The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York granted our motion to dismiss on behalf of our clients, the Nassau BOCES School District and employees of the BOCES, on Plaintiff’s seven claims, of which one was a federal claim.
Plaintiff was a teacher’s aide in the BOCES. There were several complaints about Plaintiff, and Plaintiff accused the BOCESof creating a hostile work environment. Plaintiff violated teacher-student boundaries and was given a psychiatric evaluation. After a disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff’s employment was terminated and this action was commenced.
The Court addressed the one pertinent issue, the statute of limitations, which it determined barred plaintiff’s claims. The relevant limitations had expired. The Court granted our motion to dismiss and remanded the action to the New York State Supreme Court.
The United States District Court, Eastern District of New York granted our motion for summary judgment on behalf of our client, Valley Stream Central High School District (District). First, in a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964 (Title VII) retaliation claim.
Plaintiff was a teacher in the social studies department of the District and had served as chair of that department for part of her tenure. During her tenure ten teachers made complaints to the District about her conduct. All the claims were investigated and deemed unactionable under the District’s policy or unsubstantiated. Plaintiff then filed an EEOC Complaint faulting District for failing to discipline the teachers who made complaints about harassment. A Counseling Memo was provided to Plaintiff to help guide her in her unprofessional behavior. Plaintiff alleged that the Counseling Memo was an action taken by the District in retaliation for her EEOC Complaint.
We successfully argued that the Counseling Memo did not amount to a materially adverse action within the meaning of Title VII in support of a case of retaliation and could not be causally connected to the EEOC Complaint. The Court accepted the Magistrate’s report and recommendation in full and granted summary judgment.
Plaintiff brought suit in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and appealed its ruling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the District Court’s ruling was affirmed in favor of our client, the Mahopac Central School District and several District employees (Mahopac).
Plaintiff alleged that Mahopac retaliated against his disabled son by ending certain services it had been providing after plaintiff voiced concerns about those services.
Parents who wish to challenge an individualized education program (IEP) in court must first exhaust their administrative remedies pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) procedures. In addition to applying to IDEA claims, these apply to claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and the First Amendment.
Plaintiff unsuccessfully argued that his claims did not seek relief that is available under the IDEA, and, therefore, he was not required to exhaust them before suing. The Court concluded Plaintiff was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA before bringing his First Amendment and Rehabilitation Act retaliation claims in federal court, and the District Court correctly dismissed his retaliation claims for lack of jurisdiction.
The Village of Dobbs Ferry was granted a conservation easement by the Landing Condominiums predecessor by deed for the benefit of the Village residents. The Landing brought this suit due to the Village’s locking of a footbridge gate which led to a waterfront parcel (the easement). The Village placed this lock there because it was the height of the beginning of COVID, and residents were known to congregate in large groups at the waterfront parcel.
The Landing contends that the Village arbitrarily locked the gate and was using COVID merely as pretext. The Landing sued the Village for alleged trespass, nuisance, conversion, breach of the covenant of quiet use and enjoyment, breach of the conservation easement and conservation easement deeds, breach of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law o, prima facie tort, and violation of due process.
The Court agreed that the Village was entitled to governmental immunity from all causes of action and that the restricted access to the area was a necessary act to prevent the further spread of a dangerous, unknown disease in a place the Village could not easily monitor or effectively keep disinfected. Further, placing the lock was a discretionary act on the part of the Village and discretionary acts may not be the basis for liability under governmental immunity. The court found the Village acted in a governmental capacity and locking the gate was for the protection and safety of the public pursuant to general police powers and granted our motion to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiff in this case was a school bus driver for Beacon City School District (“the District”). Plaintiff was to be paid on a bi-weekly basis with paychecks to be deposited directly into his bank account. A paycheck was to be distributed to plaintiff for the period of August 24, 2018 – September 6, 2018. However, when plaintiff attempted to submit his timesheet before the pay period concluded he was told it was too early to submit his time. Upon realizing his paycheck had not been deposited into his account, plaintiff spoke with one of Beacon’s dispatchers. Plaintiff assumed that the dispatcher told him it was too early to submit his timesheet because he was Black and believed the dispatcher to be aggressive towards himself and other Black bus drivers due to her tone.
Plaintiff himself testified that he did not believe any adverse actions were taken against him due to his race or color other than the failure to receive a paycheck. Plaintiff himself also acknowledged he did receive said paycheck shortly thereafter. Plaintiff merely speculated that there was discriminatory intent, without any supporting evidence. He similarly failed to make out a prima facie case for a hostile workplace environment because he could not show how a delayedpaycheck altered the conditions of his employment in any meaningful manner. Therefore, our motion for summary judgment was granted.
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.
