Uphold Firing Of Bus Driver For Rape Case Plea

By RICHARD STEIER

The firing of a School Bus Driver who was accused of felony rape but pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct has been upheld by a Manhattan Supreme Court Justice.

Richard Downs had sued the Department of Education to regain his job, contending that it had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in revoking his school bus driver's license. He noted that the charge to which he pleaded guilty is a violation rather than a criminal offense, and said he entered the plea only after being assured by an investigator from the Office of Pupil Transportation that it would not prevent him from returning to work.

Case Built on 'Hearsay'

Mr. Downs also noted that the investigator, Dennis Harrington, testified at his Department of Education hearing that his probe was based on two newspaper articles about his arrest. He claimed that this amounted to hearsay evidence and should not be the basis for his losing the job.

In response, the Department of Education noted that Mr. Downs had violated a Schools Chancellor's regulation requiring that any school employee who was arrested and charged with a felony had to immediately notify the department's investigative office.

It also noted that, although the case was disposed of with a guilty plea to a lesser charge, the fact that the conviction stemmed from "a rape complaint by a 17-year-old girl is an offense that posed a great concern for the safety of the school children transported by petitioner," Justice Walter B. Tulu wrote in his ruling.

Didn't Refute Charges

The administrative decision accompanying Mr. Downs's firing had noted that DOE's dealings with children required that "employees are held to a higher standard than Criminal Court."

Justice Tulu noted that not only had the driver failed to notify school authorities of his arrest but he never testified about its circumstances "or the truth or falsity of the underlying charges. In fact, the only concrete statement he made about the charges was that he did not know the complainant. It was his burden to assemble proof upon which the hearing officer could conclude that there was no substance to the charges, and, in that regard, he failed miserably."

As to the newspaper articles that spurred the investigation, Justice Tolub stated that "hearsay is admissible in an administrative proceeding, and may constitute substantial evidence where it is relevant and probative."

As a result, he concluded that the DOE hearing officer's recommendation to revoke Mr. Downes's license as a school bus driver was neither arbitrary nor capricious.