Plaintiffs in this case alleged that the Brentwood Union Free School District (“the District”) improperly hired special education teachers in violation of the Board of Eduation’s policies. Plaintiffs alleged that the District improperly hired three special education teachers because those teachers did not apply for the published vacancies prior to the deadline date of the vacancies and some of them lacked the certification for such position at all relevant times. Plaintiffs further argued that she was purposefully excluded from consideration because of her race and color as a Black woman.
We established that the District s defendants were never properly served with a copy of the plaintiffs’ complaint or a Notice of Claim and thus the court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of proper service pursuant to New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules.
The plaintiff in this case filed suit for tortious malpractice and breach of duty, breach of contract, and violations of the Suffolk County Human Rights Law. Plaintiff argued that defendants violated his civil rights when they did not interview him for the principal position at the Hiawatha Elementary School. Plaintiff maintains that he did not receive an interview because of the discriminatory actions of defendants towards people of a certain race and color. Plaintiff claimed he had qualifications equal to, if not better than, the candidate the school ultimately chose. Plaintiff also argued that defendants considered unqualified, non-Black applicants over at least one Black person who met the minimal qualifications for the position.
Many of the defendants were not properly served with a copy of the plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff untimely served a copy of the complaint and notice of claim upon defendants, and several of the causes of action asserted had expired due to the applicable statute of limitations. The plaintiff’s explanation for the lack of proper, timely service was that he was mentally incapacitated for all intents and purposes relevant to the case. The court found this to be an unsatisfactory explanation combined with the fact that plaintiff failed to set forth any colorable cause of action and dismissed the complaint against our clients.
Plaintiff is a former Mahopac Central School District (“the District”) high school football coach. Plaintiff brought federal claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Rehabilitation Act § 504 (“§ 504”)), alleging discriminatory and retaliatory conduct due to his age and disability (deafness in his right ear, tinnitus, hypertension and heart disease). Plaintiff also brought a state law defamation claim.
Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA and § 504 were dismissed because Plaintiff failed to establish that his hearing loss in one ear and heart disease constituted a disability within the meaning of the two acts. Under these two similar acts, one must establish that their medical condition significantly and negatively impacts major life activities such as speaking, breathing, and sleeping. Plaintiff was not able to show that either of his medical conditions significantly impaired major life activities or precluded him from teaching or coaching and thus the Court dismissed his claims under the ADA and § 504.
Plaintiff’s claims under the ADEA were also dismissed. Plaintiff was not able to establishthat District’s actions against him were motivated by discriminatory intent. Plaintiff pointed to the relative youth of his replacement as head coach, the District’s late notification to him of his non-appointment as football coach, and the implementation of a new coaching policy at the school after his non-appointment as evidence of discriminatory intent. The court again found for the District citing Plaintiff’s failure to bring the claim in a timely fashion and failure to articulate how the evidence presented amounted to discriminatory animus. In addition, the retaliation claim failed, because the courts require a strong connection between protected activity and adverse employment action is necessary to establish a retaliation claim. Plaintiff could not establish a strong enough connection here. Plaintiff also failed to plausibly allege any hostile workplace claim because he failed to allege Defendants’ conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive, two necessary components to a hostile workplace claim. Therefore, his ADEA claims were dismissed with prejudice as well.
Lastly, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, regarding Plaintiff’s state law defamation claims.
Plaintiff taught English in the Uniondale Union Free School District (“the District”) since 2007. Plaintiff alleged there was discriminatory intent behind her involuntary transfer from her desired position at Uniondale High School (UHS) to the Lawrence Road Middle School (LRMS), arguing that she was transferred because of her race.. She sued the District pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Following discovery, defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment.
The Court granted our motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Title VII and NYSHRL claims because plaintiff’s claim that another teacher took her desired position at UHS due to racial bias is based on mere speculation. The Court found there was no evidence to support a rational finding that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons proffered by the Districtwere false. In fact, the District proffered a clearly articulated, well supported, and consistent non-discriminatory explanation for plaintiff’s transfer. The District explained that transfers are made in accordance with the needs of students and that plaintiff’s skills and strengths as a teacher addressed the needs of and would be beneficial to LRMS and its students.
The Court also granted our motion for summary judgment on the ADEA claim because of the absence of an available remedy. Plaintiff was seeking effective reinstatement to her longstanding high school position, and she was returned to UHS for the 2022-2023 school year. Further, the plaintiff sustained no lost pay, benefits, title, or seniority due to her transfer and thus there was nothing to compensate.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a teacher of industrial arts and technology at Nassau BOCES (“BOCES”) from 2009 to 2020. Plaintiff resigned after being notified that his request to teach remotely due to risk of exposure to COVID-19 was denied. Plaintiff asserted defendant violated NYSHRL section 296 by failing to accommodate his remote teaching request and that he was forced to retire prematurely due to defendant’s denial of his request.
BOCES established that it was returning to a primarily in-person instruction and teaching model for the 2020/2021 school year and submitted evidence demonstrating that in-person instruction was an essential function of the plaintiff’s job as a certified technology and career teacher for special education students. So, plaintiff’s fully remote teaching schedule was not a reasonable request In addition, the Court found that BOCES did engage in a good faith interactive process where it assessed the plaintiff’s needs and the reasonableness of his requested accommodation, but plaintiff did not respond to defendant’s request for alternative accommodations and then resigned before defendants could complete the process.
Plaintiff failed to establish that he was constructively discharged by defendant’s actions. BOCES did not fail to provide plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation and did not deliberately make the plaintiff’s working conditions so intolerable a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign. Thus, the Court granted our motion to dismiss because the plaintiff did not adequately demonstrate that he had suffered an adverse employment action.
The plaintiff in this casesued Newburgh Enlarged City School District (“the District”), claiming that the actions of the District Board (i.e. the recalculation of hisson’s, GPA and re-designation from valedictorian to co-valedictorian) were in retaliation to his activity in Board meetings and hindered his ability to exercise his constitutional rights regarding political speech.
The court found that the District’sactions plainly did not disturb the plaintiff’s right to express his political views in Board meetings, to cast votes, or to serve his constituents in his capacity as a member of the Board. In fact, the plaintiff continued to serve on the Board, was assigned to two Board committees, had never been denied the opportunity to vote on any Board action, and still speaks to the press about school district issues, his positions on them, and his work as a Board member. Further, the Court found no evidence was presented from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the redesignation and GPA recalculation could be found as retaliation for his father’s speech.
The Court held that the District’s actions were not retaliatory and did not implicate plaintiff’s First Amendment rights nor his fundamental ability to function in the office and, therefore, the court granted our motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff commenced this action against the Goshen Central School District (“the District”) under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) claiming that a school principal defendants was mean to her, ignored people he did not feel were worth speaking to, and targeted her specifically. Plaintiff also argued that the treatment she received was because she did not express herself in a feminine manner and she observed male staff being treated better than her. However, regarding the gender disparate treatment claims we successfully argued that not only were the claims time barred as per the one-year statute of limitations under the NYSHRL, but the alleged comments and conduct were not gender or sex based either. Thus, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment on those claims.
As for the hostile work environment claims, plaintiff failed to establish that her workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working environment. Thus, our motion for summary judgment was granted on the hostile work environment claim as well.
445 Hamilton Avenue
Suite 1102
White Plains, NY 10601
info@silvermanandassociatesny.com
Phone: 914.574.4510
Fax: 914.574.4515
© 2015 Silverman & Associates. All Rights Reserved. This site may constitute attorney advertising.Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome.
