If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

In the case of Mauriello v. Board of Education, a teacher sought a review of a decision by the board of education to terminate her employment.

After receiving notice of an immediate suspension, the teacher requested an informal hearing with the board. A hearing was held at which the teacher was present. The teacher challenged the fairness of her hearing. On appeal, the court affirmed. The court held that the appeal was governed by the Teacher Tenure Act (Act)  rather than by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act. Under the Teacher Tenure Act, the court found that the board was not required to give a statement of its reasons for the teacher's termination because she did not request it in writing. While the teacher was entitled to a copy of the board's decision, the court noted that the board was not statutorily required to make findings or state the reasons for its decision. Because the teacher's initial request was for an informal hearing, the court held that the board should have advised the teacher that she could have counsel present at the termination hearing. However, the court determined that the error was not prejudicial because the teacher was aware that the hearing was regarding possible termination and she offered no witnesses or evidence to rebut the board's case.

The court affirmed the dismissal of the teacher's appeal. “The [teacher] has, nonetheless, failed to establish in what manner this error was prejudicial. The [teacher] acquiesced in, and participated in, a hearing which, from the outset, she explicitly recognized to encompass termination as well as suspension” said the court. “She made no effort to procure counsel during the working day that intervened between the two sessions of the hearing, despite the fact that the record indicates that she had, at an earlier time, talked with a lawyer. Viewing the case as a whole, the trial court determined that there was no basis for concluding that the [school board] had acted arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion. We concur.”

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Mauriello v. Board of Education, 176 Conn. 466, 408 A.2d 247, 1979 Conn. LEXIS 673 (Conn. 1979)