Termination upheld after off-duty slur and documented discriminatory classroom conduct
On December 4, 2025, a New York appeals court upheld the termination of an NYC teacher for discriminatory conduct captured on video and in classrooms.
The case concerns Katina Garanes, a New York City Department of Education teacher with approximately 18 years of service and no prior disciplinary record. Her conduct came under scrutiny after a widely disseminated video, recorded off school grounds, showed her directing a racial insult at a woman, calling her an “Asian bitch.” That video triggered a Department of Education investigation, which identified additional discriminatory conduct inside her classroom.
Investigators reported multiple incidents involving students from Jewish, Muslim, Asian, Hispanic, and African American backgrounds. The record includes examples such as asking a student if he was sure he was Jewish and remarking that “everyone who is Jewish knows about this,” asking Muslim students to demonstrate their prayer and cleansing ritual in front of classmates, and telling a student in March 2020 that he did not need a mask because he was not Chinese. The Department pursued charges under Education Law § 3020‑a. After a hearing, the Hearing Officer sustained specifications tied to the off‑duty video and to discriminatory classroom conduct, and determined that termination was the appropriate penalty.
Garanes sought to vacate the arbitration award under CPLR article 75. By judgment entered January 3, 2024, the Supreme Court, New York County (Erika Edwards, J.), denied her amended petition and granted the Department’s cross‑motion to dismiss. On December 4, 2025, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The court held that termination was supported by the record, not disproportionate to the offense, and did not shock one’s sense of fairness.
Several points drove the outcome. The panel emphasized the gravity of the charges; that Garanes had recently participated in implicit bias training and received Chancellor’s Regulation A‑830, which sets out the Department’s anti‑discrimination policy and expectations for professional conduct inside and outside the classroom; and her failure to demonstrate remorse or take responsibility. The court noted that the Hearing Officer credited two reports prepared by Department investigators, who interviewed students and parents and testified at the hearing. Those reports, along with testimony, described numerous incidents of discriminatory conduct and supported the finding that Garanes was unfit to properly and effectively perform her obligations as a teacher. The court distinguished a prior case involving a one‑time lapse, explaining that this matter involved serious conduct captured on video and additional incidents establishing a pattern.
For HR leaders, here’s what matters: off‑duty conduct that violates a clear anti‑discrimination policy can lead to termination, particularly when the policy applies to conduct both inside and outside the workplace. Documented training and policy distribution can weigh heavily in upholding discipline. Thorough internal investigations – memorialized in reports and supported by witness interviews – can prove decisive in both arbitration and judicial review. And post‑incident conduct, including whether an employee expresses remorse, may influence penalty analysis.
