office of Personnel Investigation” should the teacher seek employment with the DOE in the future.”
Justice Lobis dismissed Sartori’s petition after finding she was not coerced into submitting her immediate resignation and that the DOE did not act arbitrarily in denying her reinstatement or permitting her to rescind her resignation.
GINA SARTORI, Petitioner, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DENNIS WALCOTT, CHANCELLOR of NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondents, for an Order and Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Index No. 102614/12, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY, 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 322; 2013 NY Slip Op 30163(U), January 25, 2013.