Storman v. NYC DOE: Amended Complaint Page 1 

JOHN C. KLOTZ (JK 4162) 

The Empire State Building 

350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4810 

New York, New York 10118-4810 

(212) 630-2600 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------------X 

 : 

GLENN STORMAN : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

 -against- : 

 : 

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

 : 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------X 

Index No. 07-CV-5797 (SHS) 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS 

TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff GLENN STORMAN, for his Amended Complaint, alleges: 

1. Jurisdiction and venue

1. This is an action pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983 to 

redress the denial to Plaintiff by Defendant of protected liberty interests and rights without due 

process of law. 

2. Jurisdiction is based upon the provisions 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

3. Venue is based upon the location of defendant's principal office in the City, 

County and State of New York, within the Southern District. 

2. Parties

4. Plaintiff is a resident of the City of New York, County of Richmond and State of 

New York. 

5. Defendant New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE) is an agency of 

Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 9 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 9
Storman v. NYC DOE: Amended Complaint Page 2 

the New York City government having its principal office at 52 Chambers Street in the City, 

County and State of New York. 

3. Color of State Law

6. The Chief Executive of the NYC DOE is the Chancellor who executes the 

policies of the NYS DOE pursuant to the provisions of the N.Y.S. Education Law, the City 

Charter and the Rules and Regulations of the NYC DOE. 

7. At all pertinent times, the Chancellor and the various other employees of the NYC 

DOE whose actions are described herein were acting in accordance with the scope of their 

employment by the NYC DOE under color of law by reason of grants authority from New York 

State and New York City. 

4. Protected liberty interests at risk

8. For over 25 years Plaintiff has been employed by the New York City Board of 

Education and for the last 16 years he has been employed as a guidance counselor. During this 

time, Plaintiff has enjoyed an excellent reputation having earned the high regard of parents, 

students, his teaching colleagues and supervisors. 

9. Plaintiff’s tenure rights are vested in him by reason of the provisions of the New 

York Sate Education Law, the contract between Defendant and the his union, the United 

Federation of Teachers (“UFT”) and rules, regulations and procedures promulgated by the 

defendant pursuant to its governmental power. 

10. Among the rights and privileges afforded Plaintiff by the UFT Contract are 

“retention rights” which allows him to obtain and retain extra-assignments including assignment 

as a summer school teacher and as a Home Instructor pursuant to the Defendant’s Home 

Instruction Program. 

11. Plaintiff’s vested rights of retention and his ability to pursue professional 

opportunities afforded him by his experience and previously unblemished reputation are all 

integral parts of his liberty that is protected by the United States Constitution. 

12. Annexed hereto as Exhibit A is the Annual Professional Performance Review 

(“Annual Review”) that rated Plaintiff “U” for Unsatisfactory. and Exhibit B, the decision of the 

Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 9 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 9
Storman v. NYC DOE: Amended Complaint Page 3 

Chancellor’s designee denied the appeal and sustained the rating “as a consequence of a 

substantiated incident of corporal punishment.” 

13. As a matter of fact and law, said finding of a “substantiated incident of corporal 

punishment” was not substantiated for there was no evidence at any point in the process that an 

incident of corporal punishment occurred. 

Applicable Regulation 

14. Annexed to this Complaint as Exhibit C is a copy of Regulation A-420 of the 

Chancellor. In pertinent part it defines Corporal Punishment as: 

“2. Definitions: 

“Regulations of the Commissioner §100.2(I)(3)(i) define corporal punishment 

as any act of physical force upon a pupil for the purpose of punishing that 

pupil. Such term shall not mean the use of reasonable physical force for any of 

the following purposes: 

“1. to protect oneself from physical injury; 

“2. to protect another pupil or teacher or any other person from physical injury 

(e.g. breaking up a physical altercation without using excessive force); 

“3. to protect the property of the school or of others; or 

“4. to restrain or remove a pupil whose behavior is interfering with the orderly 

exercise and performance of school district functions, powers or duties, if that 

pupil has refused to comply with a request to refrain from further disruptive 

acts, provided that alternative procedures and methods not involving the use of 

physical force cannot be reasonably employed to achieve the purposes set forth 

in 1 through 3 above.” (Emphasis supplied) Exhibit C: Regulation of the 

Chancellor, A-420, p. 1 

15. The evidence before both the Principal who executed Exhibit A and the 

Chancellor’s representative who signed Exhibit B does not support a determination of Corporal 

Punishment in that there was no evidence of any kind that Plaintiff committed an act of physical 

force for the purpose of punishing any pupil. 

16. The actions Plaintiff took, which did not involve the use of physical force, were, 

in fact, intended to calm a situation where a teacher and her class were being disrupted by the 

acts of a student. 

Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 9 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 9
Storman v. NYC DOE: Amended Complaint Page 4 

17. October 26, 2004, Plaintiff entered a classroom to obtain information about a 

student’s attendance (Student X). In his hand, he had a rolled-up piece of paper concerning the 

attendance of Student X.. 

18. As he entered the classroom, Plaintiff became aware of a tumult in the classroom. 

A student (“Student A”) was kneeling on a chair, cursing out a female substitute teacher and 

disrupting the class. He approached the Student A, and gesturing with the hand in which he had 

the piece of paper, told Student A to “Zip it.” 

19. Whereupon Student A, sat down and ceased his disruptive behavior. 

20. Plaintiff did not touch Student A. In the alternative, if the paper in his hand 

touched Student A, it was entirely accidental and unintentional. No one in the room observed 

Student A touched by the paper and Plaintiff does not believe it happened. Such accidental 

touching, if it occurred, was slight and caused absolutely no harm or damage or injury of any 

kind to Student A. 

21. Plaintiff regarded the incident as closed as he had accomplished his objective 

which was to help the substitute teacher restore order. 

22. A few days later, the father of Student A was contacted by the principal of the 

school because of Student A’s truancy. The father then claimed that Student A had been sexually 

assaulted by Plaintiff because he had inserted a piece of paper in Student A’s mouth for the 

purpose of obtaining sexual pleasure. 

23. That charge of inappropriate touching for sexual gratification was preposterous 

then and remains preposterous to this day. 

24. On November 16, 2004, the father of the child met with the principal of the 

school and repeated the charge. 

25. Likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further 

investigation or discovery, Student A’s father vigorously lobbied Plaintiff’s supervisors to take 

strong action against Plaintiff and implicitly threatened legal action. 

26. Thereafter an investigation was initiated by the Chancellor’s Office of Special 

Investigations (“OSI”) which reported a substantiated incident of corporal punishment. A copy 

of that report is annexed hereto as Exhibit D. 

Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 9 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 4 of 9
Storman v. NYC DOE: Amended Complaint Page 5 

27. The investigating officer for OSI interviewed 9 students who witnessed the 

incident, including Student A. None of the student witnesses, except Student A, saw any 

touching of Student A by Plaintiff. They did confirm Student A’s disruptive behavior. Student A 

dropped any claim that there was a sexual connotation to the incident. He was not in fact 

physically harmed, but stated he was “embarrassed.” 

28. Student H stated to the OSI investigator that Student A had told him that he would 

“get Mr. Storman.” (Exhibit D, p. D-3) 

29. No where in the report, does it state the cause of the embarrassment claimed by 

Student A and as a matter of fact, Plaintiff believes if there was any embarrassment, it was 

caused by Plaintiff telling Student A to stop his disruptive behavior rather than any alleged, 

accidental physical conduct. 

30. Likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further 

investigation or discovery, the investigating officer did not interview the substitute teacher who 

was in the classroom. 

31. According the Report, Ms. Marcella stated that Plaintiff prepared a written 

statement that in which he made an admission that he had touched Student A’s mouth with a 

piece of paper in an effort to quiet him. Plaintiff denies ever making such an admission and no 

such written statement is a part of this record. 

32. The investigating officer later interviewed Plaintiff. No recording or transcript of 

the of the interview was made. A representative of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), 

Plaintiff’s union was present. 

33. According to the OSI report: 

“Mr. Storman stated that he went to Student A's class to pick up a student 

that he services. The class had a substitute teacher. Student A was talking in 

a disrespectful manner to the teacher and was cursing. He approached 

Student A and he was holding a rolled up piece of paper in his hand. He 

might have brushed the piece of paper against Student A's lips and told him 

to be quiet. Mr. Storman denied that his actions were sexual in any way. 

Mr. Storman further stated that in retrospect he should not have touched 

Student A with the piece of paper.” (Emphasis added) 

Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 9 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 5 of 9
Storman v. NYC DOE: Amended Complaint Page 6 

34. Plaintiff denies stating to the investigating officer that he might have brushed the 

piece of paper against Student A’s lips. 

35. At no time, was Mr. Storman afforded any opportunity during the investigatory 

process to confront Student A and question him in regards to his accusations. 

36. The report concluded that: 

“The allegation that Mr. Glen Storman placed a rolled up piece of paper into 

the mouth of Student A in a sexual manner is unsubstantiated. However, that 

Mr. Storman should not have made physical contact with Student A when he 

was reprimanding him.” 

37. The Report of the investigation was forwarded to Plaintiff’s supervising principal, 

Ms. Josephine Marcella with the following notation: 

“The Chancellor's Office of Special Investigations has completed its 

investigation into the allegations of corporal punishment against Mr. Glen 

Storman [sic], [Social Security Number deleted] Based on information and 

facts gained during the investigation, it has been determined that this matter 

is: 

“SUBSTANTIATED: X 

“UNSUBSTANTIATED:” 

(Exhibit D, p. D-1) 

38. The contents of said Report did not substantiate allegations of corporal 

punishment against Plaintiff. (See Report, Exhibit D, pp. D-2 to D-4) 

39. On being advised the findings of the Report, Mr. Solomon, the UFT 

representative who was present, issued the following statement: 

“The last statement, paraphrasing Mr. Storman regretting touching Student 

A, was taken out of context. He said that he may have moved towards him, 

and if he touched him with the paper in his hand, it was accidental.” (See 

Ex. E, Transcript of Hearing, pp. 49-50) 

40. Thereafter, in June, 2005, Exhibit A was issued rating Mr. Storman “U” 

[unsatisfactory] on account of “Substantiated Corporal punishment at P.S. 212” (Exhibit A) 

41. In violation of DOE policy, the Review was not provided Plaintiff in a timely 

Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 9 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 6 of 9
Storman v. NYC DOE: Amended Complaint Page 7 

manner. Thereafter, Plaintiff appealed his rating. 

42. A hearing was held on his appeal on May 23, 2006. At that hearing both the 

investigating officer and the Supervising Principal admitted that Mr. Storman’s conduct did not 

constitute corporal punishment. Exhibit E, p. 38-40. 

43. IN addition, Mr. Storman’s union representative argued that the “U” rating based 

on the investigatory report was improper because at no time was Mr. Storman afforded the 

opportunity of confronting his accuser. Transcript, Exhibit E, p. 52-53 

44. A determination issued on August 14, 2006 denying Plaintiff’s Appeal and 

sustaining his “U” rating on “as a consequence of a substantiated incident of corporal 

punishment.” (See Exhibit B) 

45. A timely Notice of Claim was served upon the Department of Education, the New 

York City Comptroller and the New York City Corporation Counsel on November 8, 2006. Said 

matter has not been resolved and no hearing held. 

46. The determination that there was a “substantiated incidence of corporal 

punishment” is devoid of any legal or factual basis, and was based upon a procedure that denied 

Plaintiff fundamental constitutional rights including the right of confrontation and proof of 

wrongdoing by substantial evidence. 

5. Injustice and damage to the Plaintiff

47. The finding that Plaintiff has been guilty of an incidence of corporal punishment 

is gravely damaging to Plaintiff both financially and professionally. 

48. Until the finding of substantiated corporal punishment, Plaintiff had enjoyed an 

unblemished reputation as an able capable professional. Now, he will be forever marked by this 

finding and it will be a hindrance to him both as an employee of the DOE and in seeking 

employment in any other place. 

49. In addition, Plaintiff has lost his vested retention right to earn income from the 

DOE both as a Summer School teacher and Per Session Home Instructor. 

50. The reduction of income from his loss of Summer School teaching and Per 

Session Home Instructor will be compounded for decades because it will reduce his income 

Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 9 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 7 of 9
Storman v. NYC DOE: Amended Complaint Page 8 

against which his pension will be calculated. 

51. That by reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff has lost financial benefits for the year 

2005 in the sum of $23,000 and will lose financial benefits in excess of $1,000,000 in future 

years, including a reduction of reasonably anticipated pension benefits. 

52. Plaintiff performed no Home Schooling instruction and was denied appointment 

as a summer school teacher in 2007 because of his loss of retention rights. 

6. Denial of Due process

53. The stigma of being found guilty of a “substantiated incident of corporal 

punishment” damages beyond repair Plaintiff’s ability to pursue his chosen profession, in 

addition to denying him rights vested by the UFT Contract. 

54. Said unsatisfactory rating and the reasons for it will be available for inspection by 

any future employer and within the school system should he be considered for reassignment at 

anytime. 

55. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that in 

cases in which important liberty rights are implicated, that any deprivation of those liberty rights 

can only occur after notice and hearing and any adverse determination must be supported by a 

preponderance of the evidence. 

56. The determination of the Defendant that the Plaintiff was guilty of a substantiated 

incident of corporal punishment is arbitrary and capricious. 

57. Said determination is not supported by either a preponderance of the evidence or 

substantial evidence and is, in fact, devoid of any supporting evidence. 

58. In addition, Plaintiff was denied the right to confront Student A and crossexamine him about his claims. 

7. Claim For Relief

59. By reason of the premises aforesaid, Defendant acting under color of law has 

deprived the Plaintiff of his liberty rights and property without due process of law in violation of 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 9 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 8 of 9
60. By reason of the premises aforesaid, Plaintiff has been damaged in his property by 

reason oflost income and reasonably anticipated retirement benefits in the some of$1,000,000. 

61. Defendant's actions has caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress and anxiety, 

caused him to lose sleep and suffer pain and anguish because of the threat to his continued 

employment and the destruction of his career and reputation. 

62. The actions of the defendant damaged Plaintiffs otherwise harmonious 

relationship with his wife, creating domestic friction, further causing and enhancing his 

emotional distress. 

63. By reason of his emotional distress and damage to his marital relationship, 

plaintiff has been damaged in sum to be determined but not less than $1,000,000. 

64. By reason of the premises aforesaid the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the sum 

of $2,000,000 together with the costs and disbursements ofthis action including reasonable 

attorney fees pursuant to 42 US.c. §1988. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Court enter Judgment in the sum of $2,000,000 

together with the costs and disbursements ofthis action including reasonab 

Dated: New York, New York 

September 20,2007 

JOHNC. KLOT 

Attorney for Plain ff 

350 Fifth Avenue, Suo e 

New York, New Yor. 

(212) 630-26 

TO:	 MICHAEL A. CARDOZO 

Corporation Counsel ofthe 

City ofNew York 

100 Church S1., Room 2-170 

New Yark, NY 10007 

Starman v. NYC DOE: Amended Complaint	 Page 9 

Case 1:07-cv-05797-SHS Document 9 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 9 of 9