STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
DIVISION OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
************************************************************
IN THE MATTER OF THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING OF:
BRIGHTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Complainant
vs.
JAMES QUINLISK
Respondent
Section 3020-a Education Law Proceeding, File No. 34,818
*************************************************************
Before: Ira B. Lobel, Hearing Officer
Appearances:
For the Complainant: Douglas Gerhardt, Esq., Harris Beach PLLC
For the Respondent: Jason P. Jaros, Esq., Jaros and Jaros
PROCEDURAL INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Section 3020-a of the Education Law of the State of New York, James Quinlisk
(“Respondent”) was issued disciplinary charges by the complainant, the Brighton Central School
District (“District”), on or about May 13, 2019. A demand for a hearing was made by Respondent
in a timely manner. Ira B. Lobel was assigned as the hearing officer. A telephonic pre-hearing
conference was held on June 20, 2019. A second pre-hearing conference was held August 23,
2019, mainly to discuss issues concerning the request by the Respondent to hold the proceedings in
public. Hearings were conducted on August 28 and 29 and September 10 at the District offices in
Brighton, NY. The parties were afforded full opportunity to present oral and written evidence, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to otherwise set forth their respective positions,
arguments, and proofs. Briefs were received on or about November 14, 2019, and the record was
considered closed. These findings are based on the entire record.
1

 BACKGROUND AND SPECIFICATIONS
The Brighton Central School District is located in suburban Rochester, NY. It has a
diverse student body that is about 70% white, 7-9% African-American, 5% Hispanic, 13% Asian,
and a variety of other races and religions. There are forty-two plus languages spoken and 60
different countries represented. (T19) The graduating high school class ranges from about
270-350 students. (Id.)
Respondent has been a high school teacher in the Brighton School District for eighteen
(18) years, teaching primarily ninth and tenth grade English. A review of his personnel file (R1)
and his evaluations (R2) indicate that Respondent has been a well-respected and popular teacher.
His 3012-d composite scores for the last several years have rated him as “Highly Effective.” The
only adverse issue identified in his personnel file was a counseling memo dated April 25, 2017.
This memo addressed concerns relating to his recommendations of students for Advanced
Placement (AP) courses. (D9)
The Statement of Charges contains six separate accusations of misconduct, all of which
will be discussed in the following pages. (Jt. 1) Charges 3 & 4 are related and will be discussed
together. In each Charge, Respondent was accused of “conduct unbecoming a teacher and/or
misconduct and/or neglect of duty and/or insubordination.” Each Charge then contained a
number of specifications describing the alleged offensive conduct.
The Hearing Officer will address each charge separately, evaluating evidence and reaching
conclusions about Respondent’s guilt or innocence regarding each charge and the specifications
therein. After this analysis is completed, and if Respondent is found guilty of any of the charges,
the Hearing Officer will then analyze the appropriate penalty if any. The penalty will be based on
the totality of Grievant’s conduct.

2

 Charge 1 (Use of Inappropriate Language)
Mr. Quinlisk engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher and/or misconduct and/or
neglected his duties and/or was insubordinate when he used the word "nigger" during
class. Specifications of this Charge are as follows:
Specification 1: On or about December 5, 2018, Mr. Quinlisk was teaching a text
in which the word "niggard" and/or "niggardly" appeared. During this lesson, Mr.
Quinlisk, a white male teacher, discussed the word "nigger" with the class, using the term
several times.
Specification 2: Mr. Quinlisk advised the class during his discussion of the word
"nigger" in sum and substance that, "words don't have power over us"
Specification 3: During the same lesson, Mr. Quinlisk referenced his grandmother
was German, and was, in sum and substance, "probably pro-Nazi" and repeated in sum
and substance that "words don't have power over us."
Specification 4: Mr. Quinlisk's actions amount to conduct unbecoming a teacher
and/or misconduct and/or neglect of duties and/or insubordination.
BACKGROUND OF CHARGE 1
In May, 2016, there was a written message carved into stone on the Brighton High School
(“BHS”) campus saying that “all ‘Nigger’s’ should die.”1 (T20) Prior to that, there had been
anti-Semitic actions directed at student athletes during a lacrosse game. BHS attempted to deal
with these events by having students, faculty, and staff participate in a series of training programs
to curtail and eliminate this type of behavior. BHS Principal Tom Hall addressed the students,
faculty and staff on May 26, 2016, to discuss these issues. (D1, T21-2) In April, 2018, a portion
of the Superintendent’s Conference Day was spent instructing teachers about “awareness,
reflection & action” in order to promote a safe and non-discriminatory school environment. (D2)
There was instruction regarding “Tolerance Training” for both faculty and students. (D3)
Various role plays were used to help teachers learn techniques in dealing with these issues. (D4)
Respondent attended at least two of these sessions. (D5; T38)
1 Throughout the hearing, this word was never used. Instead, it was referred to as the “N” word.

3

 The District retained Dr. Joellen Maples, a professor at St. John Fisher College, to help
educate the faculty. (T139) She presented courses relating to teaching diversity in the classroom.
(D21; T335) Dr. Maples testified that in her opinion, a white teacher should never use the “N”
word. (T 343-346) She also testified the word “niggard” as used in Macbeth and the “N” word
have no similar origins. The sources of the two words are totally different. (T 346-7) She also
disagreed with the Respondent regarding his assertion that words do not have power. She claimed
that words such as the “N” word clearly have power. (T 349)
There is no specific District policy in place concerning use of the “N” word. However,
according to Mr. Hall, the numerous discussions about the use of the “N” word would have given
faculty professional notice to be exceedingly careful about its use. (T 89) A policy regarding its
use is still in the process of development. (T 91) According to Assistant Principal Pinzelli,
teachers were expected to be aware and leery of anything that could cause harm or damage, or
potentially be offensive to any student in their classroom. The “N” word would fall into this
category. (T 141)
On or about December 5, 2018, Respondent was teaching Shakespeare’s Macbeth. A
student was reading from the text when the word “niggard” appeared. (R7, p. 151, line 209)
The student stopped and Respondent chimed in, stating to the effect that “niggard” and “Nigger”
have the same origins, claiming, in sum and substance, that “words should not have power over
us.” During the ensuing conversation, the complaining student asserted Respondent used the
entire “N” word three or four times. (D6, T584) Respondent asserted he only used the word
once. (T709; 773) The charge continues to state Respondent said that “words don’t have power
of us” and then stated his grandmother was German and “probably pro-Nazi.” (D6) There is
some controversy over the accuracy of this last comment.

4

 Student A, one of the students in his class, became very upset by the comments and,
together with

mother, complained to Assistant Principal Sarah Jacob on the following Friday.

(D6; T. 433; 436-8) Student A testified that Respondent highlighted the similarity of the two
words; he mentioned that “niggard means ‘cheap’ and that it shares the same root with ‘nigger.’”
Respondent further claimed that both words come from Africa. Student A also reported to Ms.
Jacob and testified Respondent referenced his grandma being German and probably pro-Nazi.
(D6)
A request by this student and

mother to be removed from Respondent’s class was

granted. There was no discussion with Respondent about

removal from his class;

Respondent was never granted an opportunity to speak with Student A and/or her mother.
Assistant Principal and Respondent’s Supervisor Mike Pincelli, met with Respondent the
following Wednesday, after reviewing memos written by Ms. Jacob and Principal Hall
concerning the incident. (D6, D8) Mr. Pincelli testified that his conversation with Respondent
was difficult; Respondent was argumentative and defensive, often speaking in a raised voice.
(T150) Mr. Pincelli believed Respondent’s evaluation that both words came from Africa and
had similar roots was inaccurate. As an English teacher of 18 years, he should have known
better.
Both Mr. Hall and Mr. Pincelli were concerned about Respondent’s lack of remorse for
the entire incident. (T55, T152, 158) Because of Respondent’s reaction to Pincelli, it was
determined it would not be prudent to have a meeting between Student A,

mother, and the

Respondent. (T55)
Student E, another

student in the class, testified at the hearings.

was not offended or made to feel uncomfortable. (T618)

5

further testified that Respondent

 did not say the two words had the same origin. (T623)

did not find anything offensive in the

exchange. (T624)

.

(T101) After hearing from Student A, the District did not discuss the matter with any other
student in the class. No student other than Student A and E testified about this incident.
Summary Position of the District regarding Charge 1
The District asserts there is no question that Respondent used the “N” word in class. His
use of the “N” word resulted in a student being so offended and intimidated that

insisted on

being switched to another class. (T582-5, 622, 705-9; D6) When asked by Assistant Principal
Pincelli about his use of the word, Respondent became belligerent, antagonistic, and challenging.
The District references the extensive training it offered regarding the use of incendiary
words such as the “N” word. It also notes, while there is no written policy concerning use of the
“N” word, teachers are expected to use professional judgment and to be leery of anything that may
cause harm, damage, or be potentially offensive to any student in their classroom. This broad
statement is included in general District policies. (Jt. 2) Respondent has received extensive
professional development and training on diversity, equity and sensitivity. (T767-69; D 2-5)
The District describes in detail the reaction student A had to the use of the “N” word. In
addition to being concerned by the student’s response to the use of this word, the District is
troubled by the reactions of the Respondent. During the meeting with Mr. Pincelli, he was
argumentative and defensive. (T 150) He became flippant and sarcastic. (T730) The District
believes his lack of remorse and his failure to admit his actions were improper support its
conclusion that termination is appropriate.
The District is concerned that Respondent had no academic foundation for his comparison
between the word niggard as used in Macbeth and the “N” word. It maintains it is inconceivable

6

 that Respondent did not know the difference between the two words, after having taught Macbeth
for 18 years. His inaccurate evaluation of the two words makes his discussion concerning their
origin even more inappropriate.
In sum, the District argues that the preponderance of evidence proves Respondent used the
“N” word in class, knew it was incendiary, knew the heightened sensitivity flowing through the
District, particularly with the African American community, and blithely ignored it. The District
maintains he should be terminated.
Summary Position of the Respondent regarding Charge 1
Respondent maintains that the “N” word was used only once, not three times, as suggested
by Student A. (T584) He maintains that Student A confused the Respondent’s repeated use of the
word “niggard” with the racial slur. In addition, Student A was mistaken when
met with Mr. Hall to discuss the matter. (T586-7)

asserted

only met with Assistant Principal Jacobs.

Respondent refers to a number of books currently used by the District that contain the “N”
word. These include To Kill a Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. (T106-8)
Mr. Hall acknowledged that these texts could be considered offensive to some students. (T108)
Respondent questions why Student A was the only student offended by the incident.
None of the other students in the class, including

African American students, complained

about the event. (T99-100, 247) Furthermore, neither the Principal nor the Assistant Principal
spoke to any other student about the incident. (T 100-101; 247-248) If this had occurred, they
would have discovered Student E was not insulted by anything Respondent did in class that day.
(T 617-8)
Respondent emphasizes that there is no written policy, procedure, or directive barring the
use of the “N” word. (T 153) It was known that the District began working on a policy

7

 completely barring the use of the “N” word. It was to be referred to as the “N word or skipped
over.” (T138, 307, R3) Respondent argued that if the District relies on a teacher’s “professional
judgment,” there would have been no need for any policy regarding the “N” word.
Respondent asks that the testimony of Professor Maples be given little weight. It notes her
testimony was based solely on indirect knowledge of the case provided by the District’s attorney.
(T363) Furthermore, as a consultant paid by the District, her views may not be objective.
Respondent maintains he used the term in what he reasonably believed to be in an
academic context. (T705-7) Respondent notes the District concedes the entire incident was an
error in judgment (T246) and that at the time of the incident, did not believe his comments were
worthy of discipline. (T249-51)
Respondent further argues that in his initial meeting with Mr. Pinccelli, he should have
had the opportunity for a union representative or an attorney to be present at the meeting. It
emphasizes Mr. Pincelli never informed Respondent that he had the right to have legal
representation at this meeting. (T250, 252)
Respondent notes Mr. Pincelli reported his meeting with Respondent ended “with what
seemed to be an understanding between us, him conceding the points I was trying to make to him,
an admission that he could have handled the situation differently, and was cordial.” (R4, p 2)
Accordingly, the District’s assertion regarding a lack of remorse cannot be substantiated.
Respondent also questions why he was not allowed to meet with the student and/or her parents to
alleviate the matter. (T710-11)
Respondent further maintains that Specifications 2 and 3 allege incidents that do not rise
to the level of punishable misconduct or incompetence under any disciplinary standard, including
the New York State Education Law. It notes that Respondent denied he made the statement

8

 alleged in Specification 3. (T 708)
DISCUSSION OF CHARGE 1
It is difficult to find Respondent credible when he claims he believes he used the word
appropriately in this situation. All teachers should be particularly sensitive when using
controversial language/material to determine if any student appears uncomfortable.
Respondent’s testimony indicates this was not part of his thinking on this particular day.
There is no question Respondent should not have been argumentative and defensive in the
initial stages of his meeting with Mr. Pinzelli. However, this initial reaction could be forgiven if
Respondent clearly understands the problems presented in his lesson and the concerns raised by
Student A and her mother. By Mr. Pinzelli’s own testimony, the meeting ended in a positive
manner.
Associate Professor Joellen Maples testified about the use of the “n” word. She
emphasized that Respondent’s comparison of the word “niggard” in Macbeth and the “N” word is
factually incorrect. Mr. Hall and Mr. Pinzelli also maintained that the two words have no
relationship. (T45-6; T145) It is inconceivable that a teacher who has taught Macbeth for 18
years does not understand the lack of relationship between the two words. This lack of
understanding and/or his articulation of an incorrect premise must be evaluated as part of the
totality of his conduct in determining an appropriate penalty, if any.
More importantly, with the training received during the last several years, teachers should
know the “N” word should be used with extreme caution, if at all. In the unusual circumstance
where it would be appropriate to be used in the classroom, teachers must be extremely sensitive to
make sure no student is offended.
In the current situation, it was clear that Respondent was not sufficiently sensitive to

9

 appreciate that one of his students became offended by his remarks. In most situations, a teacher
should be able to observe such a reaction. In the instant matter, it is obvious from Respondent’s
combative reaction to the discussion with Assistant Principal Pincelli indicates that he was either
clueless as to the potential impact of his words and/or did not really care that he may have unduly
offended one of his students. His combative and argumentative initial reaction to Mr. Pincelli’s
discussion of the matter further supports his lack of remorse when he unnecessarily offended a
student. Such conduct is simply not acceptable. The fact that Respondent became “civil” at the
end of the meeting with Mr. Pincelli mitigates but does not excuse his conduct. Even if one
student was offended and one was not, the discussion is extremely problematic.
All teachers must continually observe students in their class to make sure no one is unusually
upset or offended. This is particularly true when using racially charged words.
Respondent raised the question concerning his lack of union representation and/or an
attorney at his meeting with Mr. Pincelli. I respectfully disagree with Respondent on this matter.
This initial discussion was simply a normal factfinding meeting to help understand why Student A
was so offended. This can happen on a regular occurrence in any educational environment. As
Mr. Pincelli conceded, this incident was not considered a disciplinary matter until Mr. Pincelli
observed the reaction of Respondent and took into account the various other incidents contained
in the other Charges.
Respondent questioned why he was not allowed to speak with the student. In any case
such as this, management must make a determination whether such a conversation would be
helpful to explain the situation to the student. Observing the reactions of the student and
mother, the high school leadership team determined there would be no benefit to conducting such
a meeting. This is clearly an area in which the principal and his assistants must use its discretion

10

 to determine whether such a meeting would be beneficial to the student. Their conclusion was
clearly not an abuse of their discretion.
Similarly, Mr. Hall and Mr. Pincelli made a reasoned decision not to interview other
students. They logically balanced the advantage of obtaining additional information with the
difficulty in interviewing other students and highlighting concerns about the incident.
Regarding Specification 2, there is not sufficient evidence to find that Respondent was
guilty of conduct that could be subject to discipline. It is difficult to understand the full context
in which Respondent said that “words don’t have power over us.” It is clear, however, by the
complaints of Student A, that Respondent did not adequately communicate his rationale on this
topic. In retrospect, Respondent probably should have been more careful in his explanation, but
the words alone cannot be the basis for discipline.
Regarding Specification 3, there is a conflict in the testimony from the students
concerning what was said about Respondent’s mother and her potential pro-Nazi leanings. This
conflict is sufficient to make it inappropriate to find Respondent guilty on this specification.
To summarize, there is little question that Respondent used the “N” word improperly in
his classroom in a manner that offended one of his students. The appropriate penalty will be
discussed in the final summary of this decision.

CHARGE 2 (Improper Interaction with a Student)
Mr. Quinlisk engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher and/or misconduct and/or
neglected his duties and/or was insubordinate in his actions toward a
student,
Student B, in relation to
studying abroad in Israel. Specifications of this Charge are as
follows:
Specification 1: In the fall of 2018, Student B informed Mr. Quinlisk that
would be studying abroad in Israel for the second semester of the 2018-2019 school year.
In response, Mr. Quinlisk stated, with Student B present, in sum and substance that, "he
wishes he could take a vacation" and/or "doesn't get to take a vacation, and still collect a
paycheck."
Spllllecification 2: In the fall of 2018, Mr. Quinlisk said to Student B, in sum and
11

 substance that
was essentially, "just going to be a guest in Tel Aviv for four (4)
months, and just sit in the classroom."
Specification 3: In the fall of 2018, Mr. Quinlisk informed Student B, in sum and
substance, that "
was probably going to get an A [in his class], but will now get a C."
Specification 4: In the fall of 2018, Mr. Quinlisk informed Student B that he did
not plan to accommodate
as
prepared to study abroad in Israel.
Specification 5: In the fall of 2018, Mi. Quinlisk expressed to Student B that
assisting with
transition to study abroad in Israel was, in sum and substance, "above
and beyond his job, and he doesn't get paid to do that."
Specification 6: Mr. Quinlisk's actions amount to conduct unbecoming a teacher
and/or misconduct and/or neglect of duties and/or insubordination.
BACKGOUND REGARDING CHARGE 2
On January 15, 2019, Hennessey Lustica, a guidance counselor at BHS, shared with Mr.
Pincelli a concern brought to her by Student B, a tenth grader at BHS who was planning to spend
the second semester in Israel and became upset by comments Respondent made in class. Ms
Lustica indicated that she had been communicating with Student B’s teachers to help support
in that transition. (D10 & D22; T457) At one point, Respondent raised a question over his
responsibilities to support Student B and his ability to do so. Ms. Lustica responded that Student
B didn’t need anything from English or Math. (D11; T465)
Student B’s testimony was consistent with the comments Ms. Lustica reported she made to
. Student B asserted that Respondent responded to

planned trip to Israel by telling

, in

front of the entire class, it would be great if he could also take a vacation and still collect a
paycheck. (T163; T498) Consistent with the charges quoted above, Student B testified

was

very embarrassed by his comments but kept quiet. When she tried to explain the program to
Respondent after class, he made additional critical comments. (T502)
Student B testified Respondent also stated he was not going to accommodate
preparation for his final exam and
would have gotten if

in

would probably get a C for the course, instead of the A

was not planning to go to Israel. (T499) There appears to have been

12

 some confusion at the time of this conversation as to whether the student would have to take the
English final exam at BHS upon
discovered

return from Israel in early June, 2019. At some point, it was

would be taking the final in Israel. (T465, 482) Any confusion was clarified in an

email on January 17. (T465)
Student B’s mother spoke to both Ms. Lustica and Mr. Pincelli on or about January 16.(
T467) Her report was consistent with comments made by Ms. Lustica. She was extremely upset
by some of Respondent’s comments and found them potentially anti-Semitic. Student B
acknowledged that Respondent was a good teacher and
anti-Semitic; however, the comments did make

did not believe the comments were

feel uncomfortable. (D10; T467)

Respondent had no additional duties with regard to Student B and
Israel. Student B had no obligation to take the final once

semester abroad in

returned from Israel in early June,

2019.
It is acknowledged that the events described above took place in January, 2019, and not in
the fall of 2018 as described in Charge 2 and its specifications. Both sides made arguments as to
why this mistake is, or is not, relevant.
Summary Position of the District regarding Charge 2
The District admits that Respondent was not notified in November/December, 2018,
regarding his obligations to Student B while studying abroad simply because he had none. He was
not notified at that time because he was not required to provide curriculum information for Student
B’s English class. Respondent was not made aware of Student’s B opportunity to study abroad in
Israel until January, 2019.
Without speaking to Ms. Lustica about the situation and his responsibilities, he confronted
Student B in front of his class and made

feel uncomfortable. The District maintains this was

13

 highly inappropriate, especially coming just a month after the incident with the “N’ word,
described in Charge 1 above. There was no justification for him to have been flippant and sarcastic
to Student B. He should have discussed the matter directly with Ms. Lustica and not confronted a
15 year old student, particularly in front of

peers. Further complicating the situation was that

Respondent was not apologetic; he does not deny the essence of the charges.
The District asserts that Respondent’s conduct served no educational purpose. He could
have easily avoided the entire situation. His actions defy comprehension.
On the procedural issue, the District acknowledges all Specifications took place in the fall
of 2018 and not in January, 2019, when they actually occurred. The District asserts that, despite
this error, Respondent was made well aware of the specific nature of the Charges and
Specifications. He knew well in advance of this hearing all the various components involved in
this Charge, particularly after the meeting with his superiors in March 2019. On this basis, this
Charge should be dealt with in its entirety.
Summary Position of the Respondent regarding Charge 2
Respondent notes the mistake in the dates on the Specifications and claims that this entire
Charge and the related Specifications should be dismissed on this basis alone.
Respondent emphasized the confusion that took place regarding whether Student B would
have to take the English final examination in Brighton upon
Respondent asserts he was simply trying to prepare

return. (D22, p. 2 &3)

for the fact that it is not realistic for

to

expect to receive a high grade after missing the entire semester. Respondent asserts that if Ms.
Lustica had been clearer in her communications with him, the conversation as alleged would not
have occurred at all.
Regarding Specification 1, Respondent claims he does not remember saying he wishes he

14

 could take a vacation and still receive a paycheck. Even if true, Respondent argues that this does
not constitute punishable misconduct, especially under the circumstances in this matter.
Respondent also denies making the statements attributed to him in Specification 2.
However, he asserts that Student B acknowledged

was going to be a guest in Israel and sit in a

classroom. Student B’s own testimony acknowledged the statement is true. (T495-496)
Respondent denies the allegation in Specification 3 as written, but acknowledges he
indicated

would probably not do well on his exam. His comments to

information available at the time he had the discussion with

were based on the

. .

Regarding Specification 4, Respondent denies making the statements. However, Ms.
Lustica had previously advised him that no accommodation was necessary. Respondent argues
that the conduct in Specification 4 does not warrant any disciplinary action. Regarding
Specification 5, Respondent used the same arguments discussed in Specification 4 above.
On the basis of all of the above, Charge 2 should be dismissed in its entirety.
DISCUSSION OF CHARGE 2
At the outset, while it is clear the District made a mistake on the dates in this Charge, there
is no reason to dismiss this Charge as a result. Respondent clearly understood the Charge, knew
when it took place, and was fully prepared to properly defend himself. Respondent had full and
fair opportunity to prepare himself on all of these charges and adequately did so.
After listening to the testimony, it is difficult to determine whether Respondent was using
very bad humor or was serious in his discussions with Student B. In either case, it is clear he
made Student B feel uncomfortable. Assuming Respondent was trying to be humorous, flippant
or sarcastic, he must understand the extent to which children, even high school students, can
misunderstand such humor. There is no excuse for these conversations.

15

 The comments about the grade may have been an unfortunate misunderstanding. He
believed

was coming back in early June and would take his final upon his return. As it was

later discovered,
when

completed the English course in Israel and had no obligation to take the final

returned. However, even if he believed

had to take his final exam, he could have

discussed the matter with Dr. Lustica before making Student B feel uncomfortable. This would
have been the prudent course of action.
It is understandable why Respondent may have been annoyed by learning about Student
B’s travel to Israel after all his colleagues. It is also understandable he may have been
legitimately concerned about Student B’s grade on
making Student B feel uncomfortable in front of

final examination. However, rather than
fellow students, he could have approached Dr.

Lustica and/or Student B privately. There was no reason for him to embarrass

in front of the

class. Respondent’s lack of memory about his statements is simply not credible.
His comments about

upcoming trip to Israel were inappropriate and cannot be

condoned. Respondent is found guilty regarding the entirety of this Charge and all Specifications
contained therein. The punishment, if any, must be evaluated as a whole, in conjunction with all
other Charges and Specifications.

CHARGE 3 (Failure to Properly Assess Students for AP Courses)
Mr. Quinlisk engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher and/or misconduct and/or
neglected his duties and/or was insubordinate by failing to properly recommend students
for Advance Placement ("AP") Language and Composition based on academic merit.
Specification 1: In the Spring of 2016, Mr. Quinlisk failed to recommend his
students for AP Language and Composition in the following school year.
Specification 2: In or around January 2017, Mr Quinlisk recommended every
student in his class except two (2) for AP Language and Composition.
Specification 3: One of the two (2) students, Student C, not recommended for AP
16

 Language and Composition had reported concerns to administration about Mr. Quinlisk
and his mistreatment of her.
Specification 4: The other student Mr. Quinlisk failed to recommend for AP
English was African American.
Specification 5: Mr. Quinlisk’s actions amount to conduct unbecoming a teacher
and/or misconduct and/or neglect of duties and/or insubordination.
CHARGE 4 (Improper Interaction with Students)
Mr. Quinlisk engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher and/or engaged in misconduct
and/or neglected his duties and/or was insubordinate when he informed his students that
he was recommending all of his students for Advanced Placement ("AP") classes because
the administration and/or his colleagues had admonished him for not recommending
anyone the previous year. Specifications of this Charge are as follows:
Specification 1: In or around January 2017, Mr. Quinlisk recommended fifty-five
(55) out of a total of fifty-seven (57) students for AP Language and Composition.
Specification 2: Mr. Quinlisk informed his students that he was recommending all
of his students for AP Language and Composition because someone in the administration
and/or his colleagues expressed dissatisfaction that he did not recommend any students for
AP courses the previous year.
Specification 3: Mr. Quinlisk's actions amount to conduct unbecoming a teacher
and/or misconduct and/or neglect of duties and/or insubordination.
BACKGROUND REGARDING CHARGES 3 & 4
The evidence indicates that during the school year 2015-2016, Respondent
recommended none of his students to take Advance Placement (AP) English. (T192; D17)
At the end of the year, Mr. Pincelli spoke to Respondent that his failure to make
individualized recommendations was problematic (T192-193), Respondent agreed to
amend his approach. (T193) For the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent amended his
approach by recommending everyone. (T193, D17) He announced his attention s to his
colleagues and then to his class. (T517, 718) He indicated he concluded that his
recommendation really did not mean anything, since parents and students could override his
recommendation. As it turns out, he recommended all but two students in 2016-17.
17

 Student C believed

was constantly targeted and criticized by Respondent.

(T509-510; 530) Dr. Hall described the relationship as combative. (T71) When Student
C confronted Respondent,

testified he informed her he did not believe

could handle

AP Enlgish. (T518; T524; D24) It should be noted that Student C received an A in the AP
English course. (T519)
Keri Crowley, Student C’s guidance counselor, testified she met with Respondent to
discuss why Student C had not been recommended for AP English. She did not believe the
conversation went very well; Respondent held a paper in front of his face the entire meeting
and then demanded the student come and talk to him directly. (T554-5) Ultimately, Student
C was able to get an override form from Respondent. When Ms. Crowley reviewed the
override form, she found it was unsigned. (T560) Eventually, she received email
authorization from Respondent. (T561, 563)
Respondent countered it was a mistake not to recommend Student C for AP English.
He simply pushed the wrong button on the computer. He asserted this was also true for the
other student who was not recommended. (See T116) Dr. Hall believes it was done
maliciously. (T116)
Summary Position of the District regrading Charges 3 & 4
The District asserts Respondent’s conduct in the matters relating to these charges
exhibited a complete lack of professionalism, misconduct, insubordination, and
recalcitrance. It notes teacher recommendations are heavily relied upon by the District, its
students, and their parents. (T60) While such recommendations are not binding (T79-80),
teacher recommendations are meant to serve as a guide for the individual student, to help the
student/parent make an informed, educated decision with respect to course selection.

18

 (T194-7) If there is a discrepancy between a teacher’s recommendation and a student’s
desire to take a particular course, the teacher is required to discuss the situation with the
student and/or parent.. (T 194; D 17) It asserts the logic of the process is axiomatic.
The District maintains Respondent’s actions regarding recommendations and his
announcement to the class about these recommendations were inconsistent with District
policies and protocols which required making individualized recommendations for course
placement. (T201-2) The flip flop in recommendations between 2015-2016 and
2016-2017 were not logical and were in direct violation of the instructions given by Mr.
Pinzelli. Respondent was the lone dissenter in the English Department. (D17)
The District notes that two students were not recommended by Respondent in
2016-2017. One of them testified. Student C believed

was constantly and

specifically targeted by Respondent throughout the year. (T509-516; D24) Student C asserts
was told by Respondent “

could not handle it (AP English).” (TY 518) Respondent

did not recall the exchange. The District asserts that Respondent knew exactly what he
was doing when he failed to recommend Student C. (R6) The District also suggests his
assertion that it was a computer error is simply not credible. (T727; R10)
In sum, Respondent’s actions relating to the overall recommendations were contrary
to the directive and processes he was instructed to follow. His defense regarding the
recommendation of Student C is not credible. On this basis, he should be terminated.
Summary Position of the Respondent Regarding Charges 3 and 4
Respondent asserts that the charges in Specification 1 are untimely since they
occurred more than three years ago, the statute of limitations in a 3020-a proceeding.
Further, Respondent testified he was not admonished, disciplined or counselled for failing

19

 to recommend students in 2015-2016. (T 715)
Respondent further notes that Specifications 1 and 2 were the subject of a counselling
memorandum issued to Respondent in the 2016-17 school year. The District should not be
allowed to bring disciplinary charges for the very same conduct. It also notes Mr.
Pincelli testified there have been no further issues with AP recommendations after
Respondent was counselled in April, 2017. (T284)
Respondent also discussed the lack of any written guidelines regarding how many
students, if any, should be recommended, or the process in which recommendations were to
be made. (T790)
Respondent asserts that Student C was initially overlooked by mistake and he
immediately recommended

when the error was brought to his attention. (T720-6)

Respondent argues there was no evidence submitted to contradict these assertions.
Respondent questions the breadth of the allegations made at the hearing and why none of
this was included in the Charges and Specifications. Additionally, looking at the timing of
Student C’s assertions,

is not credible. Accordingly, this aspect of the charges should be

dismissed.
Respondent notes that Mr. Pincelli testified his conduct relating to Specification 4
was probably an oversight. (T 121-2) Accordingly, this Specification should be dismissed.
Respondent also argues that the comments alleged in Charge 4 do not warrant
discipline. If accurate, it appears Respondent was merely being sarcastic and flippant.
DISCUSSION OF CHARGES 3 & 4
There can be little argument concerning Respondent’s lack of professionalism when
he recommended no students in one year and all but two the following year. Even if

20

 Respondent was upset with the District’s policy regarding students taking AP courses, his
course of action should not have impacted students in any way. Even if one of the years is
beyond the statute of limitations, the conduct relates directly to other similar conduct that
occurred within the statute of limitations and therefore must be evaluated as part of his total
record.
Regarding the fact that two students were not recommended in the 2016-2017 school
year, Respondent asserts it was a simple mistake when imputing the information into the
computer. Given the fact that one of the students appears to have been confrontational
with Respondent, it is difficult to find this assertion credible. It is simply too much of a
coincidence.
However, Respondent was issued a counseling letter on April 25, 2017, for his
misconduct. Mr. Pincelli acknowledged that since this counselling memo was issued,
Respondent’s conduct regarding recommendations for AP has been appropriate. Given his
conduct regarding recommendations over the last two years, the extent to which this issue
should be considered, if at all, will be discussed in the penalty section of this decision.
CHARGE 5

.

.

.
21

  

2

22

DISCUSSION OF CHARGE 5

CHARGE 6 (Failure to Properly Administer Final Exam)
Mr. Quinlisk engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher and/or engaged in misconduct
23

 and/or neglected his duties and/or was insubordinate when he failed to properly administer
the final exam for English Grade 12 or proctor it. Specifications of this Charge are as
follows:
Specification 1: In the 2018-2019 school year, Dystopian Literature (a
one-semester course) was taught by two (2) teachers during the same semester. Mr.
Pincelli informed Mr. Quinlisk and the other teacher teaching the class, Ms. Heather
Bonadonna ("Ms. Bonadonna"), that if both teachers were going to administer a final
exam, it needed to be the same exam. Both teachers confirmed understanding this
directive.
Specification 2: In January 2019, Mr. Quinlisk failed to administer the final exam
in the same manner as Ms. Bonadonna.
Specification 3: In January of 2019, Mr. Quinlisk issued a take-home essay exam
without notice or collaboration with Ms. Bonadonna.
Specification 4: In January 2019, Mr. Quinlisk failed to proctor exam(s) as
required. Specification 5: Mr. Quinlisk's actions amount to conduct unbecoming a teacher
and/or misconduct and/or neglect of duties and/or insubordination.

BACKGROUND REGARDING CHARGE 6
The specifications stated above are accurate. Two teachers were assigned to teach a
course on Dystopian Literature. The teachers were instructed to administer the same final exam.
(D13 & D14; T 176) English Coordinator Rebecca Wiggins also testified there were clear,
unwritten instructions given to the two teachers stating that they should give the same final
examination. (T376) She also believed that Respondent expressed some hesitation about the
need to align the finals of the two courses. (T 382)
Without consulting with each other, Respondent administered a take-home essay exam,
while the other teacher, Ms. Bonadonna, administered a traditional final exam. In addition to not
giving the same final examination as his colleague, Respondent did not appear on time for his
proctoring assignment.
24

 Summary Position of the District regarding Charge 6
The District asserts this final charge was readily proven by its case-in-chief and confirmed
by Respondent. During the September 2018 English Department meeting, the testimony
indicates Mr. Pincelli made it clear what giving the same exam meant. (T 180) This explanation
was further amplified in a series of emails and Department notes. (D13, D14)
Two teachers taught the course on Dystopian Literature. One gave a traditional final
exam. One gave a take home exam. (D15) In addition to the manner in which the exam was
given, the content was also significantly different. Finally, Respondent arrived late to his
proctoring assignment.
Summary Position of the Respondent regarding to Charge 6
Respondent queries whether the instructions stated the two exams must be identical. It is
conceded that the two teachers did not have to use the same texts, syllabus or curriculum. (T639)
Respondent argues that there would need to be some flexibility in drafting the exam in light of the
different approaches used by these two teachers in teaching their respective classes.
Respondent argued that both exams tested the same standard as required. Respondent
asserts that Mr. Pincelli did not make his expectations clear to both teachers. This was obvious in
his colleague Ms. Bonadonna’s testimony. (T638) Respondent testified that he believed both
exams were required to have the same standard. (T699-700) Additionally, there was no
discussion as to whether the exams had to be given on the same date and under the same time
constraints. (T274)
Respondent also notes that no allegations have been brought against Ms. Bonadonna. If
Respondent is guilty of this charge, failure to impose any discipline on Ms. Bonadonna results in
25

 disparate treatment.
Regarding showing up to proctor late, Respondent concedes he forgot about the exam
schedule. (T648) He notes however that there were plenty of teachers to adequately proctor the
exam.
DISCUSSION OF CHARGE 6
It should have been obvious to both teachers that the reason for the directive to have the
same final exam was to make sure the two courses were somewhat similar, while giving both
teachers latitude to instruct the course as each deemed appropriate. While the District wants to
give both the ability to develop the course independently, the requirement of a common final
would encourage discussion between the teachers to insure consistency in the two courses.
There can be no question the two teachers administered two different types of final exams
with significantly different content. There can be no question the two teachers did not
communicate with each other concerning the types of final exam that each wished to administer.
There was a clear directive that both teachers should administer the same exam; both teachers
failed to fulfill this directive, the only question is the punishment, if any. Depending on the
overall work record of each teacher, the penalties may be different.
Regarding the proctoring, there is no question Respondent failed to proctor the final exam,
as required. While such a mistake can occasionally occur, the question becomes whether it is
subject to discipline. In the context of the entire record, a District may treat this type of offense
less severely for a teacher with a spotless record. For such a teacher, the first offense may be a
very simple reminder. For a teacher with a record that is not pristine, this offense may be treated
more seriously. This will be discussed in the penalty section of this Decision.
26

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF DISCIPLINE
Based on the above analysis, Respondent has been found guilty of Charges 1, 2 and 6.
He has been found not guilty of Charge 5. Regarding Charge 3 and 4, these offenses must be
evaluated in the context of his entire record, with full knowledge that they occurred in the school
years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. This should be evaluated in the context that he has made
appropriate recommendations for AP English since the counseling letter was issued in the spring
of 2017.
Summary Position of the District on Penalty
The District argues termination is warranted as the charges are both substantial and
substantiated. Respondent victimized three different students (Charges 1, 2 & 3), ignored
specific directive related to the AP selection process (Charge 3 & 4), was insubordinate regarding
changes to his Professional Focus Plan (Charge 5), and completely disregarded directives related
to test administration in Dystopian Literature (Charge 6). Far more egregious is his demonstrated
antagonism toward students, particularly female students.
The District is concerned with Respondent’s failure to express any remorse for his actions.
This heightens the likelihood that these types of situations could occur again if Respondent was
returned to work.
Summary Position of the Respondent on Penalty
Respondent asserts the District has not met its burden that Respondent committed any acts
of insubordination, misconduct, neglect of duties, or conducting unbecoming a teacher. Even if
Respondent is found guilty of some of these acts, the conduct could be remedied through
counseling rather than discipline. In any case, termination of employment is too severe.
27

 Respondent notes his 18 years of excellent service, his extensive volunteer work, and
involvement in numerous District activities. His evaluations have been superb. Numerous
positive comments about his ability as a teacher can be found in his record. In May, 2018,
Respondent was the recipient of the New York State Parent Teacher Student Association Life
Membership, where he was acknowledged by members of the District community for his
outstanding service to children and families. (R1)
DISCUSSION
A review of Respondent’s employment record is perplexing. There is no question that he
has been a highly regarded teacher, well liked and well respected by students and his peers. There
is also no question that, over the last several years, Respondent has engaged in conduct that is
inconsistent with his previously stellar record.
The conduct regarding AP recommendations demonstrated a disdain for a policy of the
District regarding the final say on who takes an AP exam. Respondent has the right to disagree
with the policy; in the end, however, he must adhere to the policy and make recommendations in a
responsible, professional manner. There is no question he is guilty of Charges 3 and 4 regarding
the recommendations for AP English. The seriousness of these Charges is diminished by the fact
he corrected his behavior in the last two academic years. However, his conduct was part of a
pattern of behavior that has become extremely troubling.
There is no question he made inappropriate comments to three different students, two
during the 2018-2019 school year and one during the 2016-2017 school year. With his years of
experience, Respondent should know his comments were ill advised and ill timed. The evidence
supports the fact that Respondent is guilty of Charge 1 and 2, and Specification 3 of Charge 4.
28

 Regarding Charge 5, there is no sufficient evidence to find guilt.
Regarding Charge 6, the evidence was convincing to demonstrate Respondent disregarded
his instructions to give the same examination as his colleague teaching the same course.
On the basis of the above, Respondent is guilty of Charge 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Each of these
charges would normally result in minor discipline such as a counselling memo or a written
reprimand. However, when considered in conjunction with the other charges, a harsh penalty for
the totality of his conduct must be imposed.
Charge 3 & 4 occurred over two years ago and it appears Respondent has mended his ways
in that area. Further discipline for those offenses would normally be inappropriate; however, it
serves as evidence that Respondent’s conduct has become part of a pattern that is increasingly
problematic. This also must be evaluated when assessing an appropriate penalty.
Charges 1, 2 and 6 all occurred during the 2018-2019 school year. All three are serious:
each standing alone would have resulted in a counseling memo or some other type of minor
discipline. Standing alone, none of them would have resulted in termination. If the incidents
had occurred further apart, there would have been additional written reprimands and possibly a
short suspension. With the events occurring in the 2018-2019 school year, progressive discipline
may have been impractical; however, because of the absence of any recent discipline, termination
is also not appropriate in this case. It must be understood that the counselling for the AP
recommendations is over two years old and the conduct has been remedied. However, with
Charges 1, 2 & 6 all occurring close together, all within the one school year, a substantial penalty is
appropriate.
As noted, because of the severity of these offenses, together with his conduct regarding the
29

 AP exams, a harsh penalty is appropriate. His conduct was offensive; his lack of remorse is
problematic. Any teacher, even a veteran teacher, can unconsciously offend a student in class.
When advised of such conduct, one would expect the teacher to become concerned and apologetic.
This should happen whenever a student is offended by teacher conduct. It is also a way to learn
techniques to be certain the same mistake does not occur again. With both the “N” word and the
trip to Israel, Respondent should have immediately started evaluating how he could have
accomplished the same result without offending a student. Regarding the final exam in Charge 6
and the AP recommendations, Respondent must learn that he has to follow directions from his
superiors. While he is an experienced teacher, he is not the boss.
Respondent’s lack of remorse and acceptance that he did something wrong raises the
concern that the same or similar conduct may occur again. This makes a significant penalty
appropriate. Respondent must understand that this type of behavior cannot be repeated.
Accordingly, Respondent shall be placed on an unpaid suspension for the remainder of the
fall semester in the 2019-2020 school year. It would not be fair to him or to the students to have
him start at the very end of the fall semester of this year. It is also appropriate for the Respondent
face a financial penalty for his actions. In addition to the suspension of without pay of
approximately 4-6 weeks, Respondent shall be fined an additional $5,000. This would be taken
from his paycheck when he returns to work for the spring semester in 2020. This should amount
to a penalty equivalent to the loss of two-three month’s pay.
Respondent must understand that he has recently behaved improperly on a number of
occasions. This cannot continue or be repeated. Any future acts of improper conduct should
result in his termination.
30

 DECISION AND AWARD
1. Respondent James Quinlisk is guilty of the Charge 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, set forth in
the Statement of Charges dated May 13, 2019. He is not guilty of Charge 5
contained din the same Statement of Charges.
2. Termination is not the appropriate penalty in this case. Respondent James
Quinlisk shall be suspended without pay for the remainder of the first semester
of the school year 2019-2020 and pay a fine of $5,000. He shall return to duty
at the beginning of the second semester of the current school year.
3. The Hearing Officer shall retain jurisdiction for 60 days in case there is any
dispute regarding the implication of this Award

Dated: December 4, 2019
`

(s) Ira B. Lobel
____________________________
Ira B. Lobel, Hearing Officer
AFFIRMATION

STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ALBANY

)
)

I, Ira B. Lobel, do hereby affirm upon my oath as Arbitrator that I am the individual described in
and who executed this instrument, which is my award.
Date: December 4, 2019
(s) Ira B. Lobel
________________
Ira B. Lobel, Hearing Officer

31