School employees should not be expected to operate metal detectors or conduct security checks on students — and they certainly shouldn't be fired because an armed student sneaks through, a state Supreme Court judge has ruled.

In a major win for New York State United Teachers, acting State Supreme Court Justice Samuel D. Walker ordered that Michael Williams, a crisis intervention worker at the Greenburgh 11 school district, be reinstated to his position and receive $81,000 in back pay and interest.

The justice ruled it was inappropriate and illegal for the school district to assign Williams and other employees to perform security screening duties.

"This decision makes it clear that school districts should not be assigning these duties to anyone but security guards," said NYSUT President Dick Iannuzzi. "We believe there could be many instances where our members are being asked to do this. It's not right and it's dangerous."

Litigation began in February 2004, when Michael Williams, a crisis intervention worker, was fired by Greenburgh 11 for allegedly misperforming his security screening duties.

According to the school district, Williams failed to properly monitor a student who, a month earlier, entered a cottage on the campus at Children's Village in Dobbs Ferry with a loaded revolver. Williams said later evidence showed he wasn't even on duty at the time the student entered the building.

The Greenburgh 11 district, a Special Act school district in Westchester County, serves emotionally disturbed boys who attend as day students or live on campus at Children's Village.

NYSUT lawyers Chris Meagher and Sherry Bokser argued that the district violated Civil Service Law, State Education Law and the State Security Guard Act by assigning teacher aides, crisis intervention workers and certified members of the teaching staff to perform security screening duties such as operating metal detectors, wanding, frisking and searching students' coats and belongings at the school entrance.

In a decision released in March, Walker agreed. He ruled the Greenburgh district evaded the intent and spirit of the Security Guard Act of 1992 and had threatened public safety, by assigning weapon-screening duties to staff that included school psychologists, social workers and teachers, who were never trained to conduct such screening.

"They just handed me the (security) wand and said 'wand them,'" Williams recalled. "They just told me it was part of my job."

The judge noted State Education Law and the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education clearly specify duties for educational personnel such as teacher aides and crisis intervention workers. "There is no rational nexus between the crisis intervention worker's duties and the performance of twice-daily 'coat checks,' body searches and electronic screening for weapons at the entrance of the building," Walker ruled.

He similarly found such duties were inappropriate for teacher aides and, especially, certified teachers.

Walker cited an earlier court decision that found, "To allow this type of assignment is tantamount to allowing a district to expect teachers to perform 'janitorial services,' police services (traffic services) [and] school bus driving service — acts which clearly violate the reasonableness test."

The assignment, Walker ruled, "is clearly inconsistent with the dignity of the profession and diminishes the role of the educator and their ability to achieve the respect of their students."

The responsibility and duty to "screen, detect and remove hazardous and dangerous objects from a student's clothing or person" should only be carried out by trained personnel, he stressed.

The district had argued that the staffers are well-known, liked and trusted by the boys. But Walker said the district's own employment policy, adopted to comply with state "safe schools" legislation in 2000, places "no affirmative duty" on the staff to remove dangerous weapons from students.

"It simply requires, in the case a student is suspected of having a weapon, that retreat and reporting procedures be followed, including notifying the Dobbs Ferry Police Department and Special Children Services," Walker said.

School officials also argued the monitoring duties were reasonable because they only took place twice a day — 20 minutes in the morning and 20 minutes after lunch.

Walker said the time spent, however, was irrelevant. "In a matter of seconds, a disturbed student or any visitor to the facility could secrete a dangerous instrumentality into the facility," he wrote. "The cost of an untrained staff member's oversight would be paid in lost lives or injured bodies — a price this court is not willing to pay, sanction or endorse."

Walker noted the state Security Guard Act was enacted to ensure that guards meet minimum recruitment and training standards.

An applicant must be registered and fingerprinted. In addition, the law requires that candidates complete eight hours of pre-assignment training, as well as 16 to 40 hours on-the-job training related to the security guard's specific duties and an eight-hour annual in-service training course.

The judge noted the security firm hired by the district to "train" the staff in using metal detectors was not registered to be a trainer. In fact, NYSUT's action exposed that the company's personnel were not even properly licensed to work as security guards themselves until the union action began.

Walker ordered the Greenburgh district to bring its practices in compliance with Civil Service Law, Education Law, and the Security Guard Act, as well as the district's Emergency Response and Code of Conduct, within 90 days.

Within that period, the district must establish an appropriate procedure and protocol to screen incoming persons and their belongings.

After two years out of work, Williams returned to his post in early May. "The union was incredible and backed me up totally," Williams said. "The school tried to make me the scapegoat when it hit the news that a kid got in with a loaded gun."

Williams said the investigation found the armed student walked into the building before he reported for duty. "The boy entered at 8:10 a.m. when the security guard was on duty. I didn't come on until 8:30."

For Williams, "getting fired was unfair because I wasn't even the one who checked the kid. For the union, it was the bigger issue of 'Hey, he shouldn't even be doing these safety screenings.'"

— Sylvia Saunders